rigorousintuition.ca

Apologydue, I generally do not engage in argument, at least I try not to on the web, and I live my life allowing for others to have their own differing opinions as long as they don't present a risk to others, or myself but I've perhaps needlessly taken a bit of offense to your closing comments:

"Fresh trauma is the name of the game, and deflecting the recoil away from its makers is the aim, as this is what drives the wheel that generates the gains.

Step aside, astroturf in progress"

I imagine from what you’ve written that you’re close in age to me and therefore have experienced many of the disturbing events that have taken place since and including Kennedy’s assassination. My historical frame of reference spans some five decades. I wonder, did you read my earlier post? I lost three loved ones in 911. Did you that day lose more than your faith in your protectors, your government? If that’s all you lost that day, well, I long ago lost that, but I understand your disappointment, frustration and feeling powerless. If you suffered a greater, more personal loss as I did, you have my condolences.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word “trauma” in its psychological sense, and have misused it repeatedly, but it is certainly clear that the events of 911 have left you traumatized.

Trauma: A severely disturbing experience that leads to lasting psychological or emotional impairment.

A traumatized person is in shock and unable to act or react rationally, so in saying this you are incorrect: ”People in pain and trauma react.” People in pain not suffering from trauma can and do react.

The memories of that fateful day some 9 years ago may be fresh and indeed many were and remain traumatized to varying degrees, but while it’s clear you feel outraged and pained by that day’s events and feel certain our government is responsible, I haven’t yet read of you being arrested for taking a hammer to the White House’s bricks, so why is that, you being as convinced as you are of who the culprits were? Are you awaiting some personal revelation from Donald Rumsfeld?

Perhaps you have not acted because you know, as millions of others do, that it would be an effort in futility, ending in at least your imprisonment but more probably your certain death? I would advise you not to engage in such a foolish illegal activity. But have you even written a letter to any of your elected representatives protesting the official findings of the 911 Commission? No? Why’s that?

Let’s remember for a moment what had transpired in the 9 years after Kennedy’s and Oswald’s assassinations: first there was the Warren Commission’s unbelievable ‘single bullet’ theory, promoted by recently turned Dem Arlen Spector, pinning Oswald for the President’s murder; Viet Nam; Watts; MLK’s and Bobbie’s murders; Charlie Manson; Viet Nam; Nixon; Viet Nam.

What more could be necessary to raise the public to outrage? Child sacrifice on the White House Lawn?

The 60s sure seemed enough for me to be roused from my slumber, but I didn’t see any great change, did you? (Well, there was the Civil Rights Act and Earth Day, too.) All of those events were as fresh in our minds then as 911 is today. Hmm, no revolution. Why was that? Don’t think the 58 thousand American deaths were enough? How many more would it take to die for the profit of the war mongers to rouse the people into action for change?

Lots of people, perhaps numbering in the millions, believe the government was at least knowledgeable beforehand of the events that took place on 911 if in fact they did not orchestrate the day’s events. Whether or not a building fell or was demolished is of little consequence when we weigh what has transpired since 911. It doesn’t matter. You still believe, as did Rachel Corey that you matter to the D-9 operator; that you can appeal to their sense of morality and change their direction or stop them in their tracks. Sadly, you still don’t get it. You still don’t realize that you are a slave, as we all are, allowed to live only because your master wills it.

No, he means stop insinuating anyone who doesn't accept your line of mystical bullshit works for Wackenhut (or whatever) and has been assigned specifically to reply to you. Don't make up pure bullshit accusations that people are spying on your machine so that they can read what you type in advance of your posting.

Of course, your crap about "devils" and "Wackenhut" feels more like stuff you made up for an ARG attack on this board. So, more plainly: fuck off, troll. Your username and profile already announce that you have been here as a troll before. Perhaps vigilant? irrelevant.

By the way, if you've read this far, the words make up an anagram that activates the nanochip mind controllers that you ingested in your crackers weeks ago. Soon as you've concluded reading this sentence, you're going to go jump off a high bridge.

Huh?


I was only kidding around jack. I saw that 23 asked a question about the ability of people to reply, or something similar, quicker than he thought possible. I've had the same experience a couple of times. As quick as you replied to one of my posts I just threw that in there as a quip. As far as the wackenhut stuff goes it was just a good natured joke. I'm sorry if you took it personally.

Jackriddler wrote:Of course, your crap about "devils" and "Wackenhut" feels more like stuff you made up for an ARG attack on this board. So, more plainly: fuck off, troll. Your username and profile already announce that you have been here as a troll before. Perhaps vigilant? irrelevant.

liloldme wrote:I simply meant that you should not be abusive or insinuate that other posters here are deliberately spreading disinformation. It poisons the debate quickly, and helps nobody. Can you believe even I have been accused of spreading disinfo? Anyway, many of Isachar's comments were unnecessary and provocative. Let people have their say, reply to their points with information and insight, and let the peanut gallery decide. The accusations of sockpuppetry are also unnecessary.

Hey Jack, I do believe the rules apply to everyone, ya know? Fairness and all that.

I would prefer to see both you and apologydue remain on the board. I do so hate to see bannings.

Have a nice day.

Jack, c'mon... play nicely.

Sadly, you still don’t get it. You still don’t realize that you are a slave, as we all are, allowed to live only because your master wills it.

Thanks for the mind reading session but you got it backwards. I do realize it. I don't mean that in an ugly way either. I just do realize it.

Perhaps you have not acted because you know, as millions of others do, that it would be an effort in futility, ending in at least your imprisonment but more probably your certain death?

Exactly. Because I do realize that I have no power over the situation, and I don't encourage other people to engage in stupid acts of bravery. It seems to me that trauma and pain often go together but if you don't agree i'm cool with that.


I think i'll go back to reading instead of writing for a while. It seems as if I have invaded the neighborhood.

apologydue wrote:As far as the wackenhut stuff goes it was just a good natured joke.

I'll level with you. The fact that you're posting from proxies, and from at least one favoured by vigilant and his legion of socks, means your nature is for me still an unanswered question.

apologydue wrote:

The point being that it doesn't make sense for Silverstein to be in the loop for CD.

Exactly. In a real world scenario operated by honest people he would be totally out of the loop. Public safety officials would be calling the shots regardless of his opinion. If he loses money, tough shit, lives had to be saved. The fact that he IS THE LOOP says a lot. This story was planted to muddy the water, and to co-opt the debate. If the population is not made aware of the fact, by the media, that he realistically would have had no place in the debate in the first place, they will never make the link.

Should we believe that he willingly risked criminal charges (conspiracy, fraud, whatever, etc.) because he was determined to bring down Building 7? Some 9/11 truthers tell us that Building 7 is the smoking gun. Why would Silverstein involve himself in such a blatant CD scheme? Silverstein wouldn't have made just as much if the building remained standing? There was some windfall trigger in the insurance policy that went into effect if the building collapsed? I really don't get it. What was so important about the collapse of the building?

Should we pretend that Silverstein and Shapiro are idiots who aren't aware that any talk of CD is suggestive of a conspiracy? As if the public can't use Google and find out that CD prep is a little more involved than spur of the moment/same day.

apologydue wrote:
As far as the wackenhut stuff goes it was just a good natured joke.




I'll level with you. The fact that you're posting from proxies, and from at least one favoured by vigilant and his legion of socks, means your nature is for me still an unanswered question.

I'm not sure what all this is about but i'll go to the archives and try to look all this up. Evidently some things have been taken personally that I have written in this thread. It was never my intent to harm anyone. I apologize if I have offended anyone. I'm not sure if I will post for a while but I will read all the interesting things you people write.

Thanks for a good laugh, fish.

To approach WTC 7 from another perspective:

Could there be any imperatives dictated by the nature of the tenants and the files that they kept at WTC (such as the SEC, IRS, Secret Service etc), that would over-ride customary protocols for insuring or otherwise handling the building?

Is it possible that a serious breach in the safety, security and confidentiality of all those files would be dealt with in a way that would not have been done if WTC 7 were full of widgets or turnips?

According to the NIST Investigation, WTC 7 was structurally sound and collapsed solely due to fire.

The reason FDNY decided that WTC 7 was going to collapse was not based on anyone's evaluation of the soundness of the structure. It was based on the fact that two other steel skyscrapers just feel down for no apparent reason. Now they've got a third building that is on fire and the south side was damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. Unfortunately, they couldn't get water to this area, so they were not willing to risk any more lives until they could get the situation under control. Once they decided not to commit resources to fighting the fire, the area around the building was very dangerous because of all the glass that keep coming down from the fires that flared up.

Of course, with everyone in a state of shock all kinds of rumors were flying around. So clearing an area just in case another building collapses, becomes everyone knew the building was going to collapse. There were 3 or 4 other buildings they thought were going to collapse too, but they didn't.

23 wrote:

I have yet to see or read a credible explanation for this back-to-the-future broadcast.

I haven't seen one either. Does anyone have one? Or can anyone provide a link to a credible explanation for this?

Paging MacCruiskeen...

The BBC wriggled and wriggled and never told anyone where the information came from in the first instance.

Mac followed all this closely, well I did too as a matter of fact.

I'd be interested in what Mac has to say, too. In fact, I'd be very interested in all knowledgeable sides of this because, more than perhaps anything else, the BBC's pre-cognitive reportage here seems extremely suspicious.