The Truth Exists in the Winter Garden

The Truth about 9/11

I have proven that the collapse of the twin towers could not possible be true. I have been participating in a forum online called the screw loose change forum (google it), and it has taken me three or 4 days to come up with this. I have already sent you links to a few of the threads dealing with the lateral ejections of debris. Now, obviously I need to work this up more, incorporate pictures and whatnot,

This is my post, follow the logic.

here is a link to the cnn video- http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/tower1_dust_cloud_afterglow.mpg

here is a link to the thread- http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1167

I suggest forwarding this to everyone that you know.

These modules weigh and estimated 8,000 lbs and they are about 400 and 600 feet away, give or take.
------
There is a problem with every analogy that tries to look at this. They all fail because what we see could not possibily have occured in a gravity powered collapse. I urge everyone to download the CNN Video. What we see here, when we see these fountains of debris, is a singular event. Can we prove that it was a singular event, no? It is hard to "prove" anything. But we can certainly infer that from looking at the video. In other words, if this was not a singular event, then it was multiple events that came together and looked like one.

Its a matter of inferential reasoning. The debunkers need to be able to explain one of two things. 1) If this was in fact in a singular event, then what aspects of the buildings collapse and design could produce the fountains of debris and the lateral ejections that sent steel modules off 500+ feet into the distance. It is alleged that gravity could be responsible for this. But lets remember that the buildings were 1350 feet tall. 2) screw two- just follow the rest of my logic.

Here is a simple thought experiment. Draw a vertical line 13.5 centimeters tall. At the buttom of that line draw a horizontal line 5 centimeteres across. (and it has been alleged that modules made it as far as 600 feet, so I am using a conservative figure here) Now draw a line from the very top (and we clearly see from the video that this fountan did not occur at the very top (so I am actually making it easier on the official side), down to the end. Now obviously objects in flight do not fall in a straight line, they fall in an arc, but that point is absolutely irrelevant. Now draw line at the base of our imaginary tower in the opposite direction. In the CNN video (at around 43 seconds) we can clearly see pieces falling this way as well. And now plot an axis coming towards you, are figure out the distance from the north tower, and draw a line that represents the debris that can be seen in the video stricking WTC7.

Some force other than gravity is at play here. It has been alleged that steel behaves elastically, that steel, when stressed, is capable of loading its energy into a single point, and that is called the stress point. This is quite true. And if the stress is released, the energy that is loaded into the point needs to find a release. This is the principal behind a rubber band. When a rubber band is pulled back its energy becomes stored at the stress point, and when you fire it, it shoots off from that point. But the pieces of steel that landed in the Winter Garden are not steel beams, but steel modules. The stress is not loaded into a single point, but across the various load-bearing aspects of the module. If enough force was loaded into these modules, would the stess point become more sharply defined, or would it snap at one of the connections?

(this absurd elasticity idea is the best that anyone has been able to come up with)

The big bang theory holds that because all things in the universe are observed to be moving apart, all things in the universe were at one point in time together, and this point is called a singularity. Watch the video of the demolition. Think of the the dust clouds in this fountaion of debris as representing the flow of energy. Are the dust clouds all moving apart from each? Are you going to now challenge our basic understanding of the universe?

At one point in time all of the energy that we can see represented in the fountain was once together. A massive explosion then caused what we all see. Once again, this is called inferential reasoning, it is not a conspiracy theory; it is logic and science.

There is a reason why the official theory is unable to model the collapse. It is because they do not understand that there was a massive explosion that created the fountains of debris that we see. At this point in time we must abandon the official theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. We need to seek a new hypothesis. This is what we do as scientists and as people who think logically. Are there alternative hypothesis? Well, of course there are. Perhaps it was disaffected Cubans, or the Soviets, or the Mafia who were responsible for the massive explosion.

(there is no official theory for this. People on the forum that I have on have been floundering with psuedoscience and conjecture to try and explain this) The reason why the offical theory cannot model the collapse has nothing to do with "chaos theory" does the energy flow represented in the fountains look chaotic to you?)

Occam's razor sugests that in the case of competing theories, the simplest explanation is the one that is most likely correct. But wait, "Cheney could never be responsible for this- they would't do such a thing? How could the media cover it up? 3 people can keep a secret if one of them is dead."

You're right. Science, logic, inductive and inferential reasoning have no place. Deductive reasoning trumps all that. Theories should proceed facts. Sorry. I forget. Nevermind.

Listen. There is a reason that the 9/11 truth movement exists. I have just proven that the collapse of the towers couldn't have possibly happened. If you find my reasoning sound, and you don't like the idea of elements of our government being responsible, if you feel that society needs shaking up, then I suggest that this be forwarded to everyone that you know. Soon I will be making this is a little better with pictures. But I suggest that you search google for the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) which is out of the University of Buffalo, NY. Find their study on the damage to the surrounding buildings. Download the CNN video and watch it. Prove me wrong. I dare you to try.

Here we see the location of the Winter Garden in relationship to WTC1.

WTC Witnesses to Explosions

Debunking The Pancake Theory

Zen and the Art of Post-Modern Philosophy

Dustin
12/12/02
Philosophy of Religion

Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy

Carl Olsen’s Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy (henceforth Z&PmP) compares and contrasts the perspectives of two Zen Buddhists, with the perspective of numerous postmodern philosophers. Z&PmP is not an easy book to review, not so much because of the difficulty of the subject-matter (though it is difficult), but because of it’s structure. It does not proceed in a straightforward manner, or have much of a thesis; Olsen merely makes the claim that Zen and postmodernists have some similarities in their thought, and some differences as well. Olsen then presents these similarities and differences in diverse chapters like The Self and Other, Nihilism and Metaphysics, and Radical Skepticism and Doubt, to name a few. As a result of this, summarizing Z&PmP in a thorough way would be almost impossible, as there are simply too many positions to discuss, and the book itself is already a summation. Therefore, what follows here is more synthesis than summation.

The major difference that becomes apparent between Zen and the postmodernists is that the former are absolutists about the mind, while the later are more relative and have more diversified interests. It is not surprising that Zen Buddhists are absolutists since the idea of Zen is that there is a Buddha-nature, absolute mind, center of consciousness, etc., that exists behind the surface ego, and that it is possible to realize this mind. As a result of this position, the Buddhist thinkers are not so concerned with philosophy or even words; they are concerned with helping people realize their true mind. Therefore, they are not concerned with being logical, or not contradicting themselves; their aim is to encourage the listener to make that leap into Being. Of all the postmodernists discussed in Z&PmP, Heidegger comes closest to the Zen concern by focusing on the problem of Being; his major work is called Being and Time.

Like the Buddhists, the postmodernists have a similar distaste for abstract philosophy and metaphysics, but it is for entirely different reasons than the Buddhists. Postmodernism is defined more by what it is not then what it is: postmodernism is not modernism. Modernism is commonly defined by the Enlightenment-era-ideals of using truth, reason, and science to forge a better existence for mankind. It is safe to say that the postmodernists have been more then just a little bit disillusioned by many of the events of the Twentieth century. The fact that most postmodernists are European, specifically French, German, and Italian, should then come as no surprise. It is these countries that had an advanced intellectual tradition prior to World War II, and saw the effects of the war firsthand. The role of French and German existentialism also cannot be discounted as a precursor to postmodernism. Many of the revolutions in modern physics also provide support for postmodernism’s distrust of concepts like object truth; Einstein’s theory of relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle posit an end to the understanding of objective reality that can be gained through the scientific method.

Postmodern applied to the arts says that everything that can be done, already has been, so all the artist of today can do is replicate the old forms, pastiche it is called. Postmodern philosophy also shares this view to some extent. The postmodernists are very distrustful of ‘grand narratives’, and metaphysical schemes, in essence, explanations of reality. What the average person doesn’t realize that the postmodernists do, is that our minds function to a great extent off of explanations of reality imposed from outside. Simplified, it could be said that the ego-mind functions off of dominant ideas.

Recall earlier how I spoke of the effect of World War II on creating the right conditions for postmodernism to take root. Buddhism begins with such disillusionment. One of the Buddha’s main tenets is that ‘all life is suffering’. Anyone entering into Buddhism was never attached to a notion of social progress. It is important for Westerners to be aware of how much the idea of social and personal progress dominate the mind. Both postmodernism and Buddhism share this understanding, but take it in two different directions. Zen sees an abandonment of ideals as a positive affirmation of the meaning of existence, while the postmodernists are led to nihilism, or meaninglessness. To me, this condition of the postmodernists seems a result of abandoning progressive ideals on the intellectual level, while retaining them in their hearts.

Nietzche was the first philosopher to examine nihilism, and his views on the subject were examined in Z&PmP. Many of the postmodernists can trace their intellectual roots to Nietzche, as he and Kierkegaard were the earliest Western thinkers to perceptively analyze the “decadent Christian civilization” (Olsen 181). Nietzche saw nihilism as inevitable as “the highest values devalue themselves” (ibid 181). In the case of the Enlightenment-ideals, there appears to be some truth to that statement. The Enlightenment-ideals were the progression of mankind through reason. Reason, leading to individuality, then serves to alienate man from humanity.

Interestingly, Nietzche had a perspective on Buddhism: he saw it as a “passive kind of nihilism” (ibid 187). The charge has been levied by Westerners who fail to understand Eastern religions, specifically Buddhism and Taoism, that those religions are ‘quietistic’. Nietzche’s view corresponds to this claim. This opinion, I think, comes from a misunderstanding of Eastern views. For example, a Buddhist may say, “everything is emptiness”. Or a Taoist may talk about how the Tao is like water and how therefore, if one wants to follow the Tao, one must ‘go with the flow’. These ideas have clashed with the prevailing Western notions of progress, materialism, and consumerism. But a non-nihilistic interpretation of these Eastern statements is easy to make. On emptiness, one can say, “the world of senses has no meaning because truth is found within your mind only”. On the Tao being like water, one can say, “it is better to accept reality than to fight it, because reality always wins”. While that does indeed still smack of quietism, one solution is to say that it is necessary to accept reality in our hearts, and if it is still necessary to fight the prevailing conditions, then go ahead, but just don’t be devastated when things go wrong.

Along different lines, Derrida’s idea of deconstruction also correlates to the Zen-sphere very well. One can look at enlightenment from two perspectives: shedding all the ‘mental-rubbish’ away and coming to understand who one really is, or enlightenment could simply be the realization of the true mind, which would therefore eliminate the rubbish. I think that both processes are needed, but that it is the second step that is mandatory. Derrida’s idea of deconstruction focuses on that first step. It is deconstructing all the ridiculous ideas about ourselves and the world that have been constructed through society and culture. Derrida does this by attempting to find the underlying assumptions responsible for a position. Personally, I find the idea of deconstruction very easy to accept, as I commonly come across questions stemming from faulty perspectives. Such questions cannot be answered because in answering it, one validates the faulty premises. Instead, all one can do is attempt to deconstruct the question, in the hope of coming closer to the truth.

The second chapter of Z&PmP is titled, Language, Disruption, and Play. It is the disruption aspect of the chapter that comes closest to Zen. Some of the popular lore of Zen contains stories of Zen masters shouting at their pupils, hitting them with sticks, and behaving in ways seemingly unbecoming of an enlightened person, i.e. crouching on the ground and roaring like a tiger. All of this is with the idea of disruption in mind. What is being disrupted is the unenlightened mind’s expectations of reality.

The Zen koan also serves to disrupt the mind, but in a different way. Koan means problem, but the koan is not a problem can be solved using rational means. The koan most widely known in the West is: what is the sound of one hand clapping? The idea is to put all of ones rational efforts into solving the koan, and since it cannot be solved through reason, the mind finds another way, and a greater understanding of the self is achieved. By creating a practical method for overcoming Reason, the Koan takes the postmodernist’s distrust of it to a higher level.
One postmodern conception that I think corresponds particularly well to Eastern ideas, is the notion of Deleuze and Guattari that human beings are “desiring-machines” (ibid 85). Deleuze and Guattari see humans as having fragmented minds, full of various thoughts, ideas, and desires, many of them contradictory. Of the schizophrenic, Olson summarizes the pair by saying, “the schizophrenic is a fragmented, divided, and false person because such a person can only become him/herself by being totally foreign to oneself” (ibid 86). I find that statement particularly useful because it encourages a closer examination of who we in fact are. Of interest here is what Ted Hughes, Britain’s former poet laureate, and husband of poet Sylvia Plath, has to say about her shaking off her fragmented selves:

Sylvia Plath was a person of many masks…some were camouflage cliché
facades, defensive mechanisms, involuntary. And some were deliberate poses, attempts to find the keys to one style or another. These were the visible faces of her lesser selves, the minor roles of her inner drama…
Her real self had showed itself in her writing, just for a moment, three years earlier -the self I had married, after all, and lived with and knew well- in that brief moment, three lines recited as she went out through a doorway, I knew that what I had always felt must happen had now begun to happen, that her real self, being the real poet, would now speak for itself, and would throw off all those lesser and artificial selves that had monopolized the words up to that point, it was as if a dumb person had suddenly spoke.
A real self, as we know, is a rare thing. The direct speech of a real self is rarer still. Where a real self exists, as a rule, it reveals itself, only in the quality of the person’s presence, or in actions. Most of us are never more than bundles of contradictory and complementary selves. Our real self, if our belief that we have one is true, is usually dumb, shut away beneath the to-and-fro conflicting voices of the false and petty selves. As is dumbness were the universal characteristic of the real self. When a real self finds language, and manages to speak, it is surely a dazzling event. (Plath, xii)

Delueze and Guattari, all of the Buddhist discussed in Z&PmP, and many other postmodernists, would praise Hughes’ lucid statement in its concordance with their views.

It is easy to draw parallels to Zen Buddhism because the only thing that Zen is saying is that it is possible to go deeper into one’s mind. As a result, Zen has an affinity with literally every single brand of mysticism and esoteric philosophy. But is postmodernism an esoteric philosophy? Esoteric is the antonym of exoteric; they mean inner and outer. So to the extent that postmodernism encourages increased thought and subjectivity, it is indeed an esoteric philosophy. And much postmodernism is firmly centered on topics that promote introspection. So I do feel that it is fair for Olson to write a book such as Z&PmP.

I have several criticisms of Z&PmP, some of them fair, and some not fair. One unfair criticism is that Olson spends too much examining the differences between the positions, without trying to look deeper to find to commonalities that exist. This is not a fair because a good work of comparative philosophy should try and set the positions as far apart from each other as possible, so that each position can be seen fully in its own light. And Z&PmP is a good work of comparative philosophy.

Another unfair charge is the omission of the French existentialist/absurdist Albert Camus, and other existentialists in the discussion. It could be said that an existentialist is not a postmodernist, and therefore outside of the realm of the book, but Heidegger is much more commonly associated with existentialism than postmodernism, and his positions were discussed at length. Camus’ absurdist philosophy, particularly what he explicates in The Myth of Sisyphus would have been very useful in bridging the gap between the postmodernists and the Buddhists in regards to nihilism. Sartre, likewise, was mentioned only a few times. Overall, I find existentialism much more closely associated with Buddhism because existentialists tend to fall on the absolute side of that absolute-relative divide.

Many times I found Z&PmP tedious, but that was probably a result of the fact that I am much more interested in the comparative philosophy of similarity, rather than of difference, and much of the book is spent explicating the differences between the various thinkers. Z&PmP was however a very stimulating book because it did promote thought and introspection, and I tend to enjoy any such ‘disturbing’ material. The book has also renewed a plan I once had to read Heidegger, and spawned a desire to read Nietzche as well. Because Z&PmP has the potential of introducing the reader to so many foreign thinkers and ways of thinking, it is a valuable book. I do however feel that some knowledge of both Buddhism and postmodernism is probably required before taking up Z&PmP. I feel this because it is important, at least for me, to have a feel for the overall structure of someone’s thought in order to understand it. I argue that two people can say the exact same thing and one of them can be right, and the other one wrong. The lack of beforehand knowledge of many of the various postmodernists discussed, prevented me from making such distinctions. One warning though, Z&PmP is for the serious minded individual who is capable of introspection. As Sylvia Plath says speaking about two men in her life:

“I was too serious for Peter, but that was mainly because he did not participate in the seriousness deeply enough to find out the gaiety beyond. Richard knows that joy, that tragic joy” (Plath 107).

Olson’s Z&PmP certainly has the subject-matter capable of producing that “tragic joy”, and bringing us to the “gaiety beyond” our egos.

Bibliography
Olson, Carl. Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy: two paths of liberation from the
representation mode of thinking. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 2000.

Plath, Sylvia. The Journals of Sylvia Plath. Edited by Francis McCullough. New York:
Anchor Books, 1982.

WTC Core animation

This is pretty cool.

Induction, Deduction, Hugh Hefner and the Crack-Whore

Induction and Deduction

Within the philosophy of logic there are different modes of reasoning, and it is our job as logicians, i.e., people who think logically, to determine the best mode of reasoning and employ it accurately. The various modes of reasoning include but are not limited to inductive reasoning, deductive reasong, and abductive reasoning.

What concerns us here is the differences between inductive vs. deductive reasoning. My premise is that a large segment of the population, to put it bluntly, lacks critical thinking skills. When faced with a strong inductive argument which challenges basic ideas, these people will turn to deduction and simply claim, "that doesn't make sense". This is due to a psychological concept called cognitive dissonance, which we will return to shortly.

Inductive reasoning simply means starting from the facts and working upwards, forming more general theories as we move up the pyramid. Induction moves from observations, to patterns, to a tentative hypothesis, to a theory. It is a bottum up approach.

Deductive reasoning is the opposite; it works from the top down. Deduction begins with a theory, then forumlates a hypothesis, then moves to observation. Arguments can be expressed both inductively and deductively. When the proverbial apple hit Newton on the head, he used induction to come to the theory of gravity. Everything that comes up must come down, and this is a general principle or law that we can call gravity. Someone like Einstein on the other hand would be able to use his tremendous understanding to arrive at the theory of gravity via an alternative method, the general theory of relativity. Perhaps gravity is a bad example, but the differences between induction and deduction should be clear by now.

Hugh Hefner and the Crack-Whore

Lets suppose for a minute that Hugh Hefner is accused of raping a 57 year old, 220 lb. crack-whore. The police, initially highly suspect of these claims, investigate anyways. Witnesses report seeing a man matching Hefner's description getting out of a limo and entering this woman's home. DNA analysis determines that the DNA does indeed match Hefner. Police then search Hefner's home and they find writings indicating Hefner fantisized about these types of women. Other women then come forward and and also make allegations against Hefner. It turns out that at every single aspect investigators look into, things are not what they seem with Hefner.

At this point a very strong case, both scientific and circumstancial has now been made against Hefner. Prosecutors charge Hefner with rape and the case then goes to trial. At trial the prosecution presents all of the evidence. The defense doesn't even cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. When it is their turn to present their case, they simply rest. During closing arguments the defense simply talks about the absurdity of all this, considering the fact the Hefner lives with dozens of beautiful women, playmates in fact, who are more than willing to sleep with him. They make no reference whatsoever to the prosecutions case, other than to simply point out the illogicality of it. Naturally the jury finds Hefner innocent. Orange juice anyone?

In this hypothetical situation we have a very strong inductive case (a bottum up approach dealing with facts first and theories second) against Hefner "debunked" by a deductive argument: that Hefner simply wouldn't do such a thing (a theory that ignores the evidence).

Time Article on 9/11 Truth

Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
I'm know there are a lot more things that I could take issue with in the Time article, but compared to the CBS/The Nation article which I just spent hours writing about, I don't have much to say besides dealing with this:

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together.

The magic bullet theory is YOUR THEORY, that is the official government theory. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to resort to MAGIC THEORIES in order to explain the OFFICIAL VERSION.

Forensics? Is that like how EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR that was there that day in Dallas described A LARGE MASSIVE EXIT-WOUND in the back of Kennedy's head? In addition to the all the other wounds between Kennedy and Connelly that simply can't be explained with Oswald firing 3 shots from a 5th floor window. That is percisely why the official theory has to resort to MAGIC.

Or does forensics refer to fact that the WTC steel was quickly shipped off to China to be recycled, preventing a proper investigation? Instead, we got what Bill Manning of Fire Engineering (yes, there is a Fire Engineering magazine) called a "half-baked farce"

And then to have the audacity to bring up the Zapruder film, which clearly shows Kennedy getting his head blown off BACK AND TO THE LEFT. Fortunately thanks to Seinfeld this is immortalized now in our popular culture. Back and to left means Kennedy wasn't shot from the 5th floor window a couple hundred feet behind him.

It is literally insane. To write a 9/11 hit piece and then to bring up the magic bullet and Zapruder film.

Once again, to make it simple. When theories have to resort to magic, thats when you know they are in trouble.

Mind The Gap: London 7/7 Bombing

Mind The Gap: London 7/7 Bombing
Another short documentary on the London Bombing. This one is much more hard-hitting then the Ludicrous Diversion documentary, and I recommend watching this one.

The Nation/CBS Hit Piece on 9/11 Truth

The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers Nation
This article kind of pisses me off. It has a interesting thesis:

"the danger is that it [the 9/11 truth movement] will discredit and deform the salutary [healthy] skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders"

So basically if the truth movement takes hold, all "legitimate" questioning of our "leaders" will just be branded as kooky conspiratorial questioning? One of the premises of this article is that the reason the 9/11 truth movement is growing is because:

the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?

The fact that these ideas might actually be true, and that a growing number of Americans have the courage and intelligence to see through the mainstream media's lies doesn't enter into the equation.

Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon.

Not to appeal to authority (a logical fallacy), but these people have their PhDs, how about showing a little respect and putting a Dr. in front?

jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500

Under ideal conditions jet-fuel burns at around 1800 F and steel melts at 2750 F. There is no indication that the steel got anywhere near 600 F, and even NIST's own data shows this.

If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.

And some people who support the official story molest their children. In regards to LIHOP vs MIHOP. The vast majority of the truth movement is MIHOP, but articles like this would much rather focus on our differences then on what brings us together.

But furthermore, a lot of the best LIHOP arguments are in a lot of ways a lot more damaging then the MIHOP arguments, which focus more on the physical evidence. Americans are so ignorant of science that in some of our schools we don't even teach the theory of evolution. After all, its "just a theory", instead we teach something called "intelligent design", so its unreasonable to expect Americans to understand that it is physically impossible for debris to be ejected out hundreds of feet laterally from the WTC buildings in a GRAVITY powered collapse. It is unreasonable to expect Americans to be able to understand that the massive dust clouds after the demolitions that we saw, that covered the streets of New York "from river to river" with dust "two to three inches thick", as described by N.Y. Govenor George Pataki to CNN, is simply impossible in a gravity powered collapse. (set timer to 9:50 to hear Pataki). It is also unreasonable to expect Americans to understand that red hot molten metal from the still smoking rubble pile weeks later, could not possibly be caused from jet-fuel.

However, when we find out that the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Porter Goss (who subsequently became head of the CIA) and Bob Graham, were meeting on the morning of September 11th with the head of Pakistani intelligence Mahmood Ahmed, and that it would later be reported that Ahmed gave the order to transfer $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, well thats something that Americans can sink their teeth into, because after all, us dumb Americans love us a good conspiracy theory.

And then of course there is the Able Danger program, and the Norman Mineta testimony, and
The Israeli Spy Story. None of this sort of stuff these hit pieces ever want to talk about. Its much easier to make us all look like fools by talking about pod-planes, particle-weapons and cg graphics.

To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.

This is my favorite part of the whole article. Look at these silly conspiracy theorists. They are so dumb that they base their conspiracy theory off of a disproven conspiracy theory (and not just that but one that has to do with nazis) Now, I know very little about the Reichstag fire, but how about these examples of U.S. shenanigans (aka false-flag operations). How about the USS Maine incident that lead us into the Spanish-American War, or the USS Liberty, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? How about Operation Northwoods, or Operation Gladio and the "strategy of tension"? How about Operation Condor?

Not that any of these programs and events matter one little bit. And why you ask? Because it is absolutely impossible that all of the phenomena exhibited in the collapse of the WTC buildings can be explained through a gravity powered collapse. And guess what? The NIST report doesn't even try. I can see you all shaking your heads incredulously, but I will say it again they don't even try. Because the NIST report isn't a theory of the collapse of the towers, it is a PRE-COLLAPSE THEORY.

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)

NIST simply cannot account for the lateral ejections of debris, the pulverization of concrete and the ensuing massive dust clouds, the speed of the "collapse", or all of the molten metal that still existed weeks later, so they don't try.

In March 2005 Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims. They found them almost entirely without merit. To pick just one example, steel might not melt at 1,500 degrees, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but it does begin to lose a lot of its strength, enough to cause the support beams to fail.

The Popular Mechanics hit piece has been thoroughly debunked by the 9/11 truth movement. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Furthermore, as you will see from examining any of the links, the Popular Mechanics piece does not examine the truth movement's "most common claims". Instead their technique is to employ whats called straw-man arguments. A straw man is a false claim that you ascribe to your opponent for the sole purpose of debunking. In fact, the first myth (and I won't use quotes around myth here since it really is one) that they debunk (again, no quotes) is that there were no explosive pods attached to the buttom on the planes that struck the towers. Glad they cleared that one up for us.

Of course, the purpose of hit pieces like this isn't to try and convince anyone who has already defected from their media-driven-lies, it is to try and insulate and poison the minds of those who might otherwise approach 9/11 truth with a more open-mind. And it isn't a hard thing to do, after all, who would want to believe that their government (no, not the postman) could be responsible for such a horrible crime? Nobody would. So they say they assembled some experts, and claim that they have debunked all those myths (pod-planes, mysterious white-jet, etc). And of course, if you repeat the lie enough it will start to be believed, and again- especially from those who already want to believe it anyways.

And so the article continues:

And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to think the 9/11 Commission Report is a joke, and for his credit, he does concede that:

Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash — Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.

So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the "credulous style."

Those other key witnesses that he is referring might have been Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), who was prepared to testify but was blocked by top Pentagon brass. And then there is the aforementioned Norman Mineta testimony, which seriously contradicts Cheney's timeline, and is probably a good reason (but certainly not the only one) why Bush and Cheney testified not and under oath and behind closed doors: so that Cheney wouldn't have to perjure himself and/or create a big stink about the contradictions between him and Mineta. I can only imagine them behind those closed doors, eating pizza and watching Goonies.

Satisfied that the 9/11 truth movement has been sufficiently debunked, Hayes then goes on to further explain why we might all be so guillible and then to further explain his thesis.

In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.

Just one example is far from enough. I'm sure everyone remembers those liquid-explosive bombers that were going to blow up 10 planes bound for the U.S, but the London police stopped them right at the last minute, and now we can't take water on planes anymore and mothers have to taste their baby's milk. Google it.

Or how about the football stadium attacks? Here is an article from today in the London telegraph, Christmas Terror Attack 'highly likely'. They don't care if these arrests and false reports later turn out to be unfounded, just as long as terrorism stays in the news. And when it does come out that there was nothing really going on, it ends up in the back pages of the paper, and probably receives no t.v. coverage at all.

And speaking of London. Learn about the London 7/7 bombings because if you think 9/11 is a joke, then you haven't seen anything. Here is Peter Power, formerly of Scotland Yard and now with a company called Visor Consultants- a crisis managment firm, talking about how he was involved in running drills simulating terror attacks on the exact same tube stations at the exact same time as the actual attacks. Did I mention that the #30 bus which was blown up that day happened to be the only bus diverted by the police.

Its really simple, sometimes there are coincidences, and sometimes there is conspiracy, and the laws of physics don't care one way or the other.

Ludicrous Diversion: The London 7/7 Bombing Documentary

Ludicrous Diversion: The London 7/7 Bombing Documentary
At only 28 minutes this is quite short. And its a little fluffy. It didn't get into the really damning evidence, barely mentioning the simultaneous drills- and not mentioning the fact that the #30 bus was the only bus diverted by the police that morning. What is does do nicely is highlight the lack of evidence that has been released, especially the lack CCTV footage- which should be plentiful given the fact that London is the most heavily surveilled city in the world.

Here is Peter Power discussing the simultaneous drills

The Infamous Larry Silverstein Comment

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, speaking in the 2002 PBS documentary, America Rebuilds

This quote has become a distraction. Instead of focusing on real issues, people focus on what exactly Silverstein meant. Was he talking about the firefighters or was he using "pull it" in a controlled demoltion sense? What is even worse is that some even have the audacity to use the truth movement's response to this quote, in order to make the claim that we take things out of context (which does happen, just not here)- as if a plural group of firefighters could ever be referred to as "it".

In my opinion Silverstein is talking about CD, and that they are playing for the history books. We can't think about the Silverstein quote like it is some sort of slip-up. It is part of a PBS documentary and it was delberately included for a reason.

As the 9/11 truth movement and the controlled demolition idea gain 'currency', it will become increasingly apparent that the collapse of WTC 7 via fire is simply an untenable idea. Therefore, it is necessary to plant the seeds of the idea that WTC 7 was in fact taken down via CD.

The fact of the matter is that it takes weeks of careful study and planning in order in order to take down a building the way WTC 7 went down. The charges have to be set just right. And that is why there are only a handful of companies in the world that do CD.

So then what happened with WTC 7? Why the apparent screw-up? It is possible that flight 93 was bound for WTC 7. But the by the time flight 93 would have impacted WTC 7 the lack of fighter response would have been simply too apparent. There are many questions with which we will never have answers to.

The CIA and the Media

The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein
This was originally published in Rolling Stone on 10/20/77 by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. Its very dry and its almost 30 years old, but its still an important read.

What Happens to Steel Framed Skyscrappers in an Inferno

The first building is the Windsor Building in Madrid. The second is of course WTC 7, a building which should need no introduction- but it is amazing just how many people are unaware that a third building came down that day. WTC 7 is one of the biggest jokes of 9/11. There are a lot of jokes, but WTC 7 is the biggest.

The Fake Osama Bin Laden Confession Video

The Fake 2001 Osama Bin Laden Confession Video
"Fatty" Bin Laden
Government Refuses to Authenticate Bin Laden "Confession Video"



Which one doesn't look anything like Osama?

(I have had a hard time finding the "official" release of this tape online. But I think that this youtube video should be good enough to clear up any doubts thats this is just one frame taken selectively. If you still have doubts just search google pictures for Bin Laden pics and compare)

Here is a BBC report which contains some of the translations
(realplayer needed)

Now, the link above presents some other interesting things. Namely, this quote:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. [Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001]

Apparently in subsequent interviews Osama does admit to being behind 9/11. Things aren't as simple as they seem. Please read Chaim Kupferberg's article Truth, Lies, and Legend of 9/11, to begin to see just how complex they are. When you combine this with his other great article, The Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker, we can begin to understand just exactly why they would need to put out such an obviously faked tape in the first place.

Official U.S. Translation/Transcript

"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower, we calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. ....(Inaudible) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."

Under ideal conditions jet fuel burns at 1800 F, steel melts at 2750 F. Its nice the way "Bin Laden" goes that extra step in helping to support the official jet-fuel-caused-collapse-myth.






Notice that the real Bin Laden's nose is both flatter
and more acute.

Also, regarding Bin Laden. In a lot of ways, with our newfound knowledge, Bin Laden is not less of an evil character, but more of one. Do you see why? :<

September 11 Revsited Volume 2

September 11th Revisited v2
I didn't watch v1, but I think its actually just an earlier version of this movie. This movie is, for the most part just a collection of media clips. It contains a lot of 9-11 MSM goofs from the day of- like when members of the main stream media talked about secondary explosions on 9-11. I recommend watching this or I wouldn't have posted it.

The Norman Mineta Testimony

NIST Report Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

NIST Report Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
I recommend reading this. This same information can be found in Improbable Collapse, but a paper always helps.




This series of photographs show the North Tower at about 6, 8, and 10 seconds into its collapse. Neither NIST's Final Report, nor any of its other documents, attempts to explain the explosiveness, systematic pulverization, speed, or straight-down symmetry of the collapses. NIST shows no interest in explaining the catastrophic total collapses, blithely asserting that "global collapse" was "inevitable" following "initiation."
(from Hoffman's paper)

Poisoning The Well and Muddying the Waters

What is poisoning the well? Its really a simple concept. The well water is good; it is drinkable- perhaps we could even learn something from it. But a little bit of poison can ruin it all.

Poisoning the well is different than muddying the waters, which is again, a fairly straight-forward idea.

These ideas, at least as I mean them, fall under the umbrella concept of disinformation. Well, actually- poisoning the well is more of a logical fallacy- but it is certainly capable of serving as disinformation.

Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11

Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11
These articles by Chaim Kupferberg might be some of the most important articles ever written. On October 6, 2001, the Times of India wrote an article which did severe damage to the official narative. Their attempt to repair the leaky story is exposed for all the world to see. Read the article, and investigate. When I have more time I will provide a summary of both this article, and the earlier one I posted entitled The 9/11 Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker. Although both of these articles deal with highly interconnected subject matter, I would read The Smoking Gun first.

I wanted to note that this article repeats the claim that John O'Neill was killed on his first day on the job as the new security chief for the WTC. This has been repeated numerous times but is apparently false. More recent reports say that O'Neill had started two weeks earlier. And in fact, in a paper by Kuperberg which takes up the O'Neill thread, has O'Neill starting two weeks prior. According to the wikipedia page the false claim is attributed to New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik who said "That Tuesday (9-11) was his first or second day on the job".

Israeli Spying

I decided to embed all 4 parts because this is so amazing.

This is a very interesting story, both for what is said in the report itself, but also for the reaction following this report.

Listen to all 4 parts. I must say this is really amazing stuff. How does a story like this come out on Fox News?

My theory is that Carl Cameron got ahold of this story from honest members in government who wanted to see this story come out, but couldn't come forward themselves, probably because they were under some sort of gag order. Fox News had no choice but to air his report. Why? Because thoroughly researched stories like this can not just be "shelved" easily. Cameron could easily turn on Fox as a result. That would then be too much for the left-media (or for what passes for the left-media) to ignore and the story could get big as a result. Better to air the story like it is no big deal, and allow it to go away.

But how could this story possibily go away? And how is it that just now I am learning about this, even though I have been looking into 9/11 et al. for a few months.

Transcript of all 4 parts

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4

Daniel Pearl and the Pakistani/ ISI Connection

Who Really killed Daniel Pearl

9/11 And the Smoking Gun that Turned on its Tracker
This article is absolutely excellent and I highly recommend it. This is one of the major angles of 9/11 that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention, and we can learn a lot about how the game is played from it.

I have to say that this article is just simply amazing.

Alternative Media Censorship

Link
Follow the money

BBC/Newsnight Story on RFK Assasination

Link
Please note that this is the BBC.

Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics

Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics
Read this last night and thought it was pretty good and funny.

The Planet Mancow Segment

I thought that Smith was ok. He was given an opportunity to name some former government officials and he missed the ball. He should have mentioned Paul Craig Roberts, a former Undersecretary of Treasury under Reagan. Or Ronald Ray, an Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan. Or how about career CIA agent Ray McGovern. And the list goes on. When 9/11 truth people go on these shows they need to have all of this stuff at the tip of their tounge.

Much of this so called debate centers around the WTC collapse. I urge everyone to watch Improbable Collapse, which I have linked to on the side. It explains the physics and the engineering principles. These buildings were engineered to withstand the impact and fires from jet airplanes.

London 7/7

I pulled this from the July 7th Truth Site.

In my opinion, the most salient facts of 7/7 are the drill, and the #30 bus- which was quite strangely diverted that morning. I want to note that Power never said that 1,000 people were involved in the drill, but that it was a company of 1,000 people. Who was this company?

July 7th Anomalies, Coincidences & Unanswered Questions

• By midday on July 7th Blair was pointing the finger at 'these people who oppose our way of life'. Since then a racist 'trial by media' has taken place on the basis of no evidence. Instead of a powerful judicial Inquiry we are offered a 'narrative' written by a civil servant. Why? Who benefits? Bush and Blair lied about Iraq and fixed 'intelligence' reports around the invasion plan. After Kelly/Hutton, should we accept just a 'narrative'?

• Peter Power, ex-Scotland Yard Anti-Terrorist operative, was running a 1,000 man terror drill rehearsing bombs going off in precisely the stations they did that morning and told the BBC: "...at half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!" (Similar unbelievable 'co-incidences' happened on 9/11 involving air defence and emergency 'exercises')

• BOMBERS COULD NOT HAVE CAUGHT THE 7.40am TRAIN FROM LUTON - The Met claimed the alleged bombers caught the 7.40 Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross but this train was CANCELLED. BBC2's Horizon reported that they caught the 7.48 train. This train arrived in London at 8.43, some 17 minutes AFTER the police say they have CCTV of the men at King's Cross. If the alleged bombers caught an earlier train from Luton then SHOW US THE EVIDENCE and explain the inconsistencies.

• NO CCTV FOOTAGE SHOWN OF THE FOUR ALLEGED BOMBERS IN LONDON! Why? Since when did one poor-quality photograph in which three of the faces cannot be identified, said to be taken 30 miles away at Luton, count as conclusive evidence?

• What happened to the seven explosions originally reported and the timings of 8.51, 8.56 & 9.17? Many survivors reported electrocution, sparks and explosions OUTSIDE trains. Which came first, explosions or power surges? Why don't the police admit there were TWO trains with fatalities on the Piccadilly line (trains 331 & 311)?

• Many anomalies surround the Number 30 bus, the only one reported to be diverted that morning, which was iconically (and strangely) de-roofed outside the BMA. Later, Ian Johnston, Chief Constable of the BTP wrote to the BMA stating, "Three of my officers were travelling behind the bus when the bomb exploded.” Despite this, after helping the injured off his bus, the driver disappeared only to re-appear seven miles away in Acton. And, fearing more explosions, police reported a 'microwave box' on the lower-deck [CNJ].

• Very strong SIS infiltration of Muslim communities,including Beeston/Leeds. When interviewed by the BBC about the Sidique Khan video, his friends said that the character in the video was not him! (Digital video editing & CGI techniques are incredibly advanced.)

• War OF Terror: 'IslamoFascism' is the mask behind which the real globalist-fascists, scheming for their New World Order, have repeatedly hidden. Madrid came 911 days after 9/11 - even The Times reported that the explosives man was a top police informer. And funny how the CCTV cameras at the station didn't work, just like the 911 airports and the 30 bus. New York, Madrid, Bali, Jordan and now London. Who and where next?

• How States work: Inside job frame-ups are routine operations when ruling fraternities want another war or more police-state powers. Intelligence services like the SS, CIA, Mossad and MI6 have been internationally recognised for encouraging or directly engin- eering terrorist atrocities (Reichstag Fire, Bologna station, Berlin disco bombing, Lockerbie, and now Samarra mosque). These 'black ops' are also known as 'false flag terrorism' because they throw the blame onto innocents allegedly linked to the enemy of today - the Left, Irish, Blacks, Muslims. See also Webster Tarpley, 'Synthetic Terrorism – Made in USA' and D. Ganser, 'Nato's Secret Armies' (fine academic text, Cass, 2005)

• In 2003-2005 several 'War on Terror' companies, including some based in Tavistock Square, landed tube engineering and security contracts [now the Bush-run Carlyle Group will be looking after our airports!]. TFL head Bob Kiley was once assistant to the director of the CIA. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was in London for a TASE/Deutsche Bank conference at the Great Eastern hotel (just by Liverpool St) where ex-Mayor Giuliani, of NY-9/11 infamy, was staying. Germany's leading Sunday paper reported head of Mossad confirming that Netanyahu received advance bomb warnings.

The Story of Jean Charles de Menezes

Screen grab from Jean Charles de Menezes' body laying in a Tube carriage after the shooting at Stockwell

Wikipedia article
Row over blank CCTV tapes
Police Shot Brazillian 8 Times
Tube CCTV: Was there a coverup?
Brazillian did not wear bulky jacket
New special forces unit tailed Brazillian

I find this story quite interesting, but it is very hard to figure out what to make of it. I think one of the most interesting things are the eyewitnesses who flat out lied. And then of course a rape allegation comes out and DNA tests proves Menezes wasn't responsible.

And the fact that special forces were involved. They tracked him down, followed him onto the train- which he paid for using his "Oyster card", shot him in the head 8 times, lied about pretty much every detail, and supressed the CCTV evidence. Wow.

The story is out, all from mainstream British sources like the BBC and The Guardian, but where is the expose? Where is the story that ties it all together?

In my opinion de Menezes knew too much, so they hunted him down and killed him. But why do it so publicly? I think de Menezes had information about the London bombers because he was friends with one of them- but that is just pure speculation.

Timeline: The Killing Jean Charles de Menezes
Ok, so he was only shot 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, but they missed with 3 shots. So that is a total of 11 shots.

A BBC Program on the Shooting
Wow. Just watching the first 1:30 its clear that this programme is colouring the facts. It shows him practically running down the steps when we know that wasn't the case. He wasn't worried about missing the train and he had enough time to calmly pick up a free newspaper.

Improbable Collapse

Improbable Collapse: The Destruction of the Republic
Finally a movie that really explains the engineering. This is one of the very best 9/11 movies. The first 10 or so minutes are a little fluffy, but then its great.


I believe thats called a massacre. This clip exposes so much.

What is a salient fact?

Main Entry: 1sa·lient Pronunciation: 'sA-ly&nt, -lE-&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Latin salient-, saliens, present participle of salire to leap -- more at SALLY 1 : moving by leaps or springs : JUMPING 2 : jetting upward salient fountain> 3 a : projecting beyond a line, surface, or level b : standing out conspicuously : PROMINENT; especially : of notable significance salient differences -- Tony Gibbs> synonym see NOTICEABLE - sa·lient·ly adverb

A salient fact is a fact that takes us up a level.

much much more on this

Noam Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy

The JFK Assasination II: Conspiracy Phobia on the Left
This article is fantastic and it is a must read.

Or we could just show the Zapruder film and show that Chomsky has some serious problems if he believes Kennedy was shot from a 5th floor window a few hundred feet behind him. Please watch the Kennedy assasination film.











Micheal Parenti & Blowback
Of course, now we have to tackle Micheal Parenti, who seems to be in denial about 9/11 himself. In all honesty, I don't know what to make of it. I do plan on reading his 1996 book, Dirty Truths. One thing I really like about this article is the authors point about metaphor, truth, and meaning.

Occam's Razor

From the wikipedia page

"Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham (Guilhelmi Ockam and Guillermi de Ockam in Latin [1]). Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories."


Conspiracy theory. "You're just a conspiracy nutjob". "Anyone who belives in that stuff has the i.q. of an eggplant".

Believe it or not, the simplest explanation for the things going on in this world today is the conspiracy theory. A good theory has to account for all of the phenomena observed. If there are competing theories than the simplest theory is most likely the correct one.

Much more on this to come.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
There are a lot of lies and disinformation out there about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, hopefully this movie will clear up any doubts you may or may not have about him. There is no doubt that Chavez is a man of the people.

This movie takes place in April 2002, when Venezuela underwent a time of crisis. Chavez was attempting to redistribute some of the state-owned Oil company's money to the people that it properly belonged to, and he faced coup-attempt from the Venezuelan elites. This movie is an upfront seat to the history that transpired, and I highly recommend it.

Several months ago, in the spring I think, my girlfriend got an email forwarded to her from my roommate about Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. And it talked about Cindy Sheehan (the woman who's son was killed in Iraq) and her meeting with Chavez, and apparently they said some controversial things- I don't remember what- and the email asked the we all boycott Citgo gas stations since they are owned by Venezuela.

And this prompted a decent debate between us, but I have liked Chavez ever since I learned about his free heating oil program. But I didn't really know too much about Chavez. But I do know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and when people like Pat Robertson start calling for Chavez to be assasinated, then Chavez becomes my friend pretty quickly. There is where the 'who would Jesus assasinate?' comes from, if you remember that phrase floating around.

Well, after watching this movie he.......

9/11 Press For Truth

9/11 Press for Truth
This movie features the so called 'Jersey Girls', who were apparently instrumental in getting the 9/11 Commision established. In my review of it I called it 'pure fluff'. It is very well made and probably the most professional of the 9/11 films. So why then is it pure fluff?

Press for Truth focuses almost solely on the aftermath of 9/11. And, it doesn't in fact present a very damning case. But I didn't learn too much from it. What was interesting was hearing a little bit more about the CIA/Pakistani-ISI/Taliban connection. At every single facet of 9/11, the true story does not comport with the official paradigm.

I suppose for some people this movie would be helpful in bringing them closer to the truth. I think that looking at a few pictures and understanding a few simple facts is easier, but for those who need it the hard way I recomend this.

Problem-Reaction-Solution

If you listen to enough Alex Jones you hear him talk about the Problem-Reaction-Solution paradigm. If he would have explained it as the Hegellian dialectic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis then I would have understood it a lot sooner- but I'm sure that puts me in the minority.

So what is the Problem-Reaction-Solution paradigm? Perhaps it is best explained by example. The 1999 WTO Seattle riots were caused by government provocatuers. Police State II chronicles this. So why would the government intentionally cause riots, damaging a lot of business in the process? In the aftermath a no-protest-zone was created, and subsequent WTO meeting held in unpopulated places like the Canadian Rockies. But what was really important was the precedent set. Watch Police State II if you have any doubt that the black bloc were government provacatuers.

Some additional links illustrating the use of this paradigm
Neo-Nazi Leader Was MI6 Agent
McGuinness Was An Agent For MI6
IRA Searches For Proof that Agent J118 Existed
Operation Gladio
Were British Special Forces planting bombs in Basra?

9/11 The Myth and the Reality

The Myth and the Reality
I highly recomend this. This features Dr. David Ray Griffin, who has written several books related to 9-11. There are some points of disagreement that I have with Griffin, and they all relate to the endgame of 9-11.

Ashland, OR Newspaper Calls For 9-11 Investigation
Apparently this is the first newspaper in the U.S. to call for an independent investigation. In the Griffin movie above I thought it was funny how it was CNN Headline News' Showbiz Tonight that tried to arrange a debate on 9-11, but they couldn't find anyone in the government who would come on. Thats not really that funny, but I used to make fun of Julaine for watching Showbiz Tonight (and reading trashy publications like Us Magazine), and the fact that Showbiz Tonight was the only MSM show willing to give 9-11, the most important story of our times, a fair shake- well that is pretty funny.

Alex Jones on Showbiz Tonight

I should also note that Amy Goodman hosted a debate between the makers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics, who wrote a book attempting to debunk 9-11 Myths. Link Here. I thought that all 4 of them pretty much sucked.

The Venezuelans are outta the closet
South America needs nuclear weapons

David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now
He is very very good. He touches on an idea I like about the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning. My approach to 9-11 has been inductive, but it is now possible for me to make a deductive argument- a true thesis that ties everything together- but it goes so deep that I am stuck on the question: what is money. The answer of course is that money is power. Power is control.

From listening to Griffin speak, I get the feeling that he is quite possibly the most intelligent person in the 9-11 truth movement. I was about to write that Griffin dropped the ball when pressed to name a structral engineer by not naming Micheal Zebuhr, but then I realized that Zebuhr wasn't murdered until March 2006, and that this interview/debate was in 2004.

Curt Weldon and Able Danger

I think this speech is just fantastic.


Some additional links on Able Danger
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/sept.11.hijackers/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167130,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/weldon.able.danger/index.html

Beh?

American Scholar's Symposium
I just thought that I would link to this. If you search google video for Alex Jones  this is one of many that you will find. It starts off with Alex giving a fiery speech and introducing Charlie Sheen, who also talks for about 10 minutes- and then it goes on from there.

Jones has been involved in exposing the truth about the NWO going back to at least the mid ninties I think, maybe earlier. One of the things I find funny is how Alex Jones is a conversative, you can call him a real conservative, or just far-right- he is a rightest populist, that is probably the best definition.

I don't think I ever really understood populism, or the meaning of it, until now. And now I found myself using quotes from Ron Paul who is a Republican from Texas, and involved in a tough re-election battle since Republicans hate him, and Barry Goldwater- the former senator from Arizona who had some not nice things to say about the CFR- and even looking into Pat Buchanon- and yet, at the same time understanding the full reality of NPR being Nat'l Petroleum Radio, and that would be considered a far left idea.

The difference between the far-right and the far-left is that the far-right are kooky politicians and conspiracy nuts, and that the far-left is found in academia. And thats just simply because the Social Construction of Reality doesn't make for a good campaign issue. But there are some leftist populist politicians out there- Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia.

Alex Jones On The Social Construction of Reality
For anyone who is a fan of Jones I think this is an absolutely must watch. He can be hillarious sometimes. The maggot analogy is brilliant. Skip the first 10 or so minutes. This is brilliant stuff. Even if you prefer to think that Jones is crazy for thinking what he thinks, I don't see how you can't admit that he is brilliant after watching this.


Actually the bird cage liner analogy is even better.

Jones on the Military Commissions Act
These Jones reports are all really good stuff. He goes to a much deeper level during these than he does on his radio show. Everyone needs to look into just what the Military Commissions Act does. Its not good.

Jones On Why He Hates the NWO
This is good stuff.

The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model
I first read this paper years ago, back in 2001 I think. Jones touches on some of the ideas presented in here in the segment above.

He also talks about the Pentagon, which I think is all very interesting. The segment is from May, next week when they release what is supposed to be a nice tape of the Pentagon , it appears that another one of Jones' predictions will be proven correct.

Will The DoubleTree Video Show Pentagon Impact?
U.S. Stalls On Human Trafficking
Outside the Law

Alex Jones in Waking Life
I first saw this movie in 2002 I think, but I had no clue who Alex Jones was at the time.

Police State 3: Total Enslavement

Police State III: Total Enslavement

This is just great. What a fucked up world we live in.Google everything and think critically This lays it all out. This is 2.5 hours and after 40 minutes of watching it I have decided that it should be posted. I think this is a must watch for anyone who is still on the fence about just what exactely the new paradigm is.

I find it all totally amazing. I'm still freaked the fuck out but its just so insane to consider the world we live in. Its really scary though. I have cried about it.

The Paradigm Shift

The Paradigm Shift

A paradigm is simply a system of thinking. The term 'paradigm shift' was first used by American philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, to describe changes to the basic underlying assumptions in science. Wikipedia lists the following paradigm shifts that have taken place

* The transition from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.
* The unification of classical physics by Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview.
* The shift in geometric outlook from particular structures to transformation group theory with Felix Klein's Erlangen Program.
* The transition between the Maxwellian Electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.
* The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.
* The development of Quantum mechanics, which redefined classical mechanics.
* The acceptance of Plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.
* The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the Chemical Revolution.
* The movement, known as the Cognitive revolution, away from Behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.


Social science is about to undergo a major paradigm shift from the 'left-right theory of government' to the globalist theory. It is really a change in political science above all else, but it has such far reaching implications across all of the various social science that make it the single most important theory unifying them all.

The left/right theory holds that the left and the right have been in a struggle for more government control on the left, and less government control on the right. The globalist theory holds that these are false choices that have been offered to us by the global elite, that both the left and the right have been working towards the same end: world government. George Orwell wrote about the false choice of communism in Animal Farm and the evils of capitalism in 1984.

If Perhaps Something Smells Fishy

Then maybe you should try and learn about what is really going on in the world. Would I state my reputation on this otherwise? For those who know me well I hope thats a powerful argument.

Kennedy Assassination
This is the best movie I have ever seen. All rational human beings, who see the Zapruder film know that Oswald did not kill Kennedy . This movie explains who did.


Terror Storm
Terror Storm is the first video I saw related to 9-11 and it is very good. Terror Storm takes a very nice approach, because it provides a lot of background information- still ultimately not enough to truely understand the ideology and motives of those responsible in my opinion. Terror Storm spends a lot of time dealing with the 7-7 London Bombings.

Loose Change
Loose Change is the second video that I saw. Loose Change focuses almost solely on 9-11. And it isn't flawless; some of the things included in Loose Change, like some of the alleged hijackers still being alive overseas, come from unconfirmed reports. I think their coverage of the Pentagon is excellent though. Also take note of Willie Rodriguez, who is the janitor. His story is very important and he is apparently suing members of our government under RICO.

Jim Fetzer at the 9-11 Symposium
This guy is just excellent. Before retiring this year, Fetzer was a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He gives the best treatment of the Pentagon attack that I've seen yet.

Steven Jones at the 9-11 Symposium
Steven Jones is one of the 9-11 truth movements biggest assets. He teaches physics at BYU. He discusses how thermate was used to melt the steel in order to bring down the WTC building.

Operation Mockingbird
The is a collection of calls made to Alan Colmes, who is supposed to be the liberal on Fox New's Hannity and Colmes show. Alan Colmes is in the same boat as Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman (see below). I don't think any one realizes the extent to which the CIA controls the media in this country.

Here is a simple argument. I challenge anyone to attemp to discredit it. Noam Chomsky believes that Oswald shot Kennedy. Since no rational person can watch the Zapruder film and still believe that Oswald was the killer, then Chomsky is either A) Irrational, which we know he can't be B) Lying, or C) Intellectually dishonest.

Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman were both educated at Harvard. Al Franken, who is a big part of Air America, was also educated at Harvard. Google Mike Malloy, who was recently fired from Air America after having Alex Jones on his show. But search deep, because google manipulates search results. Ralph Nader went to Harvard.

American Dictatorship
This film is about 1:30 and it covers a lot of different stuff. It starts off first by talking about Skull and Bones, the elite Yale secret society that both Bush and Kerry are a part off, and it goes from there and covers a ton of different and important issues. Most important for you might be John O'Neill, who was killed as he started his first day on the job as the new chief of security at the WTC on 9-11. Google it.


Alex Jones On Some New Video Games Coming Out
One of the thing I like the most about Alex Jones- and let me just say that Alex Jones is a conservative, not a fake conservative CIA operation. mockingbird asset like Sean Hannity, but a real conservative- and yet, you listen to him and you hear him throw out these sociological terms like 'cognitive dissonance', and 'suspension of disbelief'- And I like that because the conservatives that we're trained to think of would absolutely never use those types of terms.

These video games are absolutely terrifying to me because they answer the one overriding question that I have had for days and days in which I've duelved deeper into this media driven sham called America, and that question is: what is the plan? And when you combine that, along with the FEMA detention centers that are waiting for people all across this country, then we know that answer. And thats pretty fucking scary.

But wait- now that I have thought about a little more, and I think their plan is flawed.

As I continue to watch more and more of this I now remember the first night I met Julaine. I don't remember exactely what she was talking about, some ill in the world no doubt, but she said it was the illuminati and I chimed right in saying, "yeah, the fucking freemasons", or something like that, and thats how we hit it off. Funny. The film above gets into all of that, I think its important to watch the other films first because we aren't trained to handle the ideas presented in this film very well at all, and it takes alot of background.

Its really a damn shame that hardly any Americans know social science, because a socialpsych understanding helps so much in coming to terms with what is happening.