The gospel of the controlled demolition -- as preached ever so politely and intelligently by some of our more, er, motivated readers -- stems, in large part, from a video called Loose Change. (A truly surreal title, that.) How did director Dylan Avery fund this project? Although modern video technology allows for the creation of impressive-looking product with very modest resources, Avery did require some capital. The origin of Loose Change is told on this site:
Conspiracy buff Phillip Jayhan ambles into Dylan's life, waving around a sweaty wad of money. Jayhan, by the way, says the world is run by a massive satanic cult that enslaves prominent politicians by delivering kidnapped boys for them to molest and then blackmailing them about it later.(Note: That "probably true" remark is, I think, facetious.) Here's a typical Jayhan post:
Okay, that's probably true. But the point is Jayhan offered to pay for Avery to get his little film off the ground. Only, the thing is, Jayhan didn't think it was fiction. Jayhan, who believed in every available conspiracy prior to 9/11, believes that the WTC planes had missiles on them that were fired at the towers and that's why they fell down. Oh, and also there were bombs in the towers. Or something.
Yes, Hitler looks to be a bastard child of the Rothchilds, as his mother worked at his Estate on France before his mum got knocked up, and then was sent home, and after a short while, lo & behold, this little bastard became the World Dictator. Coinkidink? Na.... ShockedGood Lord. I think he's serious. In my experience, only the loopiest anti-Semites accuse the Rothschild family of Satanism.
And lets see if we can connect the dots. The Rothschilds are Satanists and have been for at least 10 generations or more. Probably more. And they spawn the bastard Serpent child, Hitler. And he becomes World Dictator. And the Rothchilds and the Vatican are one. Ok, ya, this one is hard to see and put together.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Earlier, I published some harsh words by Hopsicker about the religious beliefs held by other leaders within the "911 Truth Movement." I'm a little sorry he came down so hard on Dr. Jones, if only because a romantic part of me rather enjoys the spectacle of a single physicist taking on everyone else in his field. The tableau comes straight out of '50s science fiction: "The laughed at me in the Science Academy! But soon my Atomic Robots will rule the world!"
(Incidentally, I just learned that Jones quit the 911 "scholars" group run by the depressing Jim Fetzer. Lord knows what the story is behind that.)
My point is, I can't dismiss the idea that one scientist might be right and all the others wrong. Such things happen. But the case Dr. Jones has made has hardly gone unchallenged, and a reasonable layman must give considerable attention to the weight of scientific opinion.
By way of analogy: There must be dozens -- if not hundreds -- of physicists who accept ESP, and some of those physicists might (if only as an intellectual exercise) offer explanations for the phenomenon based on certain theories of nonlocality. That minority opinion scarcely allows one to proclaim ESP an established fact. I might have a personal belief on that score (based on a single non-recorded and non-replicable experience), but I also recognize the difference between individual opinion and objective proof.
In the case of 9/11, we do not have a dozen physicists arguing against the consensus. We have one.
The Jayhan story provides one further indication that the "controlled demolition" mythos overlaps the area of religion. As some of my own recent commentators have proven (see what happens when I refrain from hitting the "delete" button?), individuals enamored of such theories tend to resemble the more oppressive religious fundamentalists. They keep repeating the same "facts" -- the melting point of steel, the alleged presence of "thermite," videos doctored to erase evidence of a missile hitting the Pentagon -- just as believers in Creationism keep shouting out "facts" that are anything but, and just as opponents of Al Gore had America believing him a serial fantasist.
Repetition creates truth. That's the larger issue at play here, larger even than 9/11. In an age of info overload, "facts" become credible not through the accumulation of evidence but through sheer inescapability.
I've waved the red cape, fellas. Hit me with your best bull.
49 comments:
don't let the gate hit you in the ass as you get the fuck out of here. stop promising and just GO.
tell me how did all that steel melt when jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel? and screw that fairy tale bushshit about steel losing structural integrity: if you had any basic understanding of physics you'd know that those buildings would have stayed upright unless all that steel had MELTED into liquid. And how did all that termite get into the rubble? hmm? Explain that, gatekeeper.
Joseph, you're guilty of argumentum ad hominem. Stupid motherfucker!
- Nestor
WTC7. What part of "pull it" don't you understand?
Who are these pitiful creatures who are commenting here?
Anyway, Loose Change meant and means nothing to me. However, the nature of the collapse is unanswered. There are too many questions yet to answer before anyone with a conscience can claim 'case closed'. Way too many.
Surely, Joseph, you can accept that?
Another investigation in light of the incredible discrepencies in the current understanding of events on that day is certainly called for.
Thanks for attending to this area.
"There are too many questions yet to answer before anyone with a conscience can claim 'case closed'. Way too many.
Surely, Joseph, you can accept that?"
No I cannot accept that.
No, they are NOT unanswered.
People keep answering and answering and answering. The trouble is, you don't pay attention. And so the same points have to be repeated ad nauseum.
Let's take, once more, WTC7, which many feel presents the "best" case for conspiracy.
I've spent a great deal of time on WTC7. I wrote about it at length. Here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/03/controlled-demolitions-last-word-i.html
The collapse was perfectly understandable to me, at least in a very general sense. The building was poorly designed. The transfer truss system is inherently unstable (which calls into question a lot of other buildings, incidentally). There was an astonishing amount of explosive material within: 43,000 gallons of fuel, and perhaps more, if the CIA's office had its own cache, as many think it did. Lines ran from the smaller tanks to the larger ones at the bottoms; any rupture could have caused all the tanks to ignite. And there were massive power transformers in the building!
The presence of sulfur in the rubble, considered mysterious by some, is explained by the 100,000+ gallons of oil used for the power transformers.
The pro-conspiracy sites deliberately keep you from seeing the extremely heavily damaged south face of the building. Ask yourselves why they do that. Go here...
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
for images, and many arguments, that you won't find on the conspiracist sites.
And the "pull it" quote has been taken out of context. Silverstein didn't say pull it that day; he said that he would prefer to give the building up for lost rather than risk the lives of firefighters trying to save it. He also said that it was the fire chief who made the decision. Perhaps the fire chief was in on the conspiracy...?
The firemen on the scene offered plenty of evidence (never shown on the CD sites) that they felt the building was going to go. Examples:
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse"
"Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
"So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."
Nobody on the scene was thinking CD. They were thinking fire.
Load up this video, one which the CD guys never show you:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
First, when you see what was REALLY going on, you'll be amazed that the building stayed up as long as it did. Second, you'll hear the firefighters talk about pulling everyone away because they feel certain that the fire (THE FIRE) is going to cause a building collapse.
They predicted the collapse before it happened. They blamed fire, not bombs. And they were there. You were not.
Now, I could go on and on. But what's the point? I'm going over material I've gone over before.
It doesn't matter if every one of your questions get answered, because three months later you, or someone like you, WILL ASK THE SAME DAMN QUESTIONS ALL OVER AGAIN.
Look, you act as though I've engaged in mere character assassination, when in fact I've written at length before, only to receive replies that were so staggeringly stupid and insulting that I came to realize that there was no point in talking to these people. Fanatics will believe what they want to believe.
Even so, I've linked to resource material on this page that should answer most of your questions. There's the Screw Loose Change film. (Ad to your right.) There's a whole bunch of good links to your left. Those links lead to more links.
Go there and you'll see that what the CD guys say about the the collapses of the twin towers is just as deceptive as what they say about WTC7. Steel really does loose its structural integrity at a lower temperature than required for melting. The buildings did NOT fall at free-fall speeds. Molten metal is a myth. There is no real evidence of thermite.
And a real controlled demolition simply looks utterly different than what happened on 911.
No actual controlled demolition expert in the world believes the CD theory. Not one. Until one steps forward and says that there is a mystery...
THERE IS NO MYSTERY.
Please understand that when I say "there is no mystery," I restrict my argument to the science. Other arguments (those having to do with NORAD's behavior, for instance) are matters for historical and journalistic inquiry. Those aren't scientific questions.
On every matter of science, the CD guys have been proven wrong time and again. Moreover, they have deliberately lied and invented false quotes:
http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm
And there are other sites:
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
Compare the caliber of argument there with the crap you get on Fetzer's site -- and Fetzer writes to a higher standard than just about anyone else on his side of the aisle does.
By the way, did you know that the CD proponents have taken to BURNING BOOKS in a thoroughly Nazified way?
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
(Scroll down)
But I despair.
As I've said, you won't read the material I've asked you to read, and even if you do -- three months from now, the same bullshit will be aired again, and it will be as if I never wrote what I have written here.
what Bull Shit! he said Pull It because they had put bombs in the building and I bet the fire chief knew all about it. there is no other rational explanation.
Transformer oil
Large transformers to be used indoors must use a nonflammable liquid or be Dry Type, i.e., having no fluid. Prior to about 1970, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) was often used as a dielectric fluid since it was not flammable. However, under incomplete combustion, PCBs can form highly toxic products, furans, etc. Due to the stability of PCB and its environmental accumulation, it has not been permitted in new equipment since late 1960's in the United States. Today, nontoxic, stable silicone-based or fluorinated hydrocarbons may be used, where the added expense of a fire-resistant liquid offsets additional building cost for a transformer vault. Other less-flammable fluids such as canola oil may be used, but all fire-resistant fluids have various drawbacks in performance, cost, or toxicity compared with mineral oil.
mick
Hang in there Joseph. Dr.Jones should have his say but I don't think he is right, just as I don't think the nutty missle-hit-the-Pentagon theory is right. Some people are just not rational, at least on certain subjects. I myself was recently called a "zionist troll" on another site, just because I criticized Holocaust Denial. One thing I have learned is that you cannot engage in reasonable discussion with unreasonable people.
These people who say that the fall of WT7 defies the "laws of physics" probably don't know the first thing about physics. That's ok, neither do I.The difference is that I am less likely to advance an opinion on a subject of which I am ignorant, and to defer to the opinions of experts. I believe that Bertrand Russell once said that on scientific matters, the best that a layman could do was to go with the scientific consensus, while recognizing that the consensus was sometimes wrong.
sofla said...
"Heretical" positions are not initially supported by a dozen, or a half dozen, or even a couple, of credentialed experts against the majority opinion of everybody else.
Positions considered heretical at the time are typically championed by a lone voice, without anyone else on board the idea at the time, or any time, until much later. (See Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.' One of his findings is that generally, the old guard is NEVER convinced, and the new orthodoxy's taking over requires a new generation coming into the profession. People in general, even in the sciences, are not necessarily open to rational persuasion. As you surely must infer yourself, LOL!)
You can find this truth over and over again. Wegner's theory of continental drift took about 20 years to be accepted, even though anybody can look at the easternmost bulge of S. America and see it fits almost as if a puzzle piece against the western concavity in Africa. (A meaningless coincidence, unless one could explain the mechanism that would cause continental drift, according to all before Wegner). In the meantime, Wegner's lonely advocacy cost him a most dear price, including ridicule in the profession, potential loss of livelihood, and etc.
Alvarez's theory of asteroid extinction of the dinosaurs saw the same pattern. Iirc, he did have one colleague join him from the beginning, but only because the other person was a family member.
How long did it take for obstetricians (or the equivalent of the day) to use Semmelweis' discovery that simply washing his hands reduced mortality of mothers by a large percentage, or to even try to replicate his findings themselves?
Professor Jahn, now emeritus (retired) but at the time of his discoveries, the head of the Princeton school of engineering, demonstrated psychokinesis (PK) in some of the world's most sensitive and isolated from outside influences scientific equipment-- the shielded vacuum filament thread devices used to measure the torque and thus the electric charge of an electron, or to measure G, the gravitational constant. Both of these are extremely small quantities, so the machinery is phenomenally well isolated from all external EM forces, vibrations, etc. He repeatedly found people making that machinery register a force that shouldn't exist with simple mental intent or imagery. Jahn's research was not joined by a handful of brave researchers, because any part of the paranormal, but especially moving matter with mind power, is enough to have a researcher laughed out of his profession.
This phenomenon isn't restricted to physics-- it happened in the so-called queen of the sciences, mathematics, as well. Repeatedly. Even in this realm of pure thought, abstract mathematics, personalities and politics and schools of thought that considered new ideas, ideas that are now considered commonplace, cost their inventors/discoverers their reputations, jobs, and even lives sometimes. The very notion of negative numbers was one idea so roundly ridiculed, so you can imagine how the imaginary number i, the square root of -1, was received! Kantor's notions of transfinite numbers and Galois' theory combining number theory and group theory were roundly condemned, and young Mr. Galois slain in a duel before his theory was picked up long after his death.
Note that these things occured simply out of human nature's herd instinct, without government grant money, or threats to ones safety or ones family's safety on the line. Nobody stood to make or lose a fortune, or go to jail for a crime, over these relatively trivial scientific disputes. With much of university grant monies coming out of the government, university professors have a strong additional motive besides the already very strong motive to doubt anything new, to go along with the consensus (and keep their government grants coming in).
However, it simply isn't true that no professional said the WTC buildings were brought down by CD. That guy from the New Mexico demolition company (Romero?) said exactly that, until he abruptly contradicted himself a day or so later, without much if any explanation as to why the change, or even that he was changing his assessment at all.
Look, there is a simple way to determine if (at least WTC 1 & 2) were demolished, or only fell from the presumed known events (airline crashes and jet fuel fire)-- the energy required to get all those physical events done, vs. the heat energy and the potential energy in the towers (from being elevated, and then falling). The potential energy releasable from falling is proportional to the weight and the height, and doing the integral simplifies the calculation by allowing the reduction of many weights and many heights to more simply considering all of the weight being at the height of the center of mass (and the weight is known, to a close order of approximation).
That potential energy released in the fall and converted to kinetic energy MUST be sufficient to account for 1/2 a million tons of concrete to be pulverized into a fine powder, and be shot into the air at a 45 degree angle, the creation of the pyroclastic flow-like dust cloud, and hurling 400 ton beams 500 feet across the street to become lodged in the World Financial Center. (Neither the plane collisions themselves nor the relatively smallish quantities of jet fuel (stipulated to have been burned off in 10 to 15 minutes, max, by the FEMA study) did ANY significant damage to the large concrete slabs comprising each of the 110 floors, but they ALL were reduced to dust by the end.
Doing this calculation requires knowledge of the breaking energy necessary to bust up concrete so thoroughly. A physicist has done that calculation, and finds the potential energy sufficient to create the starbust looking pyroclastic-like flow, OR bust up all the concrete, but not both-- a little less than 50% of the energy required is present in the potential energy of the height of that much mass of material.
Unless and until that analysis is refuted or shown faulty, that alone is quite enough to suggest other energy sources were involved, and in a big way.
Such energy sources are among the disputes Jones has with Fetzer, with Fetzer looking favorably on exotic so-called Tesla howitzer scalar physics weaponry, or mini-nukes, and pushing them unilaterally, without the collegial support of the scientists in the organization, and treating the org's website as his own property.
The issue of satanic ritual abuse and pedophilia is another thing. I don't think the comment in passing ('well, of course that part IS true') is tongue in cheek at all.
We have seen evidence at the highest levels of government, essentially worldwide, of networks of pedophiles protecting and/or blackmailing other pedophiles. Headlines in the right-wing Washington Times, normally a mouthpiece for the GOP, detailed such rings operating in DC, with access right into the top of the Reagan/Bush administration, so much so that the pimp/procurer Spence was able to get midnight tours of the WH with trick in hand. The Franklin Coverup covers similar territory. Current events show a 'pink mafia,' a collection of gays at the top of a party that claims to be God's own party.
400,000 people marched in Brussells, the capital city of Belgium (and of Europe, essentially, HQing NATO and the European Union parliament), to protest a pedophile ring covering up the high level connections of one many who was discovered by delaying his trial years, and having his prosecutor killed. Didn't hear about that one? It occured on September 10, 2001.
So, you say, sure, pedophiles, of course, but SATANISTS??!?!?! Yes, unfortunately, either Satanists, as in, the real God is Lucifer, or pagans of one stripe or another, using the trappings of Satanism for their psychological effects, perhaps.
wow, logic against emotion. what say now Joseph
I've read some of the links you cite above - and I'm not overly impressed. The problem I have with the official version is that I don't buy some of their assumptions, their data usage, their methodology etc. Here's a good criticism of the NIST methods. I'll read yours if you read mine.
This from the 9/11 Commission Report:
One of the chiefs present explained:
We realized that, because of the impact of the plane, that there was some structural damage to the building, and most likely that the fire suppression systems within the building were probably damaged and possibly inoperable....We knew that at the height of the day there were as many as 50,000 people in this building. We had a large volume of fire on the upper floors. Each floor was approximately an acre in size. Several floors of fire would have been beyond the fire-extinguishing capability of the forces that we had on hand. So we determined, very early on, that this was going to be strictly a rescue mission. We were going to vacate the building, get everybody out, and then we were going to get out.58
The specifics of the mission were harder to determine, as they had almost no information about the situation 80 or more stories above them. They also received advice from senior FDNY chiefs that while the building might eventually suffer a partial collapse on upper floors, such structural failure was not imminent. No one anticipated the possibility of a total collapse.
So, the senior FDNY chiefs did NOT believe a total collapse was possible. That doesn't square very well with your statement, does it:
First, when you see what was REALLY going on, you'll be amazed that the building stayed up as long as it did. Second, you'll hear the firefighters talk about pulling everyone away because they feel certain that the fire (THE FIRE) is going to cause a building collapse.
They predicted the collapse before it happened. They blamed fire, not bombs. And they were there. You were not.
Interestingly, the north tower of the World Trade Center had experienced a previous fire. On February 11, 1975 there was a blaze that burnt out most of the eleventh floor over three hours (as opposed to 50 mins!). The firefighters reported it is as very intense - much hotter than the fire on 9/11 - but it still didn’t take down the building. Go figure.
What Phil Jayhan believes about the Rothschilds frankly says almost nothing about the correctness, or at least the plausibility, of his beliefs concerning 9-11, most of which I share.
The NIST report, however ponderous, lacks credibility among other things in that obviously for political reasons its scientists and engineers were not permitted to consider any evidence for possible controlled demolition, and therefore did not evaluate any evidence suggesting controlled demolition.
To focus on just one salient detail, its study of the collapse of the Towers STOPPED, I think unimaginably, at the point where the buildings BEGAN to collapse.
It's not exactly analogous, but it certainly to this "conspiracist" does recall, the testimony that, on military orders, the military doctors who did the "official story" autopsy of President John F. Kennedy did not dissect the track of the bullet wound in his neck.
"Loose Change" has some loose ends, but Joe if you are alleging that all belief in, or questions claimed to be unanswered concerning possible "controlled demolition" come from Phil Jayhan, Dylan Avery, or any single individual, you're dead wrong and the suggestion to that effect suggests "shilldom" on your part.
If you don't find "Loose change" convincing, try "911 Mysteries." It's more recent, I believe more rigorous, and has topped a million views on Google video in something like 7 weeks.
If established, of course, "controlled demolition" at WTC cuts the overall Official Story of 911 into little pieces.
The coverup (the 911 Coverup Commission) was headed up by Philip Zelikow, Condi Rice's pal and ardent neo-con, who stated in a public appearance at the University of Va. in 2003 that the real "threat" against which we went to war in Iraq was not WMD, but the threat to Israel.
This makes Jews or people very sensitive to anti-Semitism VERY skittish about 9-11 skepticism in general.
Me? I don't for one moment characterize 9-11 as a "Jewish plot," as I think Cheney and, probably Gen. Myers were perps nos. 1 and 2 and Poppy Bush may damn well have been no. 3.
Increasingly, I suspect (although I make no claim to have evidence) of Saudi involvement, as we see, increasingly, that the politics of war against Iraq and, possibly, against Iran have made very strange bedfellows of American neocons, Israel, and the Saudi royals.
But, yes, I do believe that the Towers (in my hometown of NYC) had pre-placed explosives, that the Official Story of 9-11 is utter BS, and that it was essentially an "inside job" as, if not sponsored by high government and military figures, there is a ton of evidence of foreknowledge, and the coverup and lack of candor concerning what really happened should make skeptics of everyone.
If you think Kean, Hamilton, and Zelikow carried out a full, fair and fearless investigation without presupposing the exclusive guilt of Osama and his Merry Boxcutter Arabs and lack of any US complicity, please send me $5,000 and I will send to you, by return mail, the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.
I cannot spend all day talking gobble-talk with turkeys. I've pointed you to sites that deal with the science. And you all know how to use Google. If you refuse to listen to reason, you do so because you are emotionally wedded to nonsense.
If you seek to call science into question on ANY issue, you will find grounds. As Uncle Al once said: "Never forget how easy it is to make a maniac's hell's broth of any proposition, however plain to common sense."
mick, you missed my context. I did not say that the transformer oil exploded. I said it was a source of the sulfur that some people take as evidence of thermite.
sofla is right in that we can point to instances where the one was proven correct in defiance of the many. Indeed, I suppose it can be said that scientific progress depends on such occurrences.
But -- and I think even Dr. Jones would heartily agree with this -- nothing justifies building a mass movement around the voice of the one who stands against the many. Nothing justifies the pretense that science has spoken, that the matter has been resolved. Nothing justifies the presumption of bad faith on the part of those who have offered a consensus.
Indeed, we cannot even presume that important questions have been raised. For every Wegner who was eventually vindicated, there have been dozens of "lone voices" who remained unvalidated.
Romero has been accused of making an ambiguous recantation under pressure from "Them." Here are his words:
"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building. I only said that that's what it looked like."
And:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
I see no ambiguity. I see silly or disingenuous conspiracists grasping at straws.
Disingenuous is a key word. Just look at the numerous instances when the CD proponents have been caught deliberately lying. Despicably, Dylan Avery will cut off a quote in mid-paragraph to twist the meaning of words. Look at the false quotes here:
http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm
Look at the number of people who STILL tell you that there was no airplane debris at the pentagon.
How much of this shit has to happen before you understand that the CD proponents are not merely mistaken, not merely going overboard. They are acting in bad faith. They are deliberately misleading the public.
We have discussed in the past, will discuss at greater length in such future as is left to this site, one individual who has paid for these lies.
There's a new movie out? More lies, I am sure. As soon as one is exposed as a fraud, the next one comes out. Look, how many bites of the chicken fried steak do I have to take before I'm allowed to say that the whole slab of meat is rotten and sickening?
OK… I read some of your stuff.
Pyroclastic flows, pulverized dust, close-to-free-fall speed collapse, architectural uniqueness, ‘explosions?’, tremors prior to collapse (I saw them), tons & tons & tons of material, squibs, total energy, etc. etc.
It’s a complex event. Twice. I looked at wtc-7 in stupor. It seemed everyone was puzzled… for years.
Cover-up?, found and missing or hidden black-boxes, intact passport from one of the hijackers found (while everything else in the building was pulverized), remarkably swift removal, control of ‘evidence’ to foreign shores; principles of security firm in charge in the Bush family, hijackers identified extremely quickly, on or not on original passenger lists?; later found alive around the world?; spike in put options, priming of 911 commission panel; lack of openness.
Was the collapse strange or what?
Thank GOD! For the 'conspiracy theorists' to plug and plug and punch their way through. Thank God!
Were it not for them, simple minded people like me might never have been satisfied with the ‘official’ explanation. Because of them, the truth is coming out. Responses that are more competent, analysis that are worthy of the event are finally being disseminated. Thank God for that.
I can see now that it is POSSIBLE that it was a cataclysmic gravitational event (twice). I can see that it is POSSIBLE. I’m not nearly satisfied, yet. There are still so many questions (see the above items).
It’s not supposed to be like this. Damn it. Open up the investigations and committees, show the films, show the black-boxes; show the passenger lists; release the architectural plans for the towers; admit your mis-steps; release everything. Be competent. The doubters are the most patriotic people I know. They questioned, they demanded answers. Did they get whacky facing obstruction? Are we finally getting answers?
It’s not about character. The most insane and whacky thing I can think of is to repress the truth about events like this, no matter how hard or who it hurts. There may have been incompetence to go around, but it is criminal to try to cover that up in the face of these events and the lives lost or, imo, to dismiss as whacky those who are not satisfied with insufficient truths which have since led to misguided aggressions costing multiple times the numbers of lives and sufferings (to be frank about it).
I'm not 100% satisfied, yet. Far from it. But I'm hoping that it was, as stated, a perfect storm of stupidity, incompetence, circumstance and ....
gravity ...
followed up by more of the same on the part of our 'officials' on the commission and elsewhere.
It's still more complex than any of us can suppose.
May we one day hold hands and close this issue. We all had the same reaction, in different ways. All patriotic.
"What Phil Jayhan believes about the Rothschilds frankly says almost nothing about the correctness, or at least the plausibility, of his beliefs concerning 9-11, most of which I share."
Yes it does. It says that you are in thrall to the scientific pronouncements of a man who is a proven idiot. The kind of people who spew crap about "Satanic Rothschilds" simply do not care about objective reality.
Oh...and for the anonymous cretin who made that "logic against emotion" remark?
Did you know that when Danny Bonaduce made a public anti-CD statement, he and his daughter received DEATH THREATS from CD freakazoids?
Have you been reading some of the commentary peppering this very blog?
Did you know that Dylan Avery proudly proclaimed that his CD theory was "non-falsifiable"? Of course, any non-falsifiable theory is, by definition, religious and irrational.
Christ. I fell into the trap, didn't I? I started arguing with guys like these anonymous clowns and waid. But these people cannot be reached by any appeal to fact. I mean, if the links and arguments and facts cited in my WTC7 comments above made no impact, what the hell else can I do? Why do I always get sucked into these wastes of my time?
Joe puts up a straw man, sets it on fire and tries to melt steel.
Really and truly pitiful Cannon. An embarrassment to your otherwise fine blog.
Oh, I probably shouldn't say this. But what the hell.
Anon 156 -- now there's an appropriately Crowleyesque number! -- seems to be under the impression that I've never read that WT story or the Franklin Cover Up. Seems to be under the impression that I've never written on such matters before.
Look, folks, there's an intra-blog search engine at the top of the page. Use it.
The Franklin Cover-up relies on the word of Paul Bonacci. I've talked about this matter before, at length. How often must I repeat myself...?
Yes, I read that book. I also knew well one of the researchers on Conspiracy of Silence. He asked my advice before he interviewed Bonacci and he let me see the material he acquired during filming. I also spoke to that wacky right-wing minister -- cannot recall his name -- who was caring for Paul for a while.
The hard fact is that Paul Bonacci suffers from a mental disorder that makes it difficult for him to distinguish actual memories from stuff he merely read or heard about (and believe me, he was exposed to LOTS of weirdo ideas from the conspiracy buffs who glommed onto him). For example, I've seen material in Bonacci's own hand where he talks about "Project Monarch," a proven hoax invented by a con artist who has admitted that he concocted the term out of whole cloth.
I'm sorry, but Bonacci has no credibility.
And he was the only source bringing Satanism into the Craig Spence scandal. Without Paul, what do those Washington Times stories of yore give you? A tale of gay hookers.
Now, as you know, I'm a big fan of those sorts of brouhahas. Gay hookers and pols are enough of a scandal to make me happy, thank you very much. No need to bring Old Scratch into it.
I see no evidence of his presence.
"Joe puts up a straw man, sets it on fire and tries to melt steel.
Really and truly pitiful Cannon. An embarrassment to your otherwise fine blog."
And embarrassing readers like you are the reason I am going elsewhere. I see no reason to write if I am not communicating, and if I've attracted readers who are not worth talking to, why the fuck am I wasting my time?
You offer no evidence. Just insult.
Fucking gatekeeper. I wonder how much they are paying you? All you've done is prove that you know nothing about science. That video you linked to of the building 7 was an obvious forgery.
And Danny won't be the only one, Joe Joe. Word to the not-so-wise.
To avoid the main Scholars site try this one.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
"ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD
Alex Floum, Prof. Marcus Ford, Derrick Grimmer (Ph.D.), Prof. Richard McGinn, Kimberly Moore, Robert Moore, Joseph Phelps (MS, PE), Prof. Diana Ralph, Robert Stevens, Lon Waters (Ph.D.) and Prof. Paul Zarembka.
Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be sent to one of the Editors. All papers will be subjected to peer-review prior to online publication."
But if you'd rather go after kids, straw men and the like playing with flame bait.... this place is good.
"And embarrassing readers like you are the reason I am going elsewhere. I see no reason to write if I am not communicating, and if I've attracted readers who are not worth talking to, why the fuck am I wasting my time? "
Evidence of what, setting straw men alight? Do you really think Loose Change" is the bible for ALL people who believe something other than the governments story? Evidence of straw men? Well here it is, this entry.
And Joseph, your the one who is purposefully waving the red cape?! I can only wonder why.
The Journal of 911 studies is psuedo-scholarship, directly comparable to the Institute of Historical Review, the anti-Holocaust guys who adopt an ever-so-scientific tone. This mechanism, with a board boasting but one physicist (you know who!) and no expert in controlled demolition, allows CD fools to pretend that their material has passed muster in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Sorry. I'd be much more impressed if the CD-ers got their "scientific" papers published in -- oh, I dunno. Any actual universally-respected scientific publication that's been around for a few decades. Like the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Or Architecture Week. Or Fire Engineering.
Oh...but they're all part of the conspiracy, aren't they? That's why they've published material embarrassing to the cause.
And that's why this bogus "science" journal came into being.
Peer-reviewed? I suppose it is, in the same sense that Emmett Kelly and Bozo were peers.
"Do you really think Loose Change" is the bible for ALL people who believe something other than the governments story? "
Substitute "most" for "ALL" and yeah, that's pretty close to the truth. Of course, the moment one theory or theorist or film or book or paper or website is shot down, another one pops up. The game is endless.
"And Joseph, your the one who is purposefully waving the red cape?! I can only wonder why."
Just to show the world that guys like you have nothing to bring into the arena but bull.
does anyone in the CD crew wonder why they have very little difficulty marginalizing the 911 Truth Movement with print on Loose Change in the mainstream press? In fact, it's about the only thing they will write about these days....
gone are the Sibel Edmunds stories...
gone are the widows of 9/11 stories.
Seems to me - the mainstream press enjoys writing about the 911 Truth Movement's crazy documentary...easy to dismiss us ALL with that single movie.
CBS News
and just for you Joe--
911 Cult Watch
"directly comparable to the Institute of Historical Review, the anti-Holocaust..."
Oh yeah, all people investigating CT are anti-Semites.
Tell me, what do you think of the Eric Douglas paper? Or Salter's review of no plane theories?
I kinda like IHR's work on Pearl Harbor.
http://tinyurl.com/y6ttpa
I didn't say that everyone at that Journal were anti-Semites. As far as I know, none of them are, although there is no shortage of anti-Semitism in the "truth" movement.
The fact that you put words into my mouth just now only proves how irrational you CDers are.
The comparison to the IHR was made to illustrate the more general principle -- that people wedded to pseudoscience will create a new "peer reviewed" journal when they can't get their crap into the existing journals.
Come ON. It's a journal devoted to the thesis of controlled demolition. And yet nowhere on that board of peers do we find one renown expert in the field of controlled demolition!
That's not science -- that's a CLOWN show.
You know why the Journal editors did not ask for a true CD expert to join their "peers"? Because they know that any such expert will tell them things they don't want to hear.
And when you do THAT -- it ain't science.
I am truly saddened by your childish tirades here Joe, when you were shortly ago such a good writer. You sound - um - desperate now.
You are right, it is time for a long break.
The fact that you put words into my mouth just now only proves how irrational you CDers are.
Oh good, you can be "anti-holocaust" whatever that means, and not be an anti-semite. That's good to know.
Did I say I was a CT'er? HAHaha. No.
And the NIST study went on the assumption that CT was impossible.
"And when you do THAT -- it ain't science."
Quite rightly.
I cannot fucking believe it.
"Oh good, you can be "anti-holocaust" whatever that means, and not be an anti-semite. That's good to know."
I did not say that. I cannot believe that any person who has mastered the art of upright walking could possibly be so moronic as to interpret my words in that ridiculous fashion. Look and see, here is what I said:
"The comparison to the IHR was made to illustrate the more general principle -- that people wedded to pseudoscience will create a new "peer reviewed" journal when they can't get their crap into the existing journals."
I never said anyone at that stupid 911 Journal had any believe in anti-Semitism or anti-Holocaustism or whatever the hell you want to call it.
Tell me, are you intentionally pulling my leg?
My friends and I used to play tricks like this on a certain high school teacher. A real "Principal Skinner" type, he was. We would conspire to "misunderstand" every sentence he said, just to see him fume and sputter and search for ever-more-precise wordings of what he meant to say. Of course, no matter how he would re-word his point, we would pretend to take his words in some other way, often making a show of taking offense. (I'm trying to think of an example, but this was many years ago.)
It was great sport -- for an adolescent.
Hang in there Joe...most of these folks don't read you on a daily basis-and they will disappear soon enough. I feel bad for anyone that would choose to fight this battle on a regular basis-there is an obvious orchestrated offense in this battle for truth......and the sane folks don't stand much chance.
I guess the best we can do is laugh it off- as often as possible.
It was great sport -- for an adolescent.
So is wearing tights and waving around a red cape.
NIST science.
"We learn several things... first of all, we learn that there were not only four conditions tested in the simulation, there were actually six. But two of these conditions, the less severe cases, were dropped because they "did not meet two keys" namely, "no aircraft debris exited the building,' and "the towers would not have collapsed."
".. Since no material exited the building in ANY of the simulations, then obviously, this disqualifies them ALL."
" Since we have established by NIST's own argument, that its first justification for dismissing the less severe cases was arbitrary, we are left with only the second one. It is a circular reason that we will encounter many times: "The towers would not have collapsed."
You know, the Furlong and Ross paper is interesting reading too.
And no, the 9-11 Journal is not my bible either.
Can you be "anti-holocaust an not an anti-semite?
Joe, you said:
"-- nothing justifies building a mass movement around the voice of the one who stands against the many."
Sic transit Christianity..!
Anyway, I loved this post and the comments. Although it does seem to me that you want to stop blogging and are looking for a way to be justified in doing it. Why else invite what you told us beforehand would be interpreted as intolerable abuse?
Why not take this whole debate as a merry adventure?
I want to give an especial nod of appreciation to Sofla for her comment. If you've got readers as educated and articulate as her, Joseph, what the hell are you bitching about? We love you, Joe. Maybe you should sit down this Christmas and watch It's a Wonderful Life again, see if the tale of George Bailey doesn't give you some perspective.
Or take a vacation. We'll check in once in a while to see if you come back. Best from all of us.
--unirealist
Hey guys. It’s my opinion that we only now have enough evidence to correctly contemplate a gravitational collapse. While there were questions, I believe it was incorrect to do so. We had squibs 20+ floors below the collapse line, we had theories that magically removed the inner columns, we had a woman standing on the edge of the steel, awaiting rescue, where it was to be hot enough to melt or weaken steel, we had missing black-boxes, mysteriously alive highjackers (still do?), mysterious spike in put options (still do), melted steel in the cavity for 6 weeks (till recently I hadn’t heard any plausible explanation), we had a near free-fall collapse (still do not completely or satisfactorily explained), we had extraneous explosions being reported all over (not just in CT sites but in normal newscasts, etc.), we clearly had tremors precipitating the collapse, we had helicopters but NO helicopter rescue attempts, disappearing black-boxes?, controlled removal of steel.
More recently we’ve had an abundance of evidence that the administration minimized what they knew prior and still refused to come clean (still) and they obviously knew a lot, we had stacked commissions, lack of oversight, lopsided and underfunded research, attempts to stop and then minimize the commission by the administration. We had mysterious lock-downs, under-reported prior to the event and reports thereof ignored since and a security firm with principles in the Bush family. We had simultaneous exercises of planes flying into buildings? while real planes were flying into buildings and we couldn’t respond because of that; all the while the administration is explaining “who would have thought they’d fly planes into buildings?” I mean, how can you believe those guys or their henchmen?
Honestly, if you didn’t think there was some sort of shenanigans going on, you had to be idiotic. And try to get information! Why are the architectural plans for the towers locked up? How can you do any math or projections? What could the story be there?
It took me a year to overcome the implausibility factor of some sort of controlled demolition assist. But the earmarks were there. Finally, absent any competent rational and with abundant ineptitude and apparent cover-up, I had to side with the assist, as implausible as it appeared. There were squibs, an otherwise fine steel structure buckled without apparent cause, twice. Still, highly, highly implausible but better that than the impossible free-fall collapse under highly suspicious data, research and denial.
So, four years in the cd-assist camp, looking for the team and now, finally now we are coming up with some additional analysis that may show the gravitational collapse was possible. We’re not out of the woods yet, though. We’ve come this far because of the whacky theorists and I thank them for it. I’ve always wanted to believe in the natural collapse, but the facts didn’t add up. I’m hoping they do, but there is still so much to uncover. I haven’t seen a peer-reviewed mathematical model of the pancaking effect with such speed which is something NIST decided not to study. Why do we need that? Because of the cloak of incompetent denial that ensued from this event! We have to counter that so we can more objectively view the incompetence of the principles subsequently.
After reading these latest reports that have arisen because of the cd papers, movements and sites, we have a broader understanding of the possible physical nature of the collapse. We didn’t have that before. With all this, the implausibility of a cd-assist becomes important again and weighs in on the side of a natural collapse. I’m not convinced but I’m hoping we’ll reach a better point of understanding.
It’d be nice to believe there isn’t such evil in the world, other than those whacko terrorists be they Muslim or otherwise. And they certainly are otherwise.
i can't really comment on the theory of controlled demolition since i gave up interest in the debate due to lack of evidence years ago. i do want to say that i'm a fan of this blog and it would be a disapointment if you based a professional decision on the personal attacks of a few random googlers. in fact, many of the voices in the debate seem reasonable but misguided. the biggest error is conflating other suspicious issues surrounding the events of 9/11 with the discredited theory of controlled demolition. thanks.
-danny viborg
anon 9:25 -- what you got there is a whole bunch of "issues" that have already been rebutted, as you would know if you bothered to read the material.
Or you have the kind of crazy theoretical hairsplitting that can call into question any physical phenomenon, including your very existence.
I'll repeat AC's words, because it's turning into one of my favorite quotes: "Never forget how easy it is to make a maniac's hell's broth out of any proposition, however plain to common sense."
Common sense tells us that if the thing were a controlled demolition, then you'd have at least one CD expert who would say so.
Common sense tells us that of course you are going to have subsidiary explosions throughout the building. Transformers. Fuel tanks. Gas lines running the length of the buildings. (Restaurant on the top floor -- remember?) Lots of stuff going boom throughout. No mystery there.
You know what a transformer, even a small one, looks like when it goes boom? Download "Screw Loose Change." They got pictures. Imagine one of those going off like that near a gas line.
Common sense tells you that the building's fall would look like other CD's if it really were a CD.
And you know what else is commonsensical? My "oomph" argument. Here.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/03/not-last-word-on-controlled.html
(Scroll down for it)
I've never received anything even marginally resembling a reasonable counter argument for that one. I've gotten some NUTTY counter-arguments, but nothing that made any sense.
What you got on your side is: 1 physicist (out of thousands in the world) who has said some rather iffy stuff; 0 experts in controlled demolition; lots of guys who believe in weird howitzers and holograms and Satanic Rothschilds and Jewish plots; and a lots and lots and lots and LOTS of deliberate lies and false quotes and such.
You also have -- yes -- funding from Adnan Khashogghi.
And why would he be funding the lies? If you have any interest in REAL parapolitical research, try this:
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/global-drug.htm
Not an easy read (I'm actually not finished with it as I write), but it points to an area that is, in my view, worthy of study.
Incidentally, you also have a long history of conspiracy buffs (of the lower sort) falling in love with pseudoscience. That's where I part company with the plot-spotter milieu.
I'm sometimes classified as a theorist myself when it comes to research into spooks and covert ops and such. As I've said many times, I don't mind speculating about those matters, as long as speculation comes clearly identified as such.
But when the argument gets into areas best dealt with by application of the scientific method -- I've learned, the hard way, to favor skepticism, and to bet on the prevailing consnensus.
In other words, a whole 'nother side of me comes out. Those attracted to the one side of my rap get really pissed off when I call bullshit on their pseudoscience.
(One of these days, probably just before signing off, I'll tell you more about my personal history. Let's just say I know personally how easy it is to fall prey to a stupid pseudoscientific belief, and how wrenching it is to admit, finally, that one is fooling oneself.)
I knew from the moment I first saw video of the towers falling on that day that there would be a whole bunch of really annoying people saying that it was a controlled demolition. Not long after my girlfriend and I saw the video (we got up late that day), I told my her that "those freaks I used to hang out with" were going to say that "the gummint" planted bombs in the building.
She said "Are you KIDDING?"
Because it was obvious to her, and to me, and to the nation, what really happened. Just by looking at the video.
And she said that she was glad that I no longer had anything with those freaks I used to hang out with.
Now those freaks are back in my life making me just as miserable now as they did then. Baaaaad mistake.
I don't even know where to start.
I am...so unhappy right now. After reading through this latest batch of comments, I am torn between wanting to post, "There, there, Joseph; don't quit just because delusional toddlers keep flaming the site" and "Go get drunk, do some soul cleansing socializing with adults, work on your screenplay and maybe come back to see us if anything interesting happens with election fraud, impeachment or gay Republicans."
Of course, I will be sad if Cannonfire goes unattended indefinitely, but if this were my blog? I wouldn't want to come anywhere near it for a goodly long time after this incident, civic duty or no civic duty.
I am disturbed by the clearly irrational mindsets behind the abusive remarks here, and would tell those who posted them to be ashamed of their lack of humanity--if I thought they were capable of understanding (let alone regulating) their own behavior.
This site is supposed to be a place for civilized discussion of serious matters by individuals striving to have a fact-based grasp of current events in the Age of Propaganda. For some readers, it is a blessed refuge from the corrupt lies of our mass media, as well as a resource. I find it appalling that so many posters are so ignorant of this weblog's (and its author's) value to the reality-based community that they could not manage to shroud their furious rantings behind a veil of basic decency. That is terrible.
Joseph, I hate that this happened to you.
Joseph, such a prescient man. You knew immediately that there was no gummint involvement. How precocious of you. It took me a whole damn year of frustration with our gummint and the commissions and their results to start assessing the viability of cd-assist. It certainly explained more than anything our commissions came up with. Was I just being impatient? Or duped?
Now, thanks to the impetus of these alternate theories we are getting a more realistic, more comprehensive and detailed perspective of what happened. After 4 years I may be able to put away the implausible cd-assist notion. But you knew it all along. Guess that’s why you have a blog and I just sit on my ass:).
I’m not 100% there though. The thing that swings it is the implausibility of it all. The cd-assist is still actually more viable, ok, to me if not to you. I’m not going to give in because you ‘think’ so, I need to see it myself. Too many people have lied and needlessly covered up. I know the doubters and their sites have exaggerated and distorted quotes and scenarios. Let’s face it, they were up against stubbornness, secrecy, cover-up (apparently of ineptitude) and so on. It is a fact that the administration tried to kill the commission, starve it and stack it. Anyway, I agree no one should have been distorting the events and no one should have been covering up their mis-steps or their foreknowledge.
In the light of having the means and opportunity, possibly dynamic range of motives and a host of suspicious behavior on the days in question on the part of the principles involved, I repeat it’s inconceivable not to take everything seriously. That’s the way an investigation is conducted. Just ask Columbo.
I look forward to reading the rest of your comments and references. I’m glad you’ve put a lot of the silliness to rest. It seems we still have a statistically improbable spike in put-options. I don’t think it’s quibbling to point these related issues out. It’s not conflation these are the issue. We’ve come this far, it’s not enough to say… “it could have happened this way..” (twice, which now may bolster the argument). It’s nice to show it (do we have to balls to bury steel experimentally under the process proposed, to see if we can turn it molten in conditions similar to what happened all over New York that month?) And there are a lot of cd-experts not commenting though they may harbor doubts. Let’s face it. There’s that Danish fellow who stated categorically that wtc-7 was imploded. But, he hadn’t seen the additional footage and fdny comments (which had been suppressed for years) and neither had I.
Perhaps if there was criminality in all this it lies with those throwing a cloak of secrecy over it or trying to cover up their missteps. But we know who they are.
I would like to see tests to further demonstrate the viability of the controversial and non-intuitive pieces of the puzzle leading up to the collapse. I think we owe it to ourselves, to all of us. Hey, you may accept it but give the rest of us dullards a chance to absorb this information in a convincing way.
And shouldn’t we be condemning the handful of building built along the architectural lines of the towers? Tube in a tube. My god, who approved that?
I’m looking forward to personally verifying the plausibility of a near-free-fall gravitational collapse. When are they going to release the architectural notes so I can do so? Those jerks. Well, no more comments till I read the rest of the material. Thanks for the assist.
And if Adnan is behind these pseudo-scientific sites, more power to him. It’s bringing out the recalcitrant to make real science which has been sorely missing.
In my history I’ve been ashamed of my presumptions as well and about things in my work, things I should have know about. I’ve learned my lesson, a couple of times. But I can tell you I’m not ashamed of believing this was an inside job. I’m proud of it. And I’d be delighted to put it aside.
And, the hell with common sense. There’s nothing common about this. Applying common sense is ignorant. Prove it. Prove you viewpoint and then shut-up and let the chips fall where they may. Thanks again.
hey Jen,
people don't write blogs if they don't want feedback, that what personal diaries are for.
I have been struck by the lack of tolerance by joseph since day one. Yes i come back for the viewpoints but that doesn't mean i'm swallowing the kool aid and it appears he just keeps baiting.
so Joseph, whats your take on JFK Oswald acted alone i bet!
Hey, Anon 10:24: There's feedback, there's criticism, there's irrational, juvenile ranting and then there's abuse. At minimum, people who expect their complaints to be taken seriously should be able to phrase said complaints in a way that keeps them far away from becoming that last kind of response to a blogger's argument. (Also something they should be doing if they want to, you know, call themselves civilized human beings.) The "it's just feedback" and "he's asking for it" excuses don't work when the feedback is vile, hostile and threatening. Not to mention completely and totally inappropriate for this (or any) polite forum.
its a vile, hostile threatening world baby!
Where are the civilized people and what do they do when they are not supporting the destruction of the earth?
"so Joseph, whats your take on JFK Oswald acted alone i bet!"
You know, you bring me to the very point which makes me consider the CD myth important, when other bloggers would just laugh at it.
Now, you are obviously a kid. Let me lay a little history on ya. "Not Mr Wells' history, but history nonetheless" as Sidney Greenstreet once put it. (If you don't know who Sidney was, ask Dad.)
Circa 1989-94, the equivalent of the CD myth was the "Greer shot JFK" thesis, promoted by the mad conspiracy salesman Milton "Bill" Cooper. A strange and violent man, Coop was. A few years ago, he was killed in return fire after he shot a cop.
But back in the day, he filled auditoreums and showed the rubes a grainy, black-and-white version of the Zapruder film. Through the magic of his weirdly hypnotic voice and those dancing grains, he managed to convince thousands of people that they had seen limo driver and Secret Service agent William Greer turn and shoot the president, in front of the crowd, in broad daylight.
The scenario was, of course, absurd on its face.
Yet thousands of young people who had never read a book on the case believed Cooper. Believed him passionately. They also believed his weird, ever-mutating rants about aliens and the Illuminati and god-knows-what-else.
But the Greer-shot-JFK thing was the real grabber, the one bit that the newbies simply could not stop talking about.
Now, I've met many of the old guard JFK researchers -- Groden, Wecht, Lane, Professor Scott, DiEugenio and a lot of other guys. They were all appalled by this nonsense. They knew that better copies of the Zapruder film clarified that the "gun" in William Greer's hand was actually a shape created by the sun glinting off agent Kellerman's forehead.
And so there was an effort to counter Cooper -- who was a nutcase con artist with no genuine interest in the case -- and to get the JFK research back on track.
I made a small contribution to that effort. I tracked down where Coop had found that video, and where that source had obtained it, and then why it had been made in the first place.
You know what happened to anyone who attacked Coop's "facts"? We all heard those exact words:
"So, who if Cooper's wrong, who do YOU think killed JFK? Bet you think Oswald acted alone!"
This, from a bunch of KIDS -- to guys who had been studying the case for years.
If we didn't buy into their false evidence, we were gummint stooges out to disinform the masses.
Cut to the present day. The CD thing is even more popular than the Greer-diddit nonsense ever was. And you get the same smarmy false dichotomy.
"So, you don't think there were bombs in the building? Guess that means you believe Bush is innocent of everything!"
Nope. I think that a dangerous element of the neocons (not really the best term to use here, but it will do for now) and the terrorist networks overlap in the drug trade. Which happens to be bigger biz than either oil or autmotives, incidentally.
That's the key point of Hopsicker's research, and of that Peter Dale Scott piece I referenced. (Hopsicker is, stupidly, so pissed off at Scott that he won't even bother to read the thing, but I hope someone out there will.) I think that's the reason why Al Qaeda was allowed to leave Afghanistan. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think all genuine research into 911 starts with this covert relationship between the terrorists (who controlled the supply) and the larger natwork.
But the kids prefer this bombs-in-the building crap, and they refuse to read anything which proves it to be pseudoscience. They refuse to understand that Avery and his pals are Cooper-esque hustlers.
There were bombs in the building. Greer shot JFK. Dinosurs and man once co-existed. Aliens landed at Roswell. The eye in the triangle on the back of the dollar signals an Illuminati plot. We're winning in Iraq. Jesus is coming soon.
Reality is what you WANT it to be.
Well, I won't presume to tell you how to organize the blog anymore, Joe, but I think John's idea is worth consideration. After you've come back from your hiatus with grown-ups, stimulating conversation, art and alcohol, that is. Seriously. You should be off doing adult things, and drinking lots of conjac.
"its a vile, hostile threatening world baby!
Where are the civilized people and what do they do when they are not supporting the destruction of the earth?"
We're working our asses off nights and weekends to put candidates in office who support universal health care for residents in all states (not just the blue ones) so that people like you can get the psychiatric medication they so obviously need but clearly can't afford.
If you want a civilized dialogue, perhaps modelling
a way of calmly and unemotionally responding rather than resorting to verbal abuse yourself might be the way to go.
I lean toward CD, but I'm not interested in fighting about it. I don't think any opinion on it, lay or professional, means squat without full access to the blueprints of the towers.
Did you know that when Danny Bonaduce made a public anti-CD statement, he and his daughter received DEATH THREATS from CD freakazoids?
Joseph.
Really.
Bringing Danny Bonaduce into this is kind of desperate. Danny Bonaduce. Sheesh. And you know that these people who made online death threats are legitimate examples of those believing in CD, rather than practitioners of dirty tricks, because...?
That was all lies about Bonaduce recieving death threats. He made the whole thing up to cover for his making an ass out of himself on youtube. A classic case of napoleonic symptoms.
Another thing Cannon, I am perplexed at all the proven subjects that you constantly belittle. From politicians involved in pedophilia or occultic rituals, to the denial of the fact that Chomsky is a zionist, to your constant (over)use of the term "anti-semite, to the dismissal of any tesla or zero-gravity techologies. You truly are either extremely close-minded or plain vanilla disinfo.
Wow. What a perfect rant. mondo, I can't tell you how please I am to know that a sick freak like you is NOT on my side.
Bonaduce made an ass of himself? Only in the sense that Poland started WWII by invading Germany.
You might find this interesting :
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/open-letter-to-conspiracy-expert-mark.html
Post a Comment