See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Everyone who believes that those who trust the government and believe it's wacky conspiracy theories are the biggest KOOKS of all, here's your thread
Source:
me
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 11, 2010
Author: me
Post Date: 2010-07-11 17:14:00 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 901
Comments: 52
Poster Comment: Just something I have been noticing lately. Seems to be more talk from a certain quarter about how the government's official conspiracy theory™ in regards to the events of 9/11 are not only true but that anyone who doesn't toe the government line is a KOOK. And a lot of gibberish about Peak Oil and Global Warming. Anyone else notice there is a bit more of that than usual?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
; ) Well yeah, there is that. Guess I hadn't looked at it in that light in, oh, how long now? Ever.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I think people who believe this wacky $#it that the government wants us to believe "has the disease of being mental" as TLBSHOW used to say.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
I don't know what could explain it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And anyone that doesn't toe the "alternative" news line is a agent and a shill. Right? Iron sharpeneth iron. You should learn a lot from those that disagree with you. I know I do. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or . Hard to learn anything from people who are lying to you. They may not be knowingly lying but in parroting the official propaganda they are lying. WTC 7 proves that the government's story about the events of 9/11 is a fairy tale. But there is so much more evidence than that and I wonder why ANYONE with more than two brain cells would believe that stupid $#it that the government put out.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. "Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center."--Shankar Nair, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001 Turn on C-Span, or "Meet The Press," or any other media program presenting federal officials. Whatever the issue, it always comes back to the same thing. Our government really has nothing else to offer us but protection from another 9/11. It uses this painful story to cut public services, eliminate our basic rights, and plunder the national coffers. But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom we most need protection.1 As our debt explodes and our freedoms diminish, it would be wise to maintain focus on the origins of our War on Terror. No matter where this war leads us, we will need to keep the beginning in mind if we ever hope to see an end. The Point of Origin: The Collapse of the WTC Many have found that the 9/11 Commission not only failed to help us understand what happened; it also omitted or distorted most of the facts.2 But if we really want to zero in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into chaos, we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. This is where our hearts were wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending war, torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American. If we are ever to emerge from this insanity, we need to know how three tall buildings collapsed due to fire, all on the same day, when no such thing has ever happened before. The Twin Towers and Why They Fell It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4 One would expect that any explanation for the destruction of such buildings would need to be very solid as well. Four years after 9/11, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally did give us their version of "why and how" two of the buildings collapsed, but its explanation may be even less effective than the 9/11 Commission report.5 Now that the official story has been given, however, we can see just how weak and ill-defined our basis for this War on Terror has been all along. Additionally, we can track the evolution of official comments about collapse and see who was involved. Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those "experts" on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started with their conclusions and worked backward to some "leading hypotheses." Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nair's company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.6 Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8 There was really no need for phony media coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission Report and the lead-up to the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any explanations, or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One example is from a television program called "The Anatomy of September 11th," which aired on the History Channel. Corley took the lead on this one as well, but James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that they were turned into "licorice." Other self-proclaimed experts have been heard promoting similar theories.9 They will probably come to regret it. This is because the results of physical tests performed by NIST's own Frank Gayle proved this theory to be a ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already knew. The temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500 F, were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even un-fireproofed steel. Of course that result could have been calculated, knowing that 4,000 gallons of jet fuel10 ---not 24,000 gallons or 10,000 gallons, as some reports have claimed---were sprayed into an open-air environment over several floors, each comprised of more than 1,000 metric tons of concrete and steel. Another expert who served on NIST's advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton's partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11 Early on Thornton said: "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Koch attempted to clarify as follows. "I could see it in my mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."12 This is a description of what was called the Pancake Theory, the most widely accepted version of what happened. The Pancake Theory was promoted by an influential 2002 NOVA video called "Why the Towers Fell," in which Corley (yet again) and Thornton were the primary commentators. Both of them talked about the floors collapsing, and Thornton described how the perimeter columns buckled outward, not inward as Koch had described. The video made a number of false claims, including exaggeration of the temperatures (2000 F), remarks about melting steel, and the incredible statement that two-thirds of the columns in WTC1 (the North Tower) were completely severed. NIST's report now indicates that only about 14% of the columns in WTC1 were severed, and in some photos we can count most of these for ourselves.13 NIST and Underwriters Laboratories In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15 At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company's South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as particularly important. Over the next two years, however, I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation. Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm [Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."18 By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation. Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19 This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21 For the most part, I did wait, although I shared my concerns with Chapin again at UL's Leadership Summit in January 2004. I encouraged him to ask for a company news release on our position, but this did not happen and I never heard from him again. By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the temperatures discussed. After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several months. Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment to public safety. For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years without anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only other option was that the company claiming to be our "Public Safety Guardian" was lying to us about the most important safety issue of our lives. My experiences give a taste for the delicate nature of our critical turning point. But to keep our focus, we should examine what NIST did with the results of its physical tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there. Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said, "requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing to a straightforward statement that we will ever see from UL on the matter. But it seems clear enough that results showing zero floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels to a few floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a more direct version of Chapin's comment might be that test results negating predetermined conclusions should not be used to prove them. Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26 Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism. So much has been sacrificed, and so much has been invested in this story, that we all have a need for supportive answers. But when we look for those answers, all our "mind's eye" can see is this smoky black box, where scientific results are reversed to support politically correct, pre-determined conclusions. That critical point of divergence, where our lives were turned upside down and all logic followed, has always been too painful to imagine. But now, without expert accounts of pancaking floors and licorice steel, it cannot be imagined at all. Some of us remain hopeful that we can still achieve a critical mass awareness of the need for truth, and in doing so pull the support out from under what John McMurtry calls "the 9/11 Wars."29 But if we cannot, even as the hopes for peace fade and the number of 9/11 families continues to grow, we should remember how we got this story and how it was propped up despite all the evidence against it. Because whatever happens next, after the smoke clears, our children may have a need to know. NOTES [1] Richard Heinberg, "Götterdämmerung," Museletter, No.144, March 2004 (www.museletter.com/archive/144.html). [2] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2005). Griffin summarizes the omissions and distortions in "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie," 911 Visibility Project, May 22, 2005 (www.septembereleventh.org.../2005-05-22-571pglie.php). [3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117. [4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49. [5] Jim Hoffman, "Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century," 911Research.wtc7.net, December 8, 2005 (911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html). [6] Website for Teng & Associates (www.teng.com/teng2k3/mainframe.asp). [7] Website for National Directory of Expert Witnesses (national-experts.com/memb...?d_memnum=07572&d_lnum=2). [8] Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 (www.nist.gov/public_affai...c_briefing_june2305.htm), 01:15:10. [9] Sheila Barter, "How the World Trade Center Fell," BBC News, September 13, 2001 (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm). [10] Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," May 2005, Chapter 2. [11] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330. [12] Karl Koch III with Richard Firstman, Men of Steel: The Story of the Family that Built the World Trade Center (New York: Crown Publishers, 2002), 365. [13] Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002), 27. [14] Table of results from Underwriters Laboratories August 2004 floor model tests, as presented by NIST in October 2004 (wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf), 25. [15] NIST, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers(Draft) (wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1draft.pdf), 195. [16] Silverstein's statement is contained in "America Rebuilds," PBS documentary, 2002 (www.pbs.org/americarebuilds). It can be viewed (www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV) or heard on audio file (VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3). [17] "Structures Can Be Beautiful, World's Tallest Buildings Pose Esthetic and Structural Challenge to John Skilling," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 124. [18] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, 138. [19] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003. [20] Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing 1977), 20. [21] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003. [22] Kevin Ryan, "The Collapse of the WTC," 911 Visibility Project, November 11, 2004 (www.septembereleventh.org...hive/2004-11-11-ryan.php). [23] John Dobberstein, "Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse," South Bend Tribune, November 22, 2004 (www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041124095100856). [24] NIST, Final Report, 196. [25] Comments from Underwriters Laboratories on NIST WTC report, NIST website (wtc.nist.gov/comments/ULI_Ganesh_Rao_8-5-05.pdf). [26] Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 (www.nist.gov/public_affai...c_briefing_june2305.htm), 01:18:50. [27] NIST, Final Report, 197. [28] NIST presentation on WTC7 collapse investigation, NIST website (wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June200...ollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf). [29] John McMurtry, "9/11 and the 9/11 Wars: Understanding the Supreme Crimes." In David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006). My present essay will also appear in this volume Mark If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
I think it might be the heat...
Tue, 2009-02-24 07:19 — ABN In this interview Kevin Ryan discusses the science and psychology of 9/11. He also mentions an upcoming paper that provides strong evidence of incendiary residues found in the World Trade Center dust. Ryan, who is one of the co-authors of the paper, says that it is "...much more conclusive than anything we've published before, and is supported by considerable physical testing." American Buddhist Net News 2/14/09 ABN: Kevin, you have been a central figure in the 9/11 truth movement. What have you learned from that experience? KR: The struggle for 9/11 truth has gone on now for over seven years, although I've been involved only since 2003. In that time I've learned a good deal about history and social inertia, and I've made some progress in my communications skills. Many people might think that speaking out publicly, against the wishes of authority like I did, risking one's career and public standing, can only be harmful to a person. But I've found that by showing that I was genuinely seeking a positive outcome, the opportunity to make such a sacrifice became a blessing. There were changes, of course, including a new job and moving to a new town, and a huge amount of work with my new "unpaid job", but it has been worth it. This is in part due to the fact that I've learned that there are many people in the world who feel as I do, that the events of 9/11 were paradoxically something of a gift to mankind. We don't all agree on the details, but in my view, 9/11 is a wake-up call that can be used for the purpose of realizing our own limitations, and thereby making adjustments to how we live and interact with each other, and how we prioritize the education of our children. Once we tap into this ongoing "inside job", we will have the power to make lasting positive change in our society. ABN: Can you say more about what you mean by 9/11 being "something of a gift"? Do you mean that it has woken many people up to deeper levels of American political reality or something else? KR: Yes, your point is correct but it is more than that. It's hard to see the positive in 9/11, and it became more difficult for me as I learned that the official story was not only false but that it was absurd, and that we had been deceived en masse. At first I subconsciously accepted the idea of "blowback" - that there were people who were so angry with us that they would do these incredibly violent things to make that anger known. It didn't occur to me that the terrorists just happened to live on the most strategically important lands in the world, and that overcoming our trillion dollar defenses would require much more than a few box cutters. But when I saw what happened as a result of 9/11, in the name of 9/11, the falsity of the official story and the need to investigate became more obvious. The reason 9/11 can be considered a gift is that so many people have been deceived for so long about what happened. This fact allows us to realize how such deception occurs, how the resulting self-deception can deeply affect our lives, and how it can go on for so long. So 9/11 has awoken us to deeper levels of political reality - deep politics as Peter Dale Scott says - but more importantly it can awaken us to awareness of our own deep psychology. ABN: Some people say that 9/11 has led to a sort of "cold civil war" between those who support the official theory and those who do not. On the surface, it is hard to see why this should be so since both sides ought to be able to agree to do the obvious--undertake a new investigation and settle the matter once and for all. Of course, that is not how things are playing out. Mainstream news consistently ignores all the important questions, while many professional "skeptics" engage in some fairly vicious name-calling against those of us who want to have a new investigation. How do you see this social division playing out over the next year or two? Will this "cold civil war" become more serious or will it be forgotten? KR: In my experience, there has not been much of a discussion between those who support the official story and those who do not. My colleagues and I have tried to get the official investigators to meet with us for discussion or debate, but with little success. My local group did meet with Lee Hamilton last year, since he was the congressman from our area and still keeps an office here in Bloomington. He gave us many excuses for why his 9/11 Commission report was not adequate, and has stated in his book that he felt he was set up to fail (see the revealing interview here www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html). Mr. Hamilton also told us that he was not opposed to a new investigation, as long as it was not intended to simply find fault with his investigation. We have since invited him to several events but he has not agreed to join us in public. With the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Commerce department agency that Underwriters Laboratories fired me for criticizing, the invitations we've made have been rejected in every case. Readers can find a basic outline of the discussion we would like to have with NIST in our paper "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Reports on the Destruction of the World Trade Center" (see the Open Civil Engineering Journal). But frankly, we've found that the only people who support the official story are those who created it, like NIST and Hamilton. Others have worked hard to put down any questions and to oppose any new hypotheses, but that doesn't mean they support the official story. Most people don't know much about the official story. That includes those who you call professional skeptics, and the mainstream media. The former group are often anonymous, or have no background of any kind, and spend a great deal of time and energy putting us down in blog entries or chat rooms where, as you said, they get pretty vicious. Unfortunately, I don't expect that kind of thing to stop anytime soon. In a way, such attacks can be seen as a useful indication that we are on the right track. There is much at stake, and I never expected that this would be easy. As for the mainstream media, we will just have to wait and see. I think that, as time goes on, people are more convinced that their own self-interest, no matter who they are, is entwined with the need for a more truthful society. ABN: NIST released its final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building No. 7 (WTC 7) in August 2008 followed by a very weak revision of that report in November. There are two things I want to ask you about this report. First, it seems to me that the release of the report was timed to coincide with the end of the Bush administration. This will allow Obama to bury further investigation into 9/11 by saying that the NIST report was good enough for him, time to move on, etc. Second, the report itself is stunning in that NIST has admitted that WTC 7 fell at freefall for over 2 seconds, while at the same time providing little or no evidence for their theory of why the building collapsed. Can you give us your views on both the timing of the report and its quality as a scientific document? KR: The timing of NIST's WTC 7 report appeared to be scheduled for dual political purposes, to coincide with the sixth anniversary of 9/11 and to give the appearance of finished business at the end of the Bush Administration. That is not surprising, as the timing of NIST's other reports coincided with political events as well. The draft report on the towers in October 2004 - just before the election, the final report on the towers - just before the fourth anniversary of 9/11, and NIST's first "responses to FAQs" - just before the fifth anniversary, all appeared to involve politically motivated release dates. In each case, the dates allowed time for mainstream media articles to quickly present the official story while public interest was high, but did not allow time for critical questioning of the related documents, which were extensive and deceptive. With the WTC 7 report, the public was given just three weeks to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making. As for the quality of the report, I was really surprised at how weak it was. It seemed that NIST didn't even try to present a logical explanation for what happened, but simply relied on certain fawning media to help them close the discussion quickly and without thought. With some effort, I was able to get a response out on the sixth anniversary. In that essay (found here: 911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html), I pointed out that the WTC 7 report "contradicts the previous major claims by NIST, ignores the most important of the existing evidence, [and] produces no scientific test results to support itself." In other words, there is no science involved in the WTC 7 report from NIST, it is pure and quite transparent deception. In the future, people will learn a great deal from it, in terms of our present culture and the extent of our ability to deceive. ABN: Kevin, in your paper /The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites /(www.journalof911studies.c...Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf) you say "...despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials." Since publication of this paper in July 2008, what kind of feedback have you received on it? Have you changed any of your views since that time? KR: In that paper, I began to look at the kinds of explosives that we are seeing in the WTC dust and how the related technologies are connected to the people who were involved in the NIST investigation. It turns out that there are quite a few surprising connections. These explosive materials are called nanothermites, energetic nanocomposites, and other names, and there are many ways of synthesizing them. I've made a few kinds myself, and compared them visually (and chemically) to the red-orange chips that scientists including myself have found in many WTC dust samples. You can view a slideshow here - www.flickr.com/photos/325...5/sets/72157611572140729/. An important property of such explosive materials is that they can be applied by spraying or dip-coating onto the intended surfaces as opposed to the bulk packaging that people often imagine with explosives. The paper points out that several technologies were likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, and there are good reasons why nanothermites were almost certainly part of the operation. As for the people, I've written about such connections before, in terms of the pre-NIST stories and the contractors NIST used (www.globalresearch.ca/ind...Article&code=RYA20070...). It is truly amazing how many people with professional experience, or expertise, in explosives were employed in these investigations. Considering that none of the official stories ever had anything to do with explosives, the amazement quickly becomes disbelief. ABN: It truly is amazing. As far as I know, we can also add to this mix the fact that NIST has not released to the public the computer models upon which it based its explanation of the collapse of WTC 7. Is that still the case? Have they still not released their computer models? Is there any precedent in any legitimate scientific research anywhere for a conclusion to be reached but the very ordinary (no national security here) process of reaching that conclusion is kept secret? KR: No, NIST has not released the computer models. NIST has also not released the thousands of photo and video images that it collected, at taxpayer expense, during the investigation. Several FOIAs have been submitted to gain access to those documents but in the cases that I've seen, NIST has not complied, but instead asked for a search fee of approximately $20,000. Appeals have been made on some of these FOIAs and the work goes on, with Americans trying to get access to the basic information that NIST used to arrive at it's (ever-changing) conclusions. I'm not aware of another such precedent, at least in our country during my lifetime. ABN: Have you ever wondered if we are living in a video game? We have an official government body producing a supposedly well-researched report on one of the most important events in modern US history, but they refuse to let anyone see the computer models on which their conclusions are based. That fact alone should force all rational people to demand a new investigation into 9/11 immediately. Generally speaking, there are several groups that either oppose a new investigation into 9/11 or remain deafeningly silent on the issue. The most important one is the government itself--government agencies, members of Congress, the president. Another very important group is, obviously, mainstream media--TV, newspapers, radio, magazines. A third group is scientists. Before we discuss the silence of the government and the media, would you share your thoughts on why more professional scientists have not publicly stated that the official story of 9/11 is not supported by good science? I realize that there are now hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed the AE9/11Truth petition calling for a new investigation, but it seems there should be even more. I understand professional courtesy, fear of job loss, and the "wisdom" of staying out of politics, but scientists are people too and, like the rest of us, they have personal honor, a commitment to truth, concern for the nation. Why have more not come forward? Especially now with this latest "final" report from NIST, why are we not hearing more strong voices loud-and-clear from the American scientific community? KR: There are many scientists who are openly supportive of the call for more transparency, and who acknowledge that science conducted by the Bush Administration (i.e. NIST) was a farce. As I pointed out in my presentation of June 2006, in Chicago, "Bush Science" has been publicly denounced by tens of thousands of scientists, and the NIST WTC investigation was Bush Science. There are also many scientists who support the call for a new 9/11 investigation, and it seems clear that there are now more in this category than there are scientists who support the official versions of what happened that day (see AE911truth.org, http://STJ911truth.org, patriotsquestion911.com and so on). But your question is valid. Why do we not have widespread and open outrage at the falsity of the official reports, particularly with regard to NIST and WTC? This is partly due to the fact that most scientists get their information about public events from the mainstream media, which has failed us so miserably. Another important factor is that the funding for science is controlled by the federal government. Universities cannot survive without federal grants, which amount to tens of millions of dollars each year for an average university, and research scientists cannot survive without grant money that comes from the government or from major corporations. Here's an example. I spoke twice at the University of Michigan in the last few years. The last time I was there, we invited every member of the schools of science and engineering to come and discuss or debate the issues of 9/11. The only responses we got were from professors who said that they agreed with us but could not speak out for fear of losing their funding. The final reason is that scientists are people, just like you and I, who are as easily fooled by ego-based deception as any other people, and perhaps more so in some cases. Being right is vitally important to professional scientists, and the status quo is important also. I think it is not easy for some scientists in the US to accept that average citizens in our country could have noticed such extreme deception before they did. In other words, as a psychologist friend once told me, people like to be right, they like to be liked, and they like to be free, in that order. ABN: I don't know if this interests you or not, but the way that "science" has responded to 9/11 is a very good example of the way science often actually works in the real world. It is frequently not objective, not based on evidence, and not rational. With 9/11, we can see this in both the NIST report and in the silence of so many American scientists. Another good present-day example is medical science, especially the Big Pharma-funded "science" behind some very shabby psychotropic drug research and marketing. Those are some bad examples. A good example of how science can be driven by emotion, political or ideological commitment, or a sense of personal ethics is you. Can you give us some insight into why you have decided to take so many risks to pursue the science of 9/11? Were you raised with a strong sense of ethics or strong religious beliefs? It may not seem like much to you, but I think it would be most instructive for others to understand why you have given so much time and effort to this as-yet thankless task. What are your core motives? How do you deal emotionally with the negativity of mainstream America concerning a real discussion of 9/11? KR: Science is a way of learning, and a pursuit of truth primarily used for prediction, although some do it for the sake of its beauty alone. Unfortunately, in today's culture it has become confused with technology, or the application of scientific findings. To complicate matters, science is often misused by corporations and governments to support short-sighted financial or policy goals. Much of this has to do with presenting the appearance of good science, when obligatory studies and expert opinions are needed to promote what is going to be promoted anyway, like the next drug in the pipeline. People who are not comfortable with science or technology can be easily fooled by images of scientists in lab coats, scientific sounding language, or mathematical formulae. NIST became expert at such things during its WTC investigation. In a way, the science of manipulation has become far more advanced than other sciences. As for me, I'm kind of an idealist in that I feel that real science can be life supporting, and along with other fine human endeavors, science can help us survive in the long term. It's clear to me that deception and manipulation are fatal for the deceiver as well as the deceived. As time goes on, we are learning that we'll only survive as a species if we live more truthfully. How did I reach this understanding personally? I'm not sure. I was raised in a large Irish Catholic family. They were open minded and tolerant. When I was still relatively young I experienced some terrible emotional pain through the tragic loss of several close family members. It could be that I'm better able to keep the negativity in perspective because of that experience. But I've also had trouble, as many have. There is a book by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche called The Myth of Freedom, in which he describes how to work with negativity. He says that dwelling on negativity is not good, especially "negative negativity", or that which self-justifies and is used to avoid pain. But he also says that basic honest negativity "can be creative in community as well as in personal relationships." With the issue of 9/11 we see both of these. We see many people working hard to ignore the truth in order to avoid pain and as a result becoming more and more negative toward "conspiracy theorists." We also see those who are willing to work honestly with the negativity and the truth of 9/11 in order to bring about lasting positive change. ABN: Do you think it would be effective for people who want a new investigation into 9/11 to focus more of their energy on getting professional scientists to speak up? Rather than spend more time trying to break into mainstream media or getting a politician or two to say something reasonable, might it not be a better idea to focus on scientific groups and organizations? Earlier you mentioned scientists who are afraid to talk about 9/11 because they are dependent on government funding. Might that dependency not also work the other way around? That is, they take money from taxpayers ("the government") and so they owe it to the public to tell the truth? Maybe all they need is to have someone ask them to live up to their training. Many people are like that. They won't say anything on their own, but if you ask them, they will not lie. Would it be a good use of energy to approach university science departments or national groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists? KR: Yes, I do think that would be effective. We are still very much a society that appeals to authority rather than thinking for ourselves. We've been trained to do that I think, through media and pop culture. That's why groups like Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and AE911Truth, have been so effective. People want experts to tell them that it's OK to say that the official story of 9/11 is untrue, despite the fact that anyone who spends a little time investigating the issues can see that fact for themselves. What we as truth seekers could do better, before reaching out to more scientists or other people, is explain how the false story of 9/11 has impacted us all personally. We need to reach people through enlightened self-interest. It has been the "war on terror" that has driven the US into bankruptcy and done so much other damage to our society, and therefore the fact that all of it was built on a false story helps everyone understand that it is vital for us to learn the truth about 9/11. There is fear at first, especially considering that we might very well have hired the terrorists to protect us from terrorism, and that those in control of our nation today cannot be unaware of the falsity of the official line on 9/11. But today many people are losing their jobs, as well as their rights, and legislation has been enacted to enable martial law. If we want our society to remain free and viable, we have to demand the truth now. Spelling all of this out in concise communications, and beginning to offer next step solutions - a critical need that has been unmet so far - will convince more people, including scientists, to call for the truth. I've reached out to the Union of Concerned Scientists myself, and to the Obama Administration, and I'll continue trying. We have a new paper coming out soon that will provide yet more compelling evidence for the WTC demolition theory. But the arguments must be made so that the audience will see their own self-interest in taking the risk to speak out. Simply answering questions truthfully is speaking out in today's society, and it is no longer just a career choice, it's a life choice. ABN: What do you think are the best three or four points about 9/11 to raise with scientists or people with some training in the sciences? What parts of the official story are weakest? KR: The first point that should draw the attention of anyone who has scientific background is the infinitesimally low probability that so many unprecedented events could have happened all on the same day. On 9/11, we had the first ever complete failure of our national air defenses (times four), while at the same time the first ever situation where all of the members of our chain of command were unavailable or incapable to respond to a national emergency, followed by the first three times that a skyscraper has fallen through the path of most resistance at nearly free-fall speed for any reason other than demolition, and so on and so on. The list of unprecedented events is staggering actually. And considering that all of that led us (emotionally) to the conclusion that we should invade the most strategically important lands in the world - lands that we already planned to invade anyway - the probability of such a scenario should be highly suspect, to make a gross understatement. Furthermore, scientists should look at the official explanations for how these things occurred, and note that these explanations changed dramatically several times, even contradicting each other. A second point for physical scientists is that the explanations given for the WTC destruction have all been completely unscientific, supported by no physical testing and ostensibly crafted by computer models that the public is not allowed to see. A third point is that there now exists a large body of evidence, including many witnesses and physical evidence, that supports the WTC demolition theory. Finally, as I said earlier, it is the psychology of 9/11 that is so tremendously important. When we realize that our nation, which was until recently the best educated in the world, was fooled so completely by such an incredibly weak story, our psychological biases and defense mechanisms come to light in a way that should immediately gain the attention of any psychologist or social scientist. ABN: You and Dr. Steve Jones have done work investigating the presence of incendiary and explosive residues in the dust from the World Trade Center buildings. Can you say something about that? In your view, how strong is this evidence? KR: The evidence is very strong. The new paper that I mentioned is much more conclusive than anything we've published before, and is supported by considerable physical testing. The team working on this project now includes scientists from around the world, and results have been replicated in different laboratories and different, independently obtained samples of WTC dust. I'll leave it at that for now, as I'm not the lead author on this next paper, which will be published soon in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, several FOIA requests are in the works that, depending on the transparency of the responses, could help explain exactly how such explosive materials might have been installed in the buildings, and when. As I mentioned before, I've also been making nanothermites myself and have shared some of this work (link above) in a way that allows people to visually see the similarities. That work of synthesizing different formulations, with the purpose of matching exactly what we've seen in the dust, will help to narrow down the list of suspects. In other interviews I've emphasized that we can do much, in conjunction with the science, to zero in on the culprits by considering the intersection of three paths. That is, 1- who had access to such technologies at the time that these explosives were likely to have been installed, 2- who had access to these highly secure buildings, and 3- who was involved in the cover-up investigations that followed? If we examine that short list and consider motives, I think we'll find those who actually committed the crimes of 9/11. ABN: Wow. I did not expect that. That is a major piece of news that even the US media will not be able to ignore. One question comes to mind on this: Is the chain of custody for the dust good enough for a law case? Or, put another way, is undisturbed dust from the buildings still available for independent testing? KR: I'm afraid that the mainstream media will be able to ignore it. What is already known about 9/11 is enough to bring the whole house of cards down, several times over. If the media can ignore that information, it can ignore anything. But to be clear, the mainstream media has reported bits and pieces of truth over the years. For example, one of the most successful 9/11 truth websites is one that is built entirely on mainstream media sources - The History Commons (www.historycommons.org/). What happens is that this information gets reported only once, and never gets brought together in a cohesive picture that allows readers to readily understand the implications. But back to your question - do we have chain of custody documentation on the samples? Yes, we have signed affidavits from each of the sample collectors, who in each case collected the samples and forwarded them directly to the person conducting the experiments. We're now using a customized version of a standard chain-of-custody form intended for typical environmental samples, which allows the information to be transferred in the same way every time. As with all good science, what we're trying to do is to provide a procedure by which other competent scientists can replicate the results. And to your second point, yes, there is a great deal of WTC dust still out there. Helping other honest investigators find samples will not be a problem. ABN: I hope you are wrong about the media. It is true they have ignored so much, they no longer deserve to be called news media. But how can they ignore the fact that incendiaries have been found in WTC dust and that the finding has been replicated and can be independently confirmed? Anyway, we will know soon enough, I guess. Even if the mainstream media ignores the evidence, less-than-mainstream opinion-makers (Shermer, Cockburn, Chomsky, Zinn, Goodman, etc.) may find it more difficult to deny. Some time ago you debated Michael Shermer on 9/11 (see: "9/11 and Skepticism": www.americanbuddhist.net/9-11-and-skepticism). How do you think he will deal with the new findings? What about the others? Will they be forced to change their views? KR: We should consider the fact that most of these people are just acting in their own self interest, and when groups of people act independently in their own self interest it is not a conspiracy, it is human nature. For example, Professor Chomsky has written a number of books that relate to the events of 9/11. In fact, he wrote a book with the title "9/11". All of this is based on the notion of "blowback but never managed blowback", which I wrote about in a recent essay. Therefore, if he were now to say that he suddenly believes that the alternative theories (e.g. managed blowback) might have merit, he would be essentially negating a large body of his own work. That is also true for Goodman, I think. But Howard Zinn has only recently started to say that we should move on from 9/11, that it is "in the past", which is a very strange thing for an historian to say. He was previously quite supportive, having written a blurb or two for David Ray Griffin's books. I don't know what made him change his mind, but if you have tried to fight for 9/11 truth you know that there can be tremendous peer pressure to quit asking those questions. It's a very painful subject, and can take a toll on a person. True compassion for people like Chomsky and Zinn would certainly help, in my opinion. Even more so, with 9/11 and with many other challenges we are facing, forgiveness will be a very important skill in the future. Shermer is a good example of where that will have to come into play. He is someone who has worked hard to put down any questioning of the events of 9/11, and there really aren't many people in that category. Most others, including mainstream media representatives, are just acting in their own self interest, to avoid their own pain and, in a futile effort, to avoid real change. Lasting positive change will require us to put away our heroes (e.g. Chomsky and Zinn) and our demons (i.e. those who just happen to live on the last oil-rich land). Lasting change will also require us to let go of many of our unnecessary beliefs and opinions, so that more truthful information can take hold. My colleagues and I are trying to supply that truthful information so that it is available when people are ready to make that change. ABN: In this talk and in your writings, you have often emphasized such things as "human nature", our capacity for "self-deception", the "deep psychology" of human beings, and our need for more "truth" in society. These are also primary themes within the Buddhist tradition. From other communications with you, I know that you have more than a passing interest in Buddhism. In this interview, you also mentioned your Catholic upbringing. Can you expand on these themes a bit? How does your work on 9/11 affect you spiritually and how do your spiritual or moral beliefs affect your work on 9/11? Gandhi once said: "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." How do you understand the intersection of religion, politics, and science? KR: I've got great respect for people who sincerely pursue their religious convictions. That includes people of many faiths, including Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Christian people. Buddhism is the religion that speaks to me most clearly, and the one that I work to learn the most about. I was raised Catholic, and Christian moral values remain with me although I don't practice the Christian faith formally. But these various designations are not important in my opinion, and I'm most compelled by the common goal of these religions, the perennial philosophy as it is sometimes called, to seek the underlying source of existence, our greater Self, and abandon the lesser self. We find this theme, that tells us to let go of our smaller self or our ego-based deception, throughout all the great religions. St. Francis was an inspirational Catholic leader who said "It is in dying to self that we are born to eternal life." All Christians know that "Pride goeth before the fall", and Buddhists focus on release from the attachment that creates suffering. Both the Qur'an and the Torah speak about self-deception, and the Talmud tells us that lies are the worst form of theft (theft of ideas), and so on. Of course we can see for ourselves that people who live more truthfully, being more honest with themselves, have the best chance at long term physical survival. And as I've said before, 9/11 is the best example of mass self-deception, and therefore the best opportunity for us to learn about such things, and move toward a better world. Mass self-deception is exemplified beautifully by the official story of 9/11, in which we of Western cultures accepted that dark-skinned demons committed completely irrational, violent acts for no good reason. The fact that those demons just happened to live on the most strategic lands in the world, lands that our "leaders" already planned to invade, did not occur to many people. The unconscious fear and rage, that the corporate media worked so hard to instill on the matter, kept us from realizing that Muslims could not have been involved in the crimes of 9/11 at all, because taking innocent life is against their religion. We might say that instead of being real Muslims, they were "nominally" Muslims, much like the leaders of our governments have called themselves Christians when everyone knows, from the fruits of their labor, they are as far from Christians as people can get. But those semantics are just excuses after the fact. We were deceived, and many of us went along with it for years. What will we do with this knowledge? Such a weak and unsupported lie cannot be maintained, for so long, without self-deception. So my work on 9/11 is part of an effort to seek greater truth, and to help others learn enough to survive and prosper both physically and spiritually. Politics is not something I know much about, and actually I've never considered what I do to be political in nature. But I might be wrong. I've still got a lot to learn myself. ABN: I usually use the word "politics" to indicate power relationships in society and their interplay. Washington and all that then becomes a subset of American politics, which would also include media, public perception, propaganda, fake science, why it happens and so on. This definition is not so common though. Anyway, in this sense much of what you are doing is "political" because you are trying to make the public aware of how they are being deceived by proponents of the official story of 9/11. In this rough context, one thing about you and most of the other core 9/11 people that really stands out in my mind is you are using a model of "political" leadership that is quite rare in America today, but that is proving to be very effective. I am thinking of David Ray Griffin, Steve Jones, Graeme MacQueen, Barrie Zwicker, you, and many others--there is a selflessness, honesty, and quiet decency about all of you that is truly impressive. I doubt that your style was consciously chosen, and though it may be difficult for you to do, can you speak about this a bit? Does your way of doing what you do come from your education, from your sense of ethics, from your "spirituality," from the kind of truths you are talking about, or something else? What is it about 9/11 that has drawn in so many really decent people, people it seems that would never have sought a place in the public eye but for this event? KR: It seems that the word politics has only negative connotations now, as does the word power. In the past, power was something good, like in the Tao Te Ching. But that was about lasting power, and I don't think there's much chance of Washington being in that category. Whatever lasts, resonates, and gives power is a conjugate of its natural environment. Both Tao and Darwin agree on this. That reminds me that you've listed some great people, but have forgotten the women. Some of the first and greatest 9/11 truth leaders were women. Cynthia McKinney, Indira Singh, Catherine Austin-Fitts, the Jersey Girls, and others are in that group. All of these people are examples of selflessness and decency, and I'd be honored to be mentioned in such company. But I think that selflessness and decency are actually more natural, and therefore not so much chosen as "just exactly so", as a Buddhist teacher might say. One such teacher that I admire is the late Dainin Katagiri, a Zen teacher from Minnesota, formerly from Japan. In his book "Returning to Silence", he taught about real knowing, and allowing yourself "to stand in the appropriate place." Since the book is written more for monks, not lay people like myself, I might be misinterpreting it. But Katagiri Roshi wrote that realizing the Truth is the same as being yourself honestly, and one cannot really live without being truthful and seeking an actualized realization of the truth for all beings. My answer then, is that the people listed above didn't just choose to speak out about 9/11, it's also that doing so is simply who they are. My feeling is that this is the case for most of the people who have stayed the course in seeking the truth about 9/11. They know how important it is for all of us to know what happened, but they really work for the truth simply because they cannot do otherwise. I'm not talking about those who have made a career of it, trying to make money from it, or those who have done it for the fame. Over the years, in the worst of the attacks and smear campaigns against us, I've told my colleagues that we have to decide first why we're doing this. If you can't say that you would still be working for the truth even if you never got any credit or reward for it, and even if you know that you might end up suffering greatly because of it, then you shouldn't be doing it. We should only seek the truth honestly, because we know it's the right thing to do and it will give everyone a better chance at survival, albeit maybe only for future generations. The people you mentioned are doing it for those reasons, and that's why they have succeeded. I don't know that all of them are religious, but they are all dedicated to honestly seeking the truth. This is because of their nature, and when they have other reasons, it's a matter of something greater than their own personal gain. Therefore they are a reflection of what is True and have the power to be part of something great. ABN: Where do you see the 9/11 movement going over the next year or two? Will things be much different under Obama? Is there a better chance of gaining mainstream recognition or a new investigation now that he is president? KR: People are becoming more open and accepting of the 9/11 truth movement as time goes on. Five or six years ago we didn't get any mainstream media coverage, even negative coverage. Things are different now. This is partly because the emotional trauma of 9/11 is more in the past, and because we've seen so many recognizable and admirable people speak out over the intervening years. We also see more openness because, as I said before, as things develop nationally and worldwide, people see more of their own self-interest tied to getting out the truth about the so-called War on Terror. The more welcoming environment is also a function of younger folks not being as tied to the official story as older people are. Last week I interviewed with a 12 year old girl who was doing a project for school on 9/11 truth. I asked her if she thought the subject would bring her grief due to peer pressure. She said no, everybody talks about it. Eventually, this will be the case, and everyone will know that 9/11 was an inside job and it will be considered obvious. The question that faces us today is whether or not we'll reach a critical mass awareness, one that will create insistent public demand for a new investigation, before people become so overwhelmed with the collapsing economy and other crises (e.g. new wars, martial law), that the truth will only be useful in hindsight, for future generations to learn from. For the truth about 9/11 to be useful to this generation, people will need to quickly recognize that 9/11 has been the driving force behind the wars and policies that expedited this economic collapse, as well as totalitarian legislation, and the destruction of our country's moral standing in the world. Once people accept the need for 9/11 truth, other urgent issues come to mind quickly. Why did our government, our mass media and our academic institutions not help us get the truth out? What really drives public policy - public opinion or corporate greed? These are important questions and the answers will be tremendously helpful to society. What are the odds that Obama will make this happen? To answer that we should take a look at what little we know about him now. First of all he is only one man, and there are no individual heroes that will make everything better, just as there are no demons that are responsible for it all. Lasting positive change will require far more than a few new laws, and Obama is fighting difficult battles just to pass his first bills in a Democrat led Congress. Secondly, he has said that he won't investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration, so he's not likely to investigate 9/11. Obama made an enormous number of promises to get elected, and he appears to be following up on a few. But he's working from within the exact same system as Bush and Clinton did, and he's hiring the same people too. As I said, I don't know much about politics, but there is evidence that the same financial interests control both parties, and all politicians like Obama need to be submissive to those interests or they cannot raise the needed campaign money let alone get elected. For an interesting evaluation of international financial interests and 9/11, I recommend a new book by author and activist Don Paul, for which I contributed the Introduction. The title of this book is "The World is Turning: "9/11", The Movement for Justice, & Reclaiming America for the World." ABN: What is your take on the almost complete lack of honest, in-depth coverage of 9/11 in US mainstream news? Why have so many American journalists shown so little interest in the greatest news story of recent history and arguably of all time? KR: To answer the second question, we can begin with the only other successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. You might remember that in the month after 9/11, letters containing anthrax were mailed to two US Senators, both leading Democrats, and representatives of five major media organizations. The recipients included people who were openly asking questions and resisting the Bush Administration's plan for "responding" to the 9/11 attacks. Five people died, and the anthrax was later traced back to a US Army lab, but no legitimate explanation has ever been given for what happened. Since then, there have been major media stories here and there, as I mentioned with regard to the History Commons, but these stories are not pursued. Personally I've been interviewed more times than I can remember, but only about half a dozen times by major media sources. Among those were Reuters, the Village Voice, the London Times, the Toronto Star, the New York Times and some foreign media. The Village Voice cited my name and story but later refused to publish a letter I sent. The New York Times gave only a very brief mention of the extensive information that was shared. What was most interesting is that most of these mainstream media sources were only interviewing me because they somehow heard that I was a leading "conspiracy theorist." They had no interest in how I came to question the official story of 9/11, and sometimes asked very poorly thought-out questions that were framed in stereotypical simplicity. These experiences showed me that the mainstream media are no longer interested in "news" as we once defined it. They are in the boredom killing business, just as the great film "Network" presented it. Most news in America today is not about providing needed information, but is a sensational sales job that has evolved as part corporate propaganda and part soothing mental balm that is rewarded by consumers who don't want to think about the growing, and sometimes painful, details of life in a complex society. ABN: You have brought up the theme of self-deception a few times during this discussion. You also mentioned the very human desire to be right. It seems now that one of the biggest obstacles to 9/11 truth is the huge number of people in America who simply may not be willing to admit that they have been wrong about 9/11 truth. For years, those of us who questioned the official story have had to endure being called "kooks" or "traitors." There is less of that now, but as far as I can tell, the insults are being replaced by a sort of apathy that seems to have its roots in people not being able to feel enthusiastic about a subject they once scoffed at. Do you see anything like this, and if so, can you think of an effective and compassionate way to make people like that both feel and understand the deep significance of 9/11 truth? How can we make people like that really care? KR: The ability to admit when we are wrong will be a critically important skill for those who survive in the future. But it's difficult for us in America today to admit when we are wrong. This is partly because being right or wrong on most issues has not been as important for people today as it was for our ancestors. For many years now, we have led leisurely lives in which having wrong or superfluous views on many things had no impact on whether or not we could still feed and shelter ourselves. This is because we've been living in a time when there has been so much wealth, far more wealth than any previous time in human history. But that is changing now, and we're beginning to see how we've been wrong in some very important ways. The wealth of our nation and our world depends on endless economic growth, and this has been made possible for the last few decades only because of the availability of cheap fossil fuels. Petroleum geologists have likened this energy abundance to the equivalent of each person in western society having 300 "energy slaves." With the peak of global oil production behind us, the party is over, as Richard Heinberg has said, and the importance of being actually right in our daily decision making will become much more vital as time goes on. Another reason why it is difficult for people today to admit when we are wrong is that the luxury of being wrong without consequence has resulted in a large number of people who have attributed undue importance to their own opinions and beliefs. For many, this has gone to the extent that we have created a tenuous self-image from these opinions and beliefs that has become our identity. Being wrong is therefore a threat to our very existence, in a sense. It is the energy that we expend defending threats to our self-image, and the blindness that comes from not being able to admit when we're wrong, that leads to bad decisions and puts us at risk of threatening our actual physical existence. With the collapse of the world economies, and the other critical issues facing humanity today, more and more people will begin seeking truth, about 9/11 among other things. What we can do is continue to help them to review their past opinions and beliefs on these important subjects, and show how those opinions and beliefs were built on falsehoods. We can also emphasize how our knowledge about 9/11 is so integral to our knowledge about the War on Terror and the associated policies that are currently draining our society of any chance for a peaceful and prosperous future. ABN: Thank you for your time and insights. Is there anything else you would like to say? KR: Thank you, I hope the discussion was useful. It’s important for people to realize that understanding the events of 9/11, and the false official explanations given for those events, is a fundamental first step in solving the problems we’re facing as a society today. There are critical and species-threatening issues that need to be addressed immediately, and humankind is on the brink of a transition that will not leave much room for continuing errors. That’s why many of us are convinced that it is this “catastrophic and catalyzing” realization, that we’ve been deceived about 9/11, that can bring us together to work for lasting positive change. Kevin Ryan is former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST. Through interviews, presentations, and his work as co-editor at the online Journal of 911 Studies, Mr. Ryan works to bring out the truth behind the events of 9/11/01 for the benefit of all people. A list of his writings can be found here: Presentations and Writings This interview was conducted by Tom Graham via email over the past few weeks Mark If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
The government is more to be feared than foreign terrorists. The odds of any individual being harmed by a foreign terrorist is probably pretty close to zero. The government has done more harm than the terrorists have in their alleged efforts to "keep us safe." Taking away our right to be left alone absent any action justifying it is more harm than 99% of us will ever see from any "terrorist."
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Maybe more like 99.999%.
IMO it isn't. Saying people are lying is not enough. You have to figure out how they are lying to you, and what the lies are. If anyone believes the .gov 9/11 fairy tales, that's their business. But to refute it, you need to know what to refute. And what good does it do to refute them? IT's like arguing over religion. I learned that the hard way when I refute the doctrine of "eternal torture in hell". They can't refute the proof, so they get pissed off and call me many names. Nothing gets resolved. I also know that we don't have anything near the full story. We could be wrong on some things too. Plus, too many try and fill in the missing pieces with BS. I personally get tired of talking and reading about 9/11. BTDT and sick of it.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or There is a simple remedy for that--stop talking about it and reading about it if you are tired of it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Yeah, I erred on the side of being generous/conservative with my estimate.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. There is a simple remedy for that--stop talking about it and reading about it if you are tired of it. Last I knew reading and participating in 911 discussions was, correct me if I am wrong, NOT mandatory. Hey christine are 911 threads mandatory participation?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
that could explain why his goofenheimer thoughts bounce back and forth like a pong graphic in his otherwise feces impacted cranium.
for the likes of the liar movement they are in fact mandatory least the discussion stray too far from the official fairy tale. as it is now only the totally moronic village idiots believe the conspiracy theory put forth by baalzabush and company and their numbers are dwindling daily which is a good thing. of all the posters here there are but a handful of the goofenheimers making up the membership of the liar movement.
Wait a minute.... you mean they're not mandatory?! Oh, fer Kerise sake.....
I knew that would get under some peoples skin here. I probably shouldn't have written that. The way things work around here with some people, I should have known that would be the focus when it wasn't meant to be. The only reason I can think of that would piss people off is the thought of someone reading and believing what the opposition says about 9/11, so people fight it out. That's a burden I don't want to carry anymore. I'm not responsible for what others know and believe about 9/11. If you want to carry that responsibility on your shoulders, be my guest. And the other points you ignore? You say you don't learn anything from liars. If you're being lied to, you need to know what, and how, you're being lied to. To do that you need to know what you are talking about. That required knowledge. And at best, our 9/11 knowledge is incomplete. Confine yourself to what you know and can prove and you do OK. Make shit up, intentionally or not, and you do more harm than good. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or Ding! We have a winner!
#2. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
#3. To: Eric Stratton (#1)
I'll add too that we should all pay more taxes since the FedGov is doing all that it can to truly help things towards the positive, and that everyone that owns or works for the Fed is 100% honest.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#4. To: Eric Stratton (#2)
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#5. To: James Deffenbach (#4)
#6. To: Eric Stratton (#5)
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#7. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
anyone who doesn't toe the government line is a KOOK.
CHIMPOUT!
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#8. To: PSUSA (#7)
You should learn a lot from those that disagree with you. I know I do.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#9. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories KEVIN RYAN March 28, 2006
#10. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Anyone else notice there is a bit more of that than usual?
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#11. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
Truth & Deception: An Interview with Kevin Ryan on 9/11
#12. To: Kamala (#9)
But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom we most need protection.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#13. To: James Deffenbach, Kamala (#12)
Taking away our right to be left alone absent any action justifying it is more harm than 99% of us will ever see from any "terrorist."
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#14. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
Hard to learn anything from people who are lying to you.
CHIMPOUT!
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#15. To: PSUSA (#14)
I personally get tired of talking and reading about 9/11.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#16. To: wudidiz (#13)
Maybe more like 99.999%.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#17. To: James Deffenbach, PSUSA, christine, wudidiz, all (#15)
I personally get tired of talking and reading about 9/11.
#18. To: Eric Stratton (#2)
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#19. To: Original_Intent (#17)
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#20. To: Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, PSUSA, christine, all, *9-11* (#17)
Last I knew reading and participating in 911 discussions was, correct me if I am wrong, NOT mandatory.
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#21. To: James Deffenbach (#15)
There is a simple remedy for that--stop talking about it and reading about it if you are tired of it.
CHIMPOUT!
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#22. To: Kamala (#9)
NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly.
Waiting too late to oppose tyranny has always led to bloodshed.
Hair Extensions Five Towns Merrick Manhasset Roslyn Massapequa Amityville Wantagh Farmingdale East Meadow Long Island, NY
#23. To: Kamala (#9)
As long as Israel remains at war with its neighbors and allowed to take land from them by armed force(with American help) and as long as the Israeli lobby controls America's national elections we'll keep getting these kinds of fabrications from the government.
#24. To: Original_Intent, christine (#17)
Hey christine are 911 threads mandatory participation? LOL! Yeah, I think we need a ruling on that. I thought it was ok to talk about it if we wanted to but was not a requirement. What say you, christine?
Last I knew reading and participating in 911 discussions was, correct me if I am wrong, NOT mandatory.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#25. To: James Deffenbach, Turtle (#24) (Edited)
I am so glad I saw that. I think it's funny to see someone shoot himself in the foot. All I said is that I was tired of talking about it. So I don't talk about it. I made other points. So if I wanted to make something a requirement, I'd mandate that no 9/11 discussions would take place here, wouldn't I? Did I hint at any such thing? You amuse me, boy. You can argue about 9/11 until your face turns blue, and it won't do any good. That happened almost 9 years ago and "truthers" still can't agree on what really happened. We all have our own ideas. And if we all have our own ideas, it stands to reason that some of us are wrong. Maybe I am, maybe you are, who the hell knows? So Turtle, I know what you mean. It's hard to reason with someone with limited intelligence and no reading comprehension skills. My one little comment was latched onto, and they still didn't understand it. That's hilarious! And they presume to tell others about something they don't completely understand themselves. We disagree on 9/11. but you're OTHERWISE an intelligent person ;) .
LOL! Yeah, I think we need a ruling on that. I thought it was ok to talk about it if we wanted to but was not a requirement. What say you, christine?
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
CHIMPOUT!
Live free or die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#26. To: PSUSA (#25)
Likewise. You amuse me too, at least once in a while. Although I doubt it is always intentional.
You amuse me, boy.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#27. To: Eric Stratton (#2) (Edited)
Hey Six Percenter flockwit! How come you can post so freely on this site if you know so much about the gubmint plots? According to you, they killed thousands of Americans on 911, but you're free to post all manner of charges and links purporting to show the connections, without even an interruption in service, a threatening email or phone call, much less a knock on your front door? Maybe it's because they see your 911 CT's as a freakshow and distraction of 94% of the general population from the real issues. "Mission accomplished," false flag op.
AGAviator, who's probably some ex-Special Ops guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. Noam Chomsky
#28. To: AGAviator, All (#27)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
#29. To: AGAviator (#27)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
#30. To: IRTorqued, FormerLurker, christine, wudidiz, farmfriend, CadetD, James Deffenbach, Kamala, Deacon Benjamin, HOUNDDAWG, bluegrass, HighLairEon, HAPPY2BME-4UM, all (#19)
Nicely put and agreed. One could easily extend this to other topics upon which you will have the rabid skeptics who believe it is a criminal act for anyone to believe anything with which they disagree - the swallowers of "The Less Than Amazing Randi" and the Septical Enquirer crowd are some of the more virulent, as well as the fanatical atheists who think it is a sin to have spiritual beliefs. They all tend to conform to a set of behaviors that are common among them (of course some of them are fanatical upon more than one topic but they tend to follow the same pattern regardless of the topic). 1. They lie. Often such posters will misrepresent information, say something does not exist when they know it does, deny the existence of a conclusion that logically follows from the data, inflate the relative importance of a less than major point and then use the disproof of their strawman as implying that all other data on the subject has therefore been disproved. They will also state their personal opinion acting as though it is proven solid fact when in reality it is just their opinion. 2. They speak derogatorily to other posters who hold a contrary view usually using terms like "kook", "conspiracy theorist", "fruitcake", "moonbat", "crackpot", "head case", "whack job", lunatic, etc., .... Generally they seem to want to degrade other posters for believing "wrongly" or are Paid to do so (wrong being any deviation from their dogma or what their "marching orders"/Talking Points dictates). 3. They are anti-conspiratorial - except when the government says so. They deny the existence of any possible conspiracy despite centuries of history that show that in the real world conspiracies are not only real but are quite common. For example John Gotti can conspire to commit multiple crimes and murders, or Michael Millken can conspire to commit financial fraud, but it is absolutely positively completely impossible for the government to conspire to anything because they can't keep a secret and everyone would know. That of course despite multiple instances of such e.g., FDR conspiring to withhold the knowledge that a Japanese Battle Fleet was about to attack Pearl Harbor, and then Court Martialing the men from which he withheld the information. No, despite multiple instances that are quite eminently provable it is absolutely positively impossible for something to be different than what the government says and the government doesn't engage in conspiracies. In the event information is produced showing the government has conspired to commit felonious activities contrary to the public interest all information or data showing that is ignored, derided, and any person presenting it is villified as in "2." above because it is absolutely positively impossible for something to be different than what the government says and the government doesn't engage in conspiracies. The liar class really breaks down into more than one category: Paid Operatives: Public Relations Operatives (Agencies actually advertise for these positions and their client can be anyone who is willing to pay), Government Agency Operatives (CENTCOM has publicly stated their intent to catapult the propaganda on blogs and forums), and of course we know the Israel Contingent, both paid and unpaid, is constantly active attacking anyone who points out any of Israel's numerous war crimes and genocidal activites. I would not be surprised if some NGO's have paid posters as well. Useful Idiots: A good example would be the Israel Supporters who are more than willing to catapult the propaganda for free. There is, or used to be, an online manual that you could download as pdf that was created by the Israeli Government for just that purpose. This also includes Political Party Loyalists - "Party Uber Alles" - who think whatever is good for the party is automatically good for the country. So, any issue they see as disadvantageous for the party is attacked with the ferocity of a rabid dog. This would include the "Bushbots" and "O'bots" who are both equally stupid and reprehensible. They are equally energetic in pushing whatever the current "Party Lyin'" is e.g., Saddam has "scary scary Weapons of Mass Destruction", and then when they are not found it's because Saddam dedicated all of his transport system to ship them out of the country in the last 3 days before the U.S. attack - while never really being able to explain why he would take such a stupid action. The flip side would be the O'bots who are absolutely certain that the health care bill they've never read is going to be the answer to the question no one but they have been asking. Again both the Bushbots and O'bots will lie with gay abandon because for them the ends justifies the means. The "Skeptics" (which are mostly not skeptics but advocates for a particular viewpoint)" Such would include the Atheists, Darwinists, the followers of the "Less than Amazing Randi", "Skeptical Enquirer", etc., .... All of whom are highly intolerant of any viewpoint other than their own, will attack with great ferocity any piece of data, no matter how valid, which throws their unscientific views into question and are perfectly willing to spend hours and days telling you how stupid you are for not immediately apologizing for existing and accepting their dogma. The single issue poster who has one and only one main "hobby horse" and is willing to extol it at great length whether it be their racist point of view, atheism, Israel Worship, etc., .... These actually fall into one of the general categories above as well. I could break it down into finer distinctions but that gives more than enough for a general idea.
for the likes of the liar movement they are in fact mandatory least the discussion stray too far from the official fairy tale. as it is now only the totally moronic village idiots believe the conspiracy theory put forth by baalzabush and company and their numbers are dwindling daily which is a good thing. of all the posters here there are but a handful of the goofenheimers making up the membership of the liar movement.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#31. To: Original_Intent (#30) (Edited)
They all tend to conform to a set of behaviors that are common among them (of course some of them are fanatical upon more than one topic but they tend to follow the same pattern regardless of the topic). +5 Nice breakdown of the kinds of trolls, sayanim and assorted cyberspace ass-wipers among us. How predictably conforming are the pretenders to the "skeptical" mindset! Carry on...
Nicely put and agreed. One could easily extend this to other topics upon which you will have the rabid skeptics who believe it is a criminal act for anyone to believe anything with which they disagree - the swallowers of "The Less Than Amazing Randi" and the Septical Enquirer crowd are some of the more virulent, as well as the fanatical atheists who think it is a sin to have spiritual beliefs.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#32. To: Original_Intent (#30)
2. They speak derogatorily to other posters who hold a contrary view usually using terms like "kook", "conspiracy theorist", "fruitcake", "moonbat", "crackpot", "head case", "whack job", lunatic, etc., .... Generally they seem to want to degrade other posters for believing "wrongly" or are Paid to do so (wrong being any deviation from their dogma or what their "marching orders"/Talking Points dictates). ==================================================== Sums up FreeRepublic.com and LibertyPost.org to a T.
1. They lie. Often such posters will misrepresent information, say something does not exist when they know it does, deny the existence of a conclusion that logically follows from the data, inflate the relative importance of a less than major point and then use the disproof of their strawman as implying that all other data on the subject has therefore been disproved. They will also state their personal opinion acting as though it is proven solid fact when in reality it is just their opinion.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#33. To: Eric Stratton, Original_Intent, farmfriend, christine, abraxas (#1)
================================================ I just got a notice my property taxes went up 7%, yet the actual value of my property DEVALUED 20%. Is THIS happening all across the country? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK - MIND BOGGLING - SEE THE NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK IN ACTION
I'll add too that we should all pay more taxes since the FedGov is doing all that it can to truly help things towards the positive, and that everyone that owns or works for the Fed is 100% honest.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
#34. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, Eric Stratton, Original_Intent, christine, abraxas (#33)
Not in California. We have this thing they keep trying to get rid of called Prop 13. The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which capped the tax rate for real estate: The proposition lowered property taxes by rolling back property values to their 1975 value and restricted annual increases in assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except upon (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction. In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. It also requires a two-thirds vote majority in local elections for local governments wishing to raise special taxes. Proposition 13 received an enormous amount of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States.[2] Passage of the initiative presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country that is sometimes thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980. However, of 30 anti-tax ballot measures that year, only 13 passed.[3] A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes.[4] The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics and it is not politically popular for Sacramento lawmakers to attempt to change it.[4] Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann were the most vocal and visible backers of Proposition 13. Officially titled the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation," and popularly known as the "Jarvis-Gann Amendment," Proposition 13 was placed on the ballot through the California ballot initiative process, a provision of the California constitution which allows a proposed law or constitutional amendment to be placed before the voters if backers collect a sufficient number of signatures on a petition. Proposition 13 passed with almost 65% of those who voted in favor and with the participation of nearly 70% of registered voters. After passage, it became article 13A of the California state constitution. Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value," may be increased only by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property undergoes a change in ownership. At the time of the change in ownership the low assessed value may be reassessed to full current market value which will produce a new base year value for the property, but future assessments are likewise restricted to the 2% annual maximum increase of the new base year value. If the property's market value increases rapidly (values of many detached dwellings in California appreciated at annual rates averaging more than 10% in the decade ending in 2005) [6] or if inflation exceeds 2%, [7][8] the differential between the owner's taxes and the taxes a new owner would have to pay can become quite large. The property may be reassessed under certain conditions other than a change in ownership, such as when additions or new construction occur. The assessed value is also subject to reduction if the market value of the property declines below its assessed value, for example, during a real estate slump. Reductions in property valuation were not provided for in Proposition 13 itself, but were made possible by the passage of Proposition 8 (SCA No. 67) in 1978 which amended Proposition 13. Such a real estate slump and downward reassessments occurred in 2009 when the State Board of Equalization announced an estimated broad scale reduction in property tax base year values due to negative inflation. [9] [10] Property tax in California is an Ad valorem tax meaning that the tax assessed (generally) rises and falls with the value of the property.Is THIS happening all across the country?
Proposition 13 (officially titled the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation) was an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted in 1978, by means of the initiative process. It was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article 13A of the Constitution of the State of California[1].
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
Name calling is juvenile.
#35. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#33)
yes!
Is THIS happening all across the country?
#36. To: Kamala (#9)
and then there's this:
#37. To: Original_Intent (#17)
no, but Alex Jones ones are. ;P
#38. To: IRTorqued (#19)
i agree completely.
for the likes of the liar movement they are in fact mandatory least the discussion stray too far from the official fairy tale. as it is now only the totally moronic village idiots believe the conspiracy theory put forth by baalzabush and company
#39. To: christine (#37)
LOL! 
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#40. To: HighLairEon (#31)
Thanks. I think the S(k)eptics are the ones I personally find most annoying. With pretensions to following "holy science" they treat science as an "absolute" and dogma when the Scientific Method is a tool for discovering new knowledge. Not only that their mother dresses them funny.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#41. To: christine (#37)
Anymore I just mentioned to anyone that brings up 911, that over 50% of the 911 families want/support a new independent investigation and don't support the Feds conspiracy theory.
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 52) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest