rigorousintuition.ca

He lost me when he touted "Popular Mechanics".

Up until that point I found his piece to be a thoughtful and interesting work. I was giving him the benefiit of the doubt and listening to him with an open mind.

Has anyone actually looked at an issue of Popular Mechanics? You know, picked one up on a newsstand and checked it out?

It's the most blatantly right-wing militaristic-masturbation rag I've ever seen. It's as though it's written by 13 year old neo-cons. In short -- it's a joke. And the article this guy quotes is also a joke to anyone who's actually read it AND studied the facts.

Somebody up thread wrote:

reverse engineered Science called the NIST report

Exactly. I wish I'd thought of that. "Reverse Engineered" is exactly what they did, and were happy to receive a paycheck for -- i.e. "Your job is to figure out how a plane crashing into this building caused it to collapse."

It was NOT "here, investigate this weird fucking thing that happened. Come up with hypotheses and investigate them." No, THAT would have been science. What they did instead was pull shit out of their asses to explain how the earth is actually flat.

The way I like to look at it is this: Why are people SOOO emotionally attached to what they think happened that day? Because that's what it boils down to. Emotions.

Which to me proves what an incredibly successful PSYOPS it was. People get downright ANGRY when you question the official story. People WANT to believe that, after going through that shock and awe, and the mourning and the revenge fantasies, they do NOT want to have the world they constructed from that messed with.

The best analogy I've ever come up with is the Santa Clause one. It's funny that Rovics (or whatever his stupid name was) mentions Santa Clause. Because trying to tell someone who believes the official story the facts of the situation -- facts that will dispute their deeply held believe -- is like trying to tell a 6 year old that Santa Clause doesn't exist. They get upset.

And I remember when I made the realization (which was long before I gave CD any credence, BTW) that it was something other than a "terrorist" attack -- the only thing in my life that compares to it is the moment when I realized that Santa Clause was the same kind of lie. A lie we all believed. A lie that people I trusted had told me.

Nordic, I've thought of the Santa analogy too and I think it's quite relevant to 9/11 truth.

And I've often tried to get a handle on what might be going on with the denialists. I can only guess, but let me hazard one regarding Rovics. He's got a lot of his ego and his entire persona invested in the anti-war movement. Fine, except that he's likely a follower, not a leader. If he rocks the anti-war boat -- the status quo in those circles being against 9/11 truth -- he risks ridicule and marginalization. And, I would further suggest that it's quite possible this mindset is ingrained, not conscious, but because the fear of ridicule is so powerful, it's simply self-protection to go along with the prevailing winds within the anti-war movement.

But he underestimates the intelligence and the knowledge base within the 9/11 movement, which has now spread into the general populace, so his article just falls flat on its face, especially since he chooses not to fully engage the large body of substantial research available. He simply cherry picks a couple of items and then, absurdly, gives credence to junk scientists who might as well be claiming the earth is flat.

I may be off base regarding what's really going on in Rovics' mind, and in the mind of other denialists, but regardless, his hit piece was a lame attempt that didn't pass the sniff test, at least for most of us who have commented here.

This is a point in the conversation where it might be useful to pull back a little and do some reframing.

Did the events of 9/11 wound more than just those people who were at Gound Zero, or those who currently are at their own neighborhood Ground Zeros where the fight has been moved?

Yes. Oh yes.

Even the sanest of us caught some of the ambient PTSD, the anger, the fear, sooner or later.

In some it came out with red faces and screaming. In others, it was quiet, "rational," deliberate, controlled. And mad as a hatter, but politely and urbanely so, capable of calmly sending thousands to their deaths.

The usual bell curve might be one lens to observe it through. Maybe the usual 10% saints, 10% villains, the rest mostly clustering in the center. We've probably got the same spread here in the forum, both with the small amount of people who do the postings, and the far larger number of people who watch and listen quietly.

Or you could figure on the usual dichotomies bursting through. Lefties, righties. Apollonian, Dionysian. Thoughtful, thoughtless. Sometimes it eventually balances like yin and yang, other times it's dangerously weighted in one characteristic or another, like wealthy men (and by thaat I mean people with penises, not just generic humans) facilitating the killing and fighting ("Let's you and him fight" was the way Berne so sagely saw it).

Whatever it is, there are people expressing their views on 9/11 and other aspects of our 21st century life THAT REALLY PISS US OFF. Some of it's the messenger, other times the irritant is the message itself.

THEY WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US, IN ANY AND ALL ENDEAVORS. GET USED TO IT.

Strategies? That would be lovely.

But just remember, the vast majority of us never had training in assessing what strategies would work in any given situation, let alone one so fraught with emotion and possible consequences, as these situations we find ourselves in. And along with that we never had training in turning those assessments into strategic action that persuades, educates, or otherwise moves us toward our goals.

We know how to yap about what we think on forums, but few of us know how to write an essay that persuades, present research in a way that communicates clearly, or understand how to get information flowing around the blockages in the system.

It's really hard to come into that cold, especially when it's your first time being a heretic. If you're smart, you shut up for a long while and listen and learn, and figure out who are the most effective people whose success you can learn from (warning: those won't always be people you like, respect, or agree with).

9/11 is not my first experience with being in a tiny minority and having my ideas be unpopular. I've gotten over the bit where you tear your hair out over the way "they" won't listen. Doesn't mean you don't keep trying to fight the good fight. It's just that you have to be realistic about the human condition, and move forward whenever you can, rather than being caught up in how frustrating and awful it is. Your fellow travellers will probably ignore your suggestions that using a spellcheck in their articles just might make them be taken more seriously. They'll ignore suggestions that taking a break to get some perspective back, and studying up on technical writing and marketing, might actually pay off in their efforts to persuade. Do it anyway.

The stakes are high here, life and death for some of us. There isn't room for disengaging, and thinking you are above it all. Some of us only have red-faced yelling to offer. If any of you can do better, please do so.

Silverstein sues for $12.3 Billion over 9/11
Cui Bono?
_________

Developer Sues to Win $12.3 Billion in 9/11 Attack


By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: March 27, 2008

Larry A. Silverstein , who has won nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments to cover his losses and help him rebuild at the World Trade Center site, is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack.

Mr. Silverstein, the developer of ground zero, sought the damages, whose amount was not previously known, in a claim filed in 2004, that says the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists from hijacking the planes used to destroy the buildings......

.....Those who sued represent just a small fraction of the casualties on Sept. 11. Most of the victims of the attack and their families chose to take the compensation offered through a federal fund, forgoing their right to sue.

Full Article Here
__________________

I'd laugh if American and United lawyers fought this SOB by challenging his command to "pull it" in regards to WTC7.

Who was he commanding and what obligation did they have to take his so-called order?

http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/show ... p?t=251670

ninakat wrote: .....
And I've often tried to get a handle on what might be going on with the denialists. I can only guess, but let me hazard one regarding Rovics. He's got a lot of his ego and his entire persona invested in the anti-war movement. Fine, except that he's likely a follower, not a leader. If he rocks the anti-war boat -- the status quo in those circles being against 9/11 truth -- he risks ridicule and marginalization. And, I would further suggest that it's quite possible this mindset is ingrained, not conscious, but because the fear of ridicule is so powerful, it's simply self-protection to go along with the prevailing winds within the anti-war movement.

But he underestimates the intelligence and the knowledge base within the 9/11 movement, which has now spread into the general populace, so his article just falls flat on its face, especially since he chooses not to fully engage the large body of substantial research available. He simply cherry picks a couple of items and then, absurdly, gives credence to junk scientists who might as well be claiming the earth is flat.

I may be off base regarding what's really going on in Rovics' mind, and in the mind of other denialists, but regardless, his hit piece was a lame attempt that didn't pass the sniff test, at least for most of us who have commented here.

Agreed, ninakat. There are the confused, the afraid, and the deceptive.
And combinations. I'm sure some don't want to know the truth if it means then having to say the hardest thing.

That's why sowing scorn to encourage the taking of the easy out is done.
Most people will take the path of least resistance when it is offered to them.
That's why spooks make sure it is there and lead the way.

When someone touts the US government's own NIST as a source then they either
>don't know much about the mil-intel-media complex OR
>are cowering in the sanctioned cover story lest they get tarred as a 'conspiracy theorist' OR
>they are just liars.

I think the recent uptick in efforts to tsk-tsk the 9/11 truthers as problem children is a transparent spook attempt to make it harder for the not-so-brave to side with the MIHOP story that the proven controlled demolition mandates.

Just LIHOP was relatively safe to allow to float around because
>it didn't displace the incompetence cover story very much AND
>it kept the 'blow back' main motive for the crime perfectly in place.

But controlled demolition being proven ups the stakes too much to allow to spread.
This truth gives the whole game away, the crime and the psy-ops cover-up mechanism that is the USG's secret weapon for running the country to conquer the world.

And there are people who early in the 9/11 truth movement thought there wasn't enough physical evidence to go on (they were wrong) and now can't bring themselves to look at it and realize the PROOF is there right in front of their faces.

The kerfuffle over the Pentagon impact site has definitely contaminated the absolute certainty that is due the WTC's controlled demolition.

I recently emailed the guy who runs OilEmpire.us, Mark Robinowitz, to offer a minor correction and I also lobbied for an update on his out-of-date 9/11 physical evidence section of his otherewise excellent site.

Smart guy but he wrote that even though he'd seen Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (Jones and Ryan and Gage etc.) he wouldn't budge on advising not pushing physical evidence (!) which is more of a 2004 attitude before
>thermate was discovered and
>Conservation of Momentum was remembered and
>a court finally released the first responder's oral histories in August 2005.

That was all in 2005!
And that's when LIHOP became outdated and MIHOP was the new baseline for 9/11 Truth, almost three years ago.

But Robinowitz's site seems to be very 2004 with lots of Jeff Wells from 2004 and very early 2005 and posts from Rigorous Intuition comments included. (cool!)

Except we are way past the 2004 9/11 Truth movement.
And Jeff Wells hasn't evolved to recognize what BLOWING UP a fekkin' building looks like or the other multiple certain evidences for it, either!

Robinowitz also heavily cites the investigative reasoning of Mike Ruppert who did so much good early work on 9/11 that ended up in 'Crossing the Rubicon.'

Unfortunately, Mike Ruppert at first (2001) encouraged people to ignore physical evidence as a waste of time and then a few years later Ruppert wrote a big mea culpa admitting he was totally wrong about this and physical evidence was a solid case for the inside job.

Only because I know how predisposed people can be to not see the obvious do I understand how people could look at the photos and evidence of the WTC being blown to hell...and still not get it.

But they are stuck behind a mental block against something as proven as can be.
Eventually the smoke between their ears will clear and they will SEE it as factual instead of falling for scorn parties about those 'silly insistent truthers' just as the spooks want.

The spooks are horrified to realize that every single picture and video of the WTC coming down is a Zapruder film of proof and are counting on being able to inflame discrediting focus on the messengers who already know this.

So we're to believe this is a "pancake collapse"...the WTC was 209 feet across...

DrVolin wrote:For most people, CD is an extraordinary claim. It challenges too many other parts of their "knowledge". Claims that are far outside the ordinary require stronger evidence than less surprising claims. If that stronger evidence is available, it can lead to a complete change in thought systems. In the case of CD, the evidence is not just strong enough to bridge the distance between expectations and truth. The result is that those who hang on to CD are labeled zealots or nutcases, and everything else they may say is thought to be equally nutty.

The CD debate is probably the most powerful cultural vaccine ever designed. It inoculates the general population against the entire 9/11 truth knowledge complex. The second most powerful is probably the no plane at the pentagon vaccine.

Um, no. For most people, watching WTC-7's obvious implosion at free fall speed is the best cure for cognitive dissonance. That's just how things are in today's MTV world. You can describe the US military raping kids, but without a 30 second video or some still pictures of if it, nobody really gives a fuck.

The evidence that the official story is a complete load of crap is overwhelming: http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 338#199356

What most intelligent people need to comes to grips with this is nothing more than a starting point, something that puts a chink in their cognitive dissonance armor. The free fall implosion of WTC-7 is the most effective starting point because it is short, it is on video, it was suppressed by the 9/11 Commission and it has been completely suppressed by the corporate media.

Um, no. For most people, watching WTC-7's obvious implosion at free fall speed is the best cure for cognitive dissonance.

Cure!? Do you even know what the term means? Something like that would be a cause of cognitive dissonance. If you must use internet debate buzzwords at least get the meaning right.


Hmmm.... post quoting relatively moderate criticism of 'truthers' followed by 4 pages of people falling over each other to see who can be the biggest self-parody of the attitudes the article is complaining about, drifting off topic eventually into posting 9/11 photos and yelling DUUR WTC CD LOOK AT PITCURE!! LOL SHEEPLE

I'm starting to see a pattern forming...

DrVolin wrote:
For most people, CD is an extraordinary claim. It challenges too many other parts of their "knowledge". Claims that are far outside the ordinary require stronger evidence than less surprising claims. If that stronger evidence is available, it can lead to a complete change in thought systems. In the case of CD, the evidence is not just strong enough to bridge the distance between expectations and truth.

The stronger evidence for this "surprising claim" exists. Lots and lots of it.

Here's architect Richard Gage's powerpoint presentation with 438 slides with the whole shebang so you can play 9/11 truth at home-
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/index.php

I'm just going though it now myself.

Besides the months of flowing molten metal (denied by NIST) under the three demolished WTC buildings which spells out THERMITE(along with metallurgical analysis and the temperature-color proof of molten metal pouring out of the WTC just before coming down), I just ran across slides 126 and 127.

The gel used to hold the thermite in place was also found.

slide 126-

But sol-gels to hold the thermite would leave tell-tale residue, 1,3- diphenylpropane (1,3, DPP)...

"Pore size effects in the pyrolysis of 1, 3-dyphenylpropane confined in mesoporous silicas"

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/jounals/C ... i=b310405b

(research by chemist Kevin Ryan)

slide 127-

EPA analysis of the WTC dust showed:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Eric Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others":
"1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any other sampling we've done," Swartz said."

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-h ... right-area

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xlmreport.di ... _chk=65088

And be sure to look at the metallurgical analyis of unexploded thermite chips in slides 139-143.
A perfect match.

Well, gooooolly, sarge!

sunny wrote:Why are people like Rovics so interested in debunking the truthers? I agree they can be annoyingly fanatical, but not all truthers are saying holograms were used at the WTC and other similarly stupid fluff. And not all truthers can be relegated to the depths with Art Bell. Why won't Rovics and his fellow skeptics debate the truthers and see what shakes out instead of continually trying to discredit them? T Some questions can be answered, some cannot, and some, like CD, should be up for debate.

Man, you put me on a stage or radio show with ANY "debunker" liberal, conservative or apolitical and I will obliterate them within minutes.

Because I would talk about the real proven stuff involving the hijackers: charity terror fronts, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, FBI informants, Dubai, people who were helping the hijackers, Able Danger, etc.

The debunkers LOVE the focus on physical anomalies and truly out there theories because they CANT debate real facts. They cant handle ANYTHING outside of the generic "inside job vs incompetence" debate.

If I were to say 9/11 was the work of transnational corporate and globalist state interests, they wouldnt know what to say

AL QAEDA IS NOT INDEPENDENT, as the dodo brained liberals or republinuts believe.


This:

Without having had access to more rational ways of understanding their place in the world and the complexities of society, current events, history and power structures, they have found some kind of lens through which they can try to understand the world.

is so incredibly insulting I have no idea where to begin. Rovics thinks his faithful reading of Chomsky, who steadfastly refuses to even consider a conspiracy in the JFK killing, annoints him with the sort of understanding truthers are incapable of. Gah. And of course truthers are all "faith based" babes in the woods who have the temerity to question why Amy Goodman, who has otherwise dones excellent work, has thus far refused to address the core questions of the conspiracy advocates.


In addition, Rovics sneers at canards that really aren't:

that the cell phone conversations passengers had with their loved ones before they died were faked,

Well now, why doesn't he know that during the Mousaui trial it came out that Ted Olsen had no record of calls from his wife to his cell, nor were there any records of her calling from the plane?

"Those people" and their "unswerving certainties".

King_Mob wrote: Let me make one last point. I am in no way trying to marginalize any of the other extremely important aspects of 9/11 truth, such as the connection between Al-Qaeda and Intelligence, NORAD war games, the testamony of Sibel Edmonds, the possible connection between Atta and Heroin trafficking, AA Put Options, Stand down orders, "Angel is Next", etc. All of these are very important pieces of the puzzle, and anyone who is serious about researching 9/11 must investigate these in order to fully connect the dots. However, these claims are encroaching on, if not fully steeped in, "conspiracy" territory.

No...actually the FACT that every single hijacker were sent to flight schools from Saudi corporations, Saudi intelligence, had FBI informants and CIA assets every step of the way, had the backbone of CIA al Qaeda Bosnian networks...the fact NORAD had false inject blips of fake hijackings leading fighter jets in the wrong direction, and spoofing flight 93 on FAA radar...

these are all proven. Ptech, Yassin al Qadi, Riggs Bank, Mossad white van cells, FBI informants, Pakistani ISI, Saudi elite, Dubai banks, etc. Its all provable.

I believe the towers were sabotaged, but putting all the focus on that isnt going to win in a court of law. Look at JFK and MLK, these conspiracies are proven through connections not merely physical anomalies

§ê¢rꆧ wrote: This article provides no evidence or support of the arguement that 911 was perpetrated by OBL and suicidal muslim fanatics. So, *yawn* I think David Rovics will catch on that there is a lot more than meets the eye to 911 Truth (and I'm not just talking about CD) eventually, even if a couple of his performances are interrupted.

Or maybe, the scary truth is that OBL and al Qaeda are the brainwashed *willing* proxies of the deep state? The same deep corporate state that kidnaps children, peddles drugs, and rapes the enviroment? I believe so

AlanStrangis wrote:
On the other hand his title "9/11 Truth Movement vs. 9/11 Truth" spent all it's time kvetching about 'truthers' and precious little about what he thinks IS 9/11 truth, beyond some variation of 'blowback', which I suspect isn't anywhere close to the truth.

I think that there are people on both sides of the debate to blame.

I have an enormously difficult time respecting the opinion of socalled "anti war liberals" who think 9/11 was all done by muslim fanatics, and was merely blowback and incompetence. Ive been ridiculed by so called "Anti Bush" lefty youth who should be on the same page, and its shown what a brainwashed mass of gelatanous cooption the American liberal paradigm has become.

Yeah how come NONE of the people who lamblast 9/11 Truthers offer what THEY believe happened?

I believe each hijacker was specially sponsored through the Bosnian conflict vis-a-vis intelligence agencies and corporations worldwide, and that measures were put into place to ensure the planes hit and towers fell.
I believe this 100% after several years of meticulous research...
reading Ghost Wars, CooperativeResearch and the Terror Timeline, doing exhaustive research through endless mainstream articles and obscure
news items.

There's such a RICH woven tapestry of intrigue, that Daniel Hopsicker has barely begun to scratch...a REAL story that is more frightening and mindblowing than anything posited in "Loose Change". Yet NOONE wants to talk about it

Ptech. Ali Mohamed. Melvin Lattimore. WAMY. Yassin al Qadi. Infocom.
Yuzid Sufaat. John O'neil. Anwar Aluqi. Omar Saeed. Luai Sakkra.
Rocky Hammad, etc.

The list goes on of what CAN be proven in relation to the 9/11 story.

Jeff wrote:I think the point is being missed here by some.

Rovics' Reichstag Fire was something of a 'LIHOP' anthem. But since the "Truth Movement" has moved so far beyond let-it-happen-on-purpose that it's now regarded as virtually the moral equivalent of "official story," he finds the current state of 9/11 Truth thoroughly alienating and demoralizing.

And yeah. Me too.

Well why does it have to be 2001-2004 era LIHOP versus loose change bullhorning INSIDE JOB!!! ?

I've exhaustively been able to show 9/11 was a NWO job, and that al Qaeda do the bidding of elite corporate masters. This falls outside the incompetence, lihop and "US did it" meme.

Rovics might have some similar reservations about modern truthdom, but he's way off base by saying 9/11 isnt a provable conspiracy

orz wrote:

Um, no. For most people, watching WTC-7's obvious implosion at free fall speed is the best cure for cognitive dissonance.

Cure!? Do you even know what the term means? Something like that would be a cause of cognitive dissonance. If you must use internet debate buzzwords at least get the meaning right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. ...

Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957).

The introduction of a new cognition (9/11 was an inside job) that is dissonant with a currently held cognition (Big Brother is protecting me against the official conspiracy theory) creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance (through the evidence watching of WTC-7 obviously implode) reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved (Big Brother is protecting me against the official conspiracy theory), that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.

This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance (JREF forums and posts by orz & nomo) and avoid information that will increase dissonance (the entire 9/11 time line). People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.

Apology accepted.

Why do so many people believe in a God, devil, UFOs and the paranormal/Fortean...

yet these same people believe the war in Afghanistan is just, and 9/11 was merely the work of independent Muslim fanatics from a cave?

This paradox does not compute in my little mind.

Nordic wrote:
The way I like to look at it is this: Why are people SOOO emotionally attached to what they think happened that day? Because that's what it boils down to. Emotions.

Which to me proves what an incredibly successful PSYOPS it was. People get downright ANGRY when you question the official story. People WANT to believe that, after going through that shock and awe, and the mourning and the revenge fantasies, they do NOT want to have the world they constructed from that messed with.

The best analogy I've ever come up with is the Santa Clause one. It's funny that Rovics (or whatever his stupid name was) mentions Santa Clause. Because trying to tell someone who believes the official story the facts of the situation -- facts that will dispute their deeply held believe -- is like trying to tell a 6 year old that Santa Clause doesn't exist. They get upset.

And I remember when I made the realization (which was long before I gave CD any credence, BTW) that it was something other than a "terrorist" attack -- the only thing in my life that compares to it is the moment when I realized that Santa Clause was the same kind of lie. A lie we all believed. A lie that people I trusted had told me.

Absolutely. I mean my God, my God, my God. The FACT that you can go to ANY "liberal" rally or group, and MOST will say they believe evil Islamic militants alone did 9/11 and the government was merely incompetent
PROVES how effective 9/11 was

It was a kind of mind control spell, from which the liberals might never wake...til September 11th, the left in America was ON FIRE with the Bush stolen election and IMF-World Bank-WTO stuff. Then 9/11 hit, and bye bye testicles. Go to sleep, little Chomsky.

People want so desperately to believe the official 9/11 story, they want to believe Bush is bad but that he's right about Afghanistan and evil Muslims posing the biggest threat of all.

Thats why many believe JFK was an inside job...that one is "Safe" to believe, from another time.

DrVolin wrote:
This is really a very beautiful operation. It is one of the rare cases I know of, in which a probably true fact is used as a red herring! What allows this to happen? A too high degree of uncertainty about the event. Yes, I think it was probably some kind of CD, but all the available lines of evidence so far leave too much uncertainty to demonstrate it.

For most people, CD is an extraordinary claim. It challenges too many other parts of their "knowledge". Claims that are far outside the ordinary require stronger evidence than less surprising claims. If that stronger evidence is available, it can lead to a complete change in thought systems. In the case of CD, the evidence is not just strong enough to bridge the distance between expectations and truth. The result is that those who hang on to CD are labeled zealots or nutcases, and everything else they may say is thought to be equally nutty.

The CD debate is probably the most powerful cultural vaccine ever designed. It inoculates the general population against the entire 9/11 truth knowledge complex. The second most powerful is probably the no plane at the pentagon vaccine.

thats why the destruction of the towers was BRILLIANT. It was done in a way that would seem normal to most scientists. It was done in a way that NO evidence would turn up at fresh kills landful in NJ. It was done in a way that NOONE will figure out...or hasnt yet. No space beams, no actual controlled demolition...no "mini nukes". It was beautiful, and I dont mean that in a disrespecting manner

DrVolin wrote: The events of the day are a worthy object of study. So are the events that led up to the day. In the current state of the evidence, I will argue that we will be more successful if we present a strong case based on the lead-up to 9/11 than if we concentrate on the collapses themselves. Until, of course, clear evidence emerges that there was CD. But that may never happen. Or, the only strong evidence may in fact emerge not from the carted-away ruins of the WTC, but from research on the decades long preparation for the operation.

The LEAD UP to 9/11, from 1979 til 2001 is the most fascinating thing next to studying ancient sea life and hidden patterns in all living things and geometry in my view.

I mean if people would listen, I can pretty much spell out the provable prima facie road of how 9/11 was truly carried out. But too often I get yelled at by the people who think al Qaeda doesnt exist, or the left who think that questioning Islamic terrorism as an independent group is heresy.

The REAL interesting and mindblowing information about 9/11 is not just the day itself, but the careful lead up. People parrot this David Ray Griffin, Loose change stuff that leads NOWHERE. Even the Japanese MP "investigating" 9/11 has been fooled.

DrVolin wrote: What we need is a true History of 9/11.

EXACTLY. Ive been saying this for years. And I believe I have come up with the closest thing, even tho it dismays many in the Loose Change truth paradigm, the "Cheney did 9/11" and the incompetent/blowback/lihop crowd.

Hammer of Los wrote:I believe most here, and the folk here are terribly discerning, by and large, do realise this, just as they realise that those three buildings could not have collapsed in the manner observed as a result of airplane or debris impacts, and fires alone. To me, having read a lot of stuff on it, it seems very plain. And no, I don't think they used dynamite, so perhaps the term "controlled demolition" is a little misleading. Whatever was used, it was certainly not the sort of bog standard explosives and equipment that demolition firms typically use. I daresay the black ops specialists and their fellow travellers in the hideously technically advanced world of the US mil/ind complex have access to stuff a wee bit more impressive.

Bingo. I have ZERO doubt military shape chargers were used in the Oklahoma City bombing. No doubt at all. And while I dont believe in the controlled demolition meme, I do believe the towers were brought down with means other than the fires alone. Anyone who plays mental gymnastics to parrot the pancakian NIST proclamations are just as lost as those who think focusing all on "CD" is the way to go.

Those towers WERE brought down. Hell the ISI knew this was going to be done. Aint no secret. But the elite are master illusionists...the pledge, the turn...and the prestiege. I wont speculate on HOW the towers were fallen...but lets get real, those towers HAD to come down, and there HAD to be an insurance that they would. 9/11 was too big an operation for chance, flight 93 not withstanding.

Hammer of Los wrote: I think left-liberal, progressive, anti-globalist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist activists who, for whatever reason, are incapable of endorsing the truth of 911 inside job, feel that their thunder is being stolen by 911 truth activists. Maybe they don't like the competition.

Spot on. They talk about evil Bush, evil oil corporations, etc...yet cant see the giant elephant in the room. Its maddening. EVERY anti war activist should be on board 9/11 Truth. Otherwise, I see them as right wing light

MOST American liberals believe 9/11 was incompetence/blowback, done by independent Muslim terrorists

They believe that Afghanistan is a JUST cause, and Obama is right to be threatening Pakistan

They believe in the SAME Islamic boogeyman bullshit as the right peddles

YET, Im bashed by the left for pointing out their hypocracy. Im all about exposing Halliburton, Blackwater, Monsantos, WTO, IMF, World Bank, School of Americas, etc

But I see how 9/11 is the crowning achievement of the global elite behind everything else. Any liberal who calls someone a conspiracy theorist should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

Man, you put me on a stage or radio show with ANY "debunker" liberal, conservative or apolitical and I will obliterate them within minutes.

And yet, whenever I have asked you, or seen anyone else ask you, to produce any kind of evidence at all for the story you know so thoroughly, you never ever reply.

I do not think there is anything close to enough persuasive evidence to attribute the world-moving events of the last decade solely, or even primarily, to esoteric ritual. I do not deny that esoteric ritual practices by the powerful occur. Nor do I assert it. It strikes me as likely. But why they engage in these practices, assuming they do, and what they have attained by them is something that I see no clear and definitive case for at all. None. However, you do. To you it is clear that it's all to attain esoteric superpowers in league with Satan. To then do what, you may have said, but I don't recall, so please refresh my memory.

Also, please obliterate me. Give it your all.[/quote]

compared2what? wrote:
And yet, whenever I have asked you, or seen anyone else ask you, to produce any kind of evidence at all for the story you know so thoroughly, you never ever reply.

I do not think there is anything close to enough persuasive evidence to attribute the world-moving events of the last decade solely, or even primarily, to esoteric ritual. I do not deny that esoteric ritual practices by the powerful occur. Nor do I assert it. It strikes me as likely. But why they engage in these practices, assuming they do, and what they have attained by them is something that I see no clear and definitive case for at all. None. However, you do. To you it is clear that it's all to attain esoteric superpowers in league with Satan. To then do what, you may have said, but I don't recall, so please refresh my memory.

Also, please obliterate me. Give it your all.

While yes, that is my belief...I am not bringing my Fortean belief of the world/world events to this thread.

Im talking about the proven 1979-2001 post BCCI networks that spanned from Afghanistan to Sudan to Bosnia and worldwide, dovetailing with world intelligence, corporations, and multi layered interests.

What is it that I assert, within this line of inquiry, do you take issue with?

Are you of the belief that Osama is completely innocent, no such thing as al Qaeda, 9/11 was merely a US inside job?

Hi All,
Reading this thread is kind of sad. I feel like when we were in homeroom we all agreed to play a game at recess. Now, it is recess, the clock is ticking and we are all arguing over which game to play. Some have kickballs, some have wiffleball bats, some have jump ropes.

Meanwhile the clock is still ticking.

Why don’t we first have a common reference point for a discussion, and then proceed? We can always have another discussion with another reference point later on.

Does anyone have any real complaints about the following author and his books?








Mr. Scott is a poet; perhaps one of us could email Mr. Rovics and ask him what he thinks of Mr. Scott’s body of work.