"Make no mistake, the 9/11 truth movement holds the future of the United States."

Right, but only if it involves a significant increase in the use of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety prescriptions.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:47:38 PM

  (0+)

I agree that the particular sentence ("Make no mistake...") you picked out of Joel's article is hyperbolic. // But let's assume for a moment that 9/11 happened just as the official version claims it did. The position of the Bush administration -- essentially unchallenged by either the Democratic Party or the MSM -- is that 9/11 requires placing the US in a state of permanent war. This war has already lasted 6 years, has no end in sight, involves gargantuan budget expenditures, and has made the US an open practitioner of torture & arbitrary detentions & spying on its own citizens. In many ways (both in expense & in the abrogation of Constitutional protections), this war has led to measures which are more extreme than those taken during the Cold War -- where the enemy at least was a recognizable country, with a formidable military.

In other words, due to the actions of 19 guys on one particular September morning, the entire history of the United States (and, some might say, the "personality" of the US) has undergone a drastic shift, which in some important ways is even more extreme than the US response to the supposed threat of Soviet Communism.

When one compares the proportionality of threat & response, in both of those cases, it's hard to avoid the feeling that the "War on Terror" is a grotesque over-response. In view of that, which position do you think relies more heavily on "anti-anxiety prescriptions" (in other words, on blatant and absurd fear-mongering):  Joel's claim that the future of the US will be determined by the 9/11 Truth Movement, or the Bush administration using 9/11 to launch American society into a state of permanent war, with the attendant mass casualties, military occupations, expenditures, & damage to democratic institutions?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 5:47:48 PM

  (0+)

Regardless of whether the 9-11 Truther/conspiracy theorist is correct or not they are doing an excellent job of making it extremely difficult for neocons to run black flag operations where further disasters or stagged events are blamed on political enemies. 

I haven't spent the time to check out the supposedly scientific and engineering arguments made by 9-11 Truthers because largely, politically, they don't actually matter in the largest frame.

The real serious crime in human terms was the invasion of Iraq (against the UN Charter) and the only satisfactory remedy for such a conspicuous injustice against not just Iraq but the rest of the world that want a rule of law and the possibility of international peace and security is impeachment. 

If I ever come across a particularly eloquent 9-11 Truther with a sufficiently short and compelling case then I will take the time to hear him or her out. Perhaps if he or she could show that WT7 was brought down by a controlled charge I might be inclined to treat the notion that 9-11 was an inside job more seriously and to reconsider my view that the Bush administration isn't competent enough to pull off such an inside job.  But really it doesn't ultimately matter so long as the 9-11ers make it impossible politically for the neocons to black flag then the actual way forward (whether 9-11 was an inside job or not) is for the rule of law to be demonstrated and that can't be done credibly with anything less than impeachment.  It isn't necessary to impeach Bush for 9-11 even if he did have a hand in it which I doubt so long as he is impeached for what he did have Presidential responsibility for - giving the order to invade Iraq and/or torture against both domestic and international law. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 7:50:58 PM

  (0+)

"When one compares the proportionality of threat & response, in both of those cases, it's hard to avoid the feeling that the "War on Terror" is a grotesque over-response."

When I review the tenacity of the enemy and his waging a holy war for almost 25 years (i.e., the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut), I think six years is a cake walk. Unless you've accepted an increased risk that condones the future killing of Americans a la 9/11 style, your argument of threat and response becomes moot.

Of course, some woud argue that you have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet. But will you choose which eggs to break or which Americans should die as a result of terrorist action against U.S. interests? I didn't think so...

Whether you choose to accept it as a threat or not, they declared war on us – twice even. In light of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath and if someone declares war on you, believe him. To not act appropriately in the common defense of the People is irresponsible and an abdication of the Constitution's principles.

President Bush will have left office by the end of January 2008. Can you say the same about Osama...? Again, I didn't think so

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:31:37 PM

  (0+)

US actions in the Middle East had harmed the lives of large numbers of Muslims. We overthrew the democratically-elected Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, & imposed the Shah's brutal dictatorship on the Iranian people for the next 26 years. We propped up the Saudi Royal Family since the FDR days. We helped Israel suppress Palestinian aspirations since 1967. Before 9-11, we probably killed a million or so Iraqis via sanctions & the '91 war. We have huge military bases in the Gulf sheikdoms. Together with the Brits, we screwed Iran & Iraq out of immense sums of oil profits for many decades. And this is hardly a complete list.

Based on such things, is it fair to portray as "unprovoked terrorist outrages" such blows against our Empire as the incidents you cite? Our hands have plenty of blood on them -- far more blood than Osama has. And we struck first -- long before he did.

You write that "To not act appropriately in the common defense of the People is irresponsible and an abdication of the Constitution's principles." Two problems with this.

-First, where does it say in the Constitution that we're supposed to maintain a world-wide empire with military bases in 130 or so countries, overthrowing governments left & right simply because they wouldn't take orders from us? Several of our Founding Fathers specifically warned us against "foreign entanglements."

-Second, in what sense is the War on Terror a "defense of the People"? By further enraging the world, & trying to dominate the Middle East by military force, isn't it inevitable that we will produce yet more enemies, much faster than we can kill them? By arrogantly thumbing our noses at international law, we are destabilizing the global order. If Iran is attacked, for example, there is a risk of Russia, China or Pakistan (all armed with nukes) being drawn in, with possibly terrible consequences for civilians in Iran, in the US, Israel, or elsewhere. // With such "defense of the People", as the saying goes, one hardly needs enemies.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:20:07 AM

  (0+)

Who is this country of "They"? Al Qaeda? But who are they, these nameless, faceless Jihadists that the CIA helped to organize in the 80's, that our "ally" Pakistan may be supporting clandestinely to this day? Are they the 1,000,000,000 plus Moslems on the planet who must be secretly on the verge of invading us anyday, to hear Right-Wing hate-mongers preach and who want nothing more than a Holy War to annihilate a mythical enemy, or the actual several thousand scattered militants across the globe with meager resources and no army, no navy, no air force?

Which bin Laden declared war on us? The one who said in several missives to the public in 2001, and who might be dead, that he had nothing to do with 9/11, or the one in the great "Confession Tape" that is riddled with inconsistencies, or the Grecian Formula version in the most recent tape who looks so little like the original bin Laden that the media has to make excuses for his strangely youthful appearance?

America's "enemy" is more a projection from the heads of those who live in duality and hostility. They crave violence, pray for violence and find temporary solace in violence. They aren't defending America. They are slaughtering the innocent by the thousands for racism, religious intolerance, vanity, hurbris and other base instincts. With this mindset, America will never run out of enemies, and will never stop slaughtering, that is until the consequences of all this mass murder take root.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:09:20 AM

  (0+)

They, as defined by them:

"Praise be to Allah, saying: {You are the best of the nations raised up for -the benefit of - men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah} (Aal-Imraan; 3:110). Allah's blessing and salutations on His slave and messenger who said: (The people are close to an all encompassing punishment from Allah if they see the oppressor and fail to restrain him.)

"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

"The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world."

"Us" as defined by them:

"We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu." - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html 

I'm certain that Osama and others like him are really swell people - people of quality and substance that are interested in prose and fashion like Hot Couture.  But Lordy, I wouldn't want one living next to me!  The frequent use of chanted shouts, incessant video tapping, and random rifle fire are much to uncouth for my liking.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:18:59 AM

  (0+)

how Tom doesn't address the crimes against other nations committed by Republocrat administrations? He claims to be upset over the attacks on US soil- and implicitly denies that Peoples of other nations are justified feeling the same way, when the US military-industrial complex and their Republocrat toadies do worse things- does he think the "family jewels" documents released by the CIA are lies, and these things didn't happen?

We have not been told the whole story about 9/11, as even Kean and Hamilton have acknowledged- the extent of bin Laden's involvement, and who he really is- bin Laden may be just a patsy- or he may be consciously in the employ of the CIA- perhaps he thinks he has moles in the CIA that opened the doors for the attacks to succeed. That he pointed to the intelligence agencies in his 2nd message after 9/11 (which the AP didn't include in their recent list of bin Laden messages since 9/11) makes me think he was unaware he'd been co-opted, but we don't have all the facts or all the answers- a full criminal investigation or Truth and Reconciliation Commission is needed. What is clear is that the attacks couldn't have succeeded w/o inside help- supervisors at the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, DoD, DoJ, NORAD frustrated standard procedures and obstructed investigations, controlled demolition of 1, 2 and 7, insider trading- and the Commission didn't name the "institutional investor" with "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda", but we do know the trades were made thru CIA Director Buzzy Krongard's Deutsch Bank 

cooperativeresearch.org 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:52:46 AM

  (0+)

belief system underlying US attempts to rule the planet (aka "conservatives").

Tom is very clever & energetic, as others have commented. He's got some real flair as a writer. But when asked to examine the historical evidence of US wrongdoing in the world, he'll evade the issue every time (often opting instead for a cute quip).

This is a basic principle of our state religion of "Americanism" -- all actions committed against the US are automatically defined as "unprovoked terrorist outrages." All actions taken by the US government -- no matter how harmful to other peoples -- are automatically defined as "seeking to do good," or merely "protecting our own interests." When you see the world this way, it's never possible, even in principle, to see a violent action against us as actually being provoked by our own violence against others. The belief system just won't permit that thought to be considered. It's "heresy."

One of the most revealing stupidities of Bush was the famous "They hate us for our freedoms" remark, a few days after 9-11. This was the ultimate expression of our state religion -- an absolute refusal to acknowledge that, even in principle, others might hate us not because we're so wonderful -- but because we did terrible things to them.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:49:43 PM

  (0+)

They defined by them and us defined by them still doesn't answer who "them" is, other than they hang out (or hung out) with bin Laden. If al Qaeda is meant, then they are still largely nameless, faceless, scattered throughout the globe, not unlike, perhaps, the Red Brigades and their clones in Europe decades ago, who were effectively shut down by international police and intelligence cooperation.

Without 9/11, al Qaeda could never have been morphed into an existential threat to all of humanity with magical-like powers. At that point an archetype replaced reality in our thinking, bin Laden became the Grand Vizier from Alladin and Moslems became evil minions of the Dark One, at least in Fundamentalist Christian Circles, whom it seems, have never gotten over the failure of the Crusades (although they weren't actually in on it, the Catholics and Byzantines were).

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:00:12 PM

  (0+)

"...Tom doesn't address the crimes against other nations committed by Republocrat administrations... He claims to be upset over the attacks on US soil- and implicitly denies that Peoples of other nations are justified feeling the same way, when the US military-industrial complex and their Republocrat toadies do worse things..."

I will readily admit that I believe each nation should conduct its own foreign policy and not turn this policy over to an international organization. As well-intentioned as the U.N. may (or may not) be, I don't think for a moment they know what's best for someone from Peoria, Illinois. As a result, each nation must act accordingly in order to secure its national security.

For it's in securing America's national security that we ensure the preservation of our domestic policy. This is the same domestic policy that espouses our belief that all men are bestowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is both a collective and individual term that implies an inherent progression meant to culminate in contentment.

I describe contentment as not a static goal but a dynamic one because of its need for progression – the action or process of moving forward toward a particular goal. But with this progression, we can never achieve perfection (because of our humanity) but should act in a manner to "maximize the good" associated with our actions. This results in a policy that support the idea of "self-improvement", as the means to better position the common good of America before the common good of other societies – each nation must act to secure their own national security (i.e., it's naïve to think that someone else will act on your behalf at cost to them to secure your future without such an action preserving their survival).

Others have called this a "dog eat dog world".

Regardless of what it's called, the important point is that it's reality, harsh though it may be. Although the U.N. exists, it very rarely (if ever) acts in a truly multilateral manner. Each nation is jockeying to better its position and standing amongst the others. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, though, because it's reflective of basic human nature. Now it's just pooled into the collective "society".

Therefore and with this mindset, American foreign policy at its core should not seek to be benevolent toward other nations because it has its own self-preservation as its focus. This self-preservation realizes itself in the continued perfection of its own political systems of government that's designed to ensure American's contentment. However, the moderation inherent in such a focus makes American foreign policy appear as being benevolent. This is decidedly true when juxtaposed against the type of imperialism that is exploitive of others, which unnecessarily extends its focus onto those societies.

This benevolence is even more apparent in the alliances America makes with other nations. In entering into an alliance, America should act to ensure its continued survival. But each nation enters into the alliance for the benefit of ensuring (solely) its own preservation. It's through such alliances, though, that the enemies of America's allies become America's enemies and result in American actions – covert and overt – being conducted outside its own borders.

Consequently, it becomes obvious that it's in America's best interest to stop nations that sponsor and/or aid murderous acts against America, its citizens and interests abroad, and its allies. I this appears to be overly selfish, remember that other nations are acting in a similar manner.

In summary, I AM upset over the attacks on U.S. soil, as should be all Americans. A body of nation-less people determined that it wasn't in their political self-interest but instead their religious self-interests to attack America. This represents an entirely new threat to the survival of America; one which we have not faced previously.

And for record, the alleged crimes you profess were not committed by Republocrat administrations; those actions are conducted by Americans – you and I included – as a means of ensuring our survival that will continue to perfect the happiness or contentment of all Americans.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 2:50:16 PM

  (0+)

(or attempted overthrow) of more than 50 governments since WWII have been conducted by "(all) Americans," rather than by Republicrat administrations? Many of the actions were covert, or were scarcely even mentioned by the US media. Thus, most Americans never even knew these actions were being undertaken by our government. And even if they did have some hazy knowledge of what was being done, the official story was invariably filtered, & presented as though "we" were the good guys -- regardless of whether we were, or not.

Specifically, how did the CIA coups in Iran ('53) and Chile ('73) and Guatemala ('54) etc etc "ensure our survival" or contribute to the "happiness or contentment of all Americans"? How about our murdering several million Vietnamese, most of whom were innocent peasants? What threat did those peasants pose to the well-being of the American people?

If we happened to make anyone angry, while murdering those millions of people, overthrowing democratically-elected governments & subjecting them to brutal dictatorships -- and finally some of those people struck back at us, is their striking back really "unprovoked terrorism"? It makes people angry when you kill their families, support death squads, & install dictatorships in their countries. You do understand that, don't you?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 4:03:11 PM

  (0+)

The architects of 9/11, whether or not al Qaeda were their patsies or not, anticipated and got the very reaction you had, multiplied by millions of Americans. Totally pissed off, already inclined to think the worst about Moslems and Islam after years of sterotypes, you were ready to strike out against enemies, real and perceived. The horrific nature of 9/11 heightened the fear and paranoia. And then the great guilt by assocation game began. Saddam=al Qaeda, Saddam=WMD. The real agenda surfaces. Suddenly we are invading a country a world away from Afghanistan, slaughtering thousands, tearing a whole country apart, thinking up excuses all the way.

The Vikings used to call this a Beserker Rage, mindlessly rampaging through  humans with a big broadsword. So after 9/11, America, feeling impotent and humiliated, goes on a Beserker Rage, which is about as irrational a response to a terrorist act as you can get. Six years later all of our problems are compounded greatly. Everything, just about, has been counterproductive with untold human suffering left in the wake. We are bankrupting the country, decimating the military, with many more enemies than before we started, with a Cold War between us and Russia on the verge of renewal. Not very smart.

You cannot vanquish hatred with hatred. You only fuel more hatred. Hatred has shaped and underscored our entire foreign policy since 9/11.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 4:13:19 PM

  (0+)

"I will readily admit that I believe each nation should conduct its own foreign policy and not turn this policy over to an international organization."

Such a belief, widely held, would make international peace and security impossible. It would make international cooperation on international problems such as climate or environmental problems impossible.  

No free person and no free nation is obliged to make contracts with other nations and persons but when such contracts are willingly entered into by free parties rationally choosing to cooperate rather than to conflict or to compete then the net freedoms enjoyed by all, even by the strongest are greater.  No person or nation is obliged to give its word of honor to any new proposition but once a person or nation has given their word then breaking that promise, quite naturally, has consequences for that person or nations reputation and standing with others.

What I suspect that you don't really get Tom is that only the strong can make peace and can make contracts that increase freedom.  The weak don't have an option to make a proposal to the strong. What I suspect  you don't get is that the same principles, respect for the rule of law, upholding oaths and promises made, are important at all levels of human society larger than a village. You can't have a nation without a Constitution as a contract to hold it together. And you can't hold together even such a national construct as the United States when those entrusted by the other contracting parties to that national contract (the citizen voters) stop trusting the word of their representatives.  With too much distrust arising from the observation of to many defaults the social contracts break and then you discover that human rights don't come from a supernatural source (and are not underwritten by a supernatural source) rather human rights arise only and always from the assumption of human responsibility which underwrites those rights. 

If you as a person, or as a nation Tom, claim amidst either other persons or other nations, a supernaturally derived right to be reckless and irresponsible in an environment shared with other humans, then other humans familiar with such claims from long historical experience, will dispassionately or passionately show you that your claimed rights don't exist.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:16:08 PM

  (0+)

you've gotten a reputation among OpEdNews visitors with your 331 comments in 11 weeks, sarcasm and ad hominem attacks- and your sometimes insightful deconstruction of poster's arguments- but we're still awaiting your diary explaining how the 9/11 attacks were accomplished exclusively by Al Qaeda- you post in a comments section awhile back didn't cover a lot of important points, which would be listed in comments following a diary you post.

Unless you know better and are lying about your intentions, you seem to believe there's "plausible deniability" of the evidence that people in our govt knew the attacks were coming and let them happen or helped them succeed, and that that's enough to dismiss people's questions out of hand.

Your diary should address the evidence presented here:

War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed

Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert-  

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 6:18:59 PM

  (0+)

Tom, you amaze me!  Where do you find the time to answer and refute (with eloquence and sustained energy) the tremendous barrage of "questions" that come to the minds of the U.S. citizenry?  Are you a paid, professional "debunker"?  I mean, you actually took your valuable time to refute my simplistic "tree" illustration just below on the right hand side column of OpEdNews -- George Washington: They Don't Believe It: Why Do You? (10 comments as of 9:45pm EST 12/19/07) -- totally inundating me with a mass of information I'll have to go research in my spare time (I don't have much of that!). 

This afternoon, while at work, I thought about "how would a very tall metal radio antenna (excluding it's guy wires) collapse downward into a small heap, without toppling to the side, as one would expect?  I'm glad I didn't ask that question, because it would take more of your time, and then I'd have to spend hours researching your explanations of the physics applying to that issue, too.  Aren't there any "common-sense" answers to these questions, that don't require a doctorate like Mr. Hirschorn has?

Why can't we just accept -- we're "spreading freedom and democracy" as a valid explanation of this nation's benevolence, and ignore the ugly inconvenient stuff?

Why can't we just accept -- New Orleans drowned.  Brownie did a "Heck of a job!", and, well...we'll just move on here.  Nothing to see.

The citizenry doesn't need wizardry regarding explanations, investigations, shennanigans, does it?  Applied science and empirical evaluation certainly answers or disproves many theories, I agree.  But...Don't people "know" when they are getting close to something rotting -- because they can smell it?  Doesn't experience teach us that if someone lies or steals from us, they might just as well do it again?  Can't people trust their instincts?  Can't people infer a "pattern" after we have witnessed the same behaviour time and time again?  Doesn't history teach us anything?  Isn't it supposed to repeat?

I've gotta go get some sleep now.  You should too.

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 557 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:20:40 PM

  (0+)

"I had a dream but it turned to dust. What I thought was love, that must've been lust." - Santana

"It is natural for the mind to believe and for the will to love; so that, for want of true objects, they must attach themselves to false." - Blaise Pascal

"All that is gold does not glitter; Not all those who wander are lost." - J.R.R. Tolkien

In summary, our senses and instincts can be (and often are) deceived - if they want to be. Good advice; I'm off to bed as well!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:30:23 PM

  (0+)

If I didn't know better, I would be tempted to say that Tom sits in an office full of computer geeks with search engines fired up, ready to spit out info that can be readily inserted into these comments "Here, sir, here's a good one." But that's just idle speculation. That would be one of those crazy conspiracy theories, wouldn't it?

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 8:04:34 AM

  (0+)

Indeed, it would silly-think.  You can only take me at my word, I know, but that's not my line of work nor would I want it to be.  When posting, I "work" only for myself.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 9:45:14 AM

  (0+)

" Right, but only if it involves a significant increase in the use of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety prescriptions."

Your comments about the meds is cute but more of the same slander that is directed at questioners of the official government conspiracy theory in which we are to believe that a bunch of losers were able to serendipitiously defeat a multi-billion dollar intelligence network, hijack four airplanes and then fly them with precision Top Gun style skill into the WTC and Pentagon. You are the one who needs the meds if you believe that the precision skills required to pull this off were acquired by a miscreants playing flight simulator or training at puddle hopper flight schools.

Maybe Bruce Willis and the gang can train to be astronauts in a week or so and fly up to save the planet from an asteroid the size of Texas in your world where things like this occur. The hijackers themselves are the weak link in the entire story that stinks like Hitler's big lie. Those guys were NOT who we were told and they received military training in order to pull off those maneuvers.

No go take YOUR meds

EE

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:55:59 AM

  (0+)

who sold short on 9/10, knowing there would be a disaster on 9/11, or are you just covering for them?

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 9:24:45 AM

  (0+)

No, no.  In fact, aside from the third-party managed 401k we have through work, we only own one stock outright that my grandfather had purchased in the 1940s, and we've passed it down over the years.  It's neat to think that our kids will be able to say that the stock was initially purchased by their great-grandfather.

As to the alleged origins of the "put options" on airline stocks before 9/11, that's been mostly demystifed elsewhere - http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html .  However, I understand you may continue to believe the transactions were abnormal, if such belief is needed to make your conspiracy theory work.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 9:57:09 AM

  (0+)

You're cracking me up, Tom!  I have a theory about YOU!  Just in this thread, you're "All-Over-It!"... 

You're the Lizard of Oz! I see you there, standing behind the curtain, working the levers feverishly, creating YOUR OWN reality, trying to manipulate OURS!  But sir, intellectual arguments won't obscure and sweep away the real events that have happened and continue to occur with worrisome rapidity.  The "dead bodies" keep floating to the surface.  They are not illusions.  

YOU have a method, a "tell" in poker parlance.  The way you play the game tells us what you are about.  Would you like to tell us "Why" you play so hard?

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 557 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:25:30 AM

  (0+)

"I'll have grounds/ More relative than this - the play's the thing/ Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king." - Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 603-605

You, good folk, are the king whose conscience I hope to catch.  And if I cannot do that, the least I can accomplish is to present the opposition in a humorous yet serious light.  The world need not be as dark as many here portray or wish it to be.  It was spinning then, it's spinning now, and were I a betting man, I'd wager good coin on it spinning in the future. 

All things being equal, I consider it a challenge to present the issues as such - equal.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:43:42 AM

  (0+)

in calling for the name of this investor to be disclosed- it's innocent, so the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commissioners should stop acting as if they're hiding something- why are they fueling "conspiracy theories"?

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:57:27 AM

  (0+)

The perpetrators of the massacre are more and more  scared of the snowball effct of the speeding Truth movement and are rushing in with laws ( HR 1955 :Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention act of 2007, S1959 ) to round up Truth seekers and lock them up before the movement can transform into a solid entity. Truth seekers will be labelled DENIERS on a par with holocaust deniers and sent to the newly constructed private jails to be tortured Cheney style. The Thought Police is already encroaching on the Net with its ominous warnings already posted on CommonDreams.com.  It won't be long before Internet, the only source of unpolluted news will be invaded and shut down. As a matter of fact, the only factor that the terrorist government had not taken into account while planning the 9/11 massacre was this wonderful tool of communication that is Internet. They are moving against it but hopefully too late for them as sufficient information has already circulated around.

Time is indeed running out though and the masses have to wake up because we are living a watershed moment in our history and time is ripe to uproot the corrupt rotten system founded on warmongering and to put into place a new system based on social justice and peace and protection of the planet resources. Wake up Cindy Sheehan, wake up Scott Ritter, wake up Ron Paul. It is going to be too late for ever if the evil empire comes up with another false flag for a disastrous WWIII.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 4:33:20 PM

  (0+)

ditto

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 5:02:19 PM

  (0+)

also, see www.justicefor911.org - NY AG Fitzgerald was repeatedly petitioned to open a criminal investigation- the site has an outline of the grounds for investigation, legal taxonomy, links to the Omission Hearings chaired by Cynthia McKinney, etc.

Mr. Hirschhorn, considering your engineering background i understand your skepticism of the official "explanations" of the "collapses", and your interest in the evidence of controlled demolition, but there's a LOT of other evidence of criminal complicity which may be more useful in court or public hearings, the physical evidence having been mostly destroyed- please take a look at  

Complete 9/11 Timeline

www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project  

and read War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed and Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert- violations of standard procedures by principals at the FBI, CIA, INS, NORAD, DOD, DOJ, Secret Service and White House were glossed over or ignored by the 9/11 Omission Commission, and so were the myriad lies, distortions, omissions, obstructions  

the 9/11 Commission Report itself is evidence of a coverup 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 6:01:31 PM

  (0+)

sorry, I'm with you all the way until the Article V convention, the advocates of which say they will refrain from supporting any particular amendment but feel it would be good to have one.  I like the Law of the Land the way it is, and think we just need to enforce it, not change it.  This unnecessarily draws in a whole other can of worms and avenues for the media to attack us (They want to abolish the Constitution!) that we don't need.  As if restoring the rule of law isn't enough on our plates, geez!   We need to focus on:

-identifying the civilian leadership responsible and bringing them to justice

-granting amnesty to military officers following direct orders, so they will step forward

-forgiving those who participated directly in the mass murder, the "trigger men," and focusing on the administration and their masterminds, like the chickenhawk intellectual traitors at the Project for a New American Century, so we as a nation can heal and move forward. 

"If people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us."  George H.W. Bush 

by Ralph Lopez (66 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 6:21:55 PM

  (0+)

Article V of the U.S. Constitution:  The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Not just 2/3, but all 50 states have applied- a total of 567 applications have been made, well over 300 since 1960, but we've never had a convention. Every single Congress has violated the law by refusing to call the Convention- they're happy to propose Amendments themselves- they don't want the People to propose Amendments

There's no such thing as a "runaway" convention; Amendments to the Constitution require 3/4 of the states to ratify new Amendments before they're adopted.

It's time for Congress to obey the law. 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 9:46:56 PM

  (0+)

Joel--this is an outstanding piece that really meant a lot to me because of where I am in my involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement, the frustrations I feel trying to make sense out of the America I live in, and figuring out what to do about this enormous, monstrous mountain of corruption, priviledge and arrogance that substitute for democracy.

Reading your analysis, I thought of a dysfunctional family whose members have two terrible choices: continue living inside the bubble of delusion and be gradually eroded by the dysfunction, or risk the instability and possible failure if they burst through to the other side where truth resides.

I'm going to Amazon now to pick up Delusional Democracy. Once again, thanks for this powerful article.

by David Taylor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 9:03:06 PM

  (0+)

You are right in that the aftermath of 9/11 killed far more people than the event itself. Over a million Iraqis are needlessly dead and about 4 million are displaced, and all pretty much for nothing.  But this statement is indicative of the main problem of the "9/11 Truth Movement":

"Technically sound analyses of what happened at the World Trade Center have unequivocally shown that the official 9/11 story is not credible (www.ae911truth.org).  Truth seekers have met their burden of proof..."

How have truth seekers met their burden of proof?  With speculation and 'analysis'?  That's not empirical evidence, and that's not what is generally accepted as proof. That's speculation.  It's picking and choosing scenarios to fit the crime, which is basically what the Bush administration is known for.

I'm sorry to say this but the 9/11 Truth Movement keeps shooting itself in the foot with declarations like this.  Show the world some actual proof, or quit saying you have it. I'm not saying I disbelieve your claims or that I believe anything out of the Bush administration.  But the world needs some real proof.  Not 'analysis' and not speculation.  I have done hours of reading and hours of viewing video. I have yet to see what is generally accepted as 'proof' of anything you claim.

by Shelly Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:52:08 PM

  (0+)

   How's this for proof.  It is EMPIRICALLY established that the only way to make buildings collapse at nearly free fall speed (minus air resistance) is to server all the supporting girders nearly simultaneously through carefully pretimed controlled demolitions.  Otherwise, the falling parts of the buildings would be slowed down by the still intact portions of the buildings below the falling parts.  The only way to make all portions start falling nearly simultaneously is by controlled demolition.

   It is EMPIRICALLY established that fire alone has NEVER caused a PROTECTED, STEEL FRAMED BUILDING to collapse either before or after 9/11.  In fact -- EMPIRICALLY DOCUMENTED FACT HERE -- all three of the experts who testified before the House Committee On Science's May 1, 2002 hearing on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings said that fire alone had NEVER caused a protected, steel framed building to collapse.  So I guess, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have here a scientific fact about protected, steel framed buildings in fire that dare not be true again!

   It is also known that both the civil and military Air TraficControl radar can detect a plane deviating from it flight plan immediately.  Yet three of the planes were allowed to reach their targets.

   There are many more relevant EMPIRICALLY KNOWN facts.  But, in accordance with the advice given John Murphey, I need to catch up on my sleep.

Robert Halfhill    rhalfhill@juno.com

   It is EMPIRICALLY established that buildings don't collapse on their footprints, i.e. on the surface area they are standing on, as opposed to falling all over their surroundings, except by controlled demolition.

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 326 comments) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 2:19:34 PM

  (0+)

Until the real truth of 9/11 at least "mostly" comes out, America will have no soul.  This is the epicenter of the Bush horrors.

by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (291 articles, 59 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 763 comments [44 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:53:10 PM

  (0+)

Thank you Mr. Hirschhorn for your excellent article.

I see the mulish protectionists are already rebuking your piece with their utter delusion and din.

As you've mentioned, the psychological resistance of the millions of Americans to the painful 9/11 truth is indeed shameful. That their own government would subject it's citizens to such horror is unconscionable!

If I could just point out to Ms. Thomas, that in order for ae911truth to "show the world some actual proof" that the technically sound analyses of what happened at the World Trade Center has shown unequivocally, that the official 9/11 story is not credible does require them to obtain adequate airtime on this corporately owned reticent lamestream media, which is impossible! 

When Brigham Young University professor Stephen Jones was on MSNBC with Tucker Carlson and was trying to lay out the facts about thermite, Carlson didn't want to hear a DAM thing professor Jones had to say. That is because Tucker Carlson is nothing more than an over paid, ignorant corporate media shill. 

In order for ae911truth to reach the public and to state the facts, what's needed is for programs such as 60 Minutes or the Discover Channel to invite them on to their programs. At which time they could speak about the explosions which were heard in the basement of the towers prior to the jets hitting the buildings, and the many explosions that were heard even after. Now! Do think that'll happen?

Until ae911truth is allowed a mainstream forum to explain the truth of what happened on that horrible day, then they'll continue their diligence on the Internet. But don't come out and say the  movement is shooting itself in the foot. That's total BS!

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:32:26 AM

  (0+)

Shelley stated: "How have truth seekers met their burden of proof?  With speculation and 'analysis'?  That's not empirical evidence, and that's not what is generally accepted as proof. That's speculation.  It's picking and choosing scenarios to fit the crime, which is basically what the Bush administration is known for."

Reminiscent of Phyllis Schlafly's famous response in debate to Randi Rhodes .... when Phyllis stuck her hands in her ears exclaming.... 'La la la, I can't Hear You!"

Dear Shelley, there is an abundance of empirical data supporting the 'analyses' provided by 9/11 truth research.... see, for example, www.  journalof911studies  .com   ..... or Jim Hoffman's excellent work at 911research  dot com. 

All you have to do is take your fingers from your ears and the blinders from your eyes. Until you can demonstrate some knowledge of the data and logic, your condemnation has little merit.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:55:37 AM

  (0+)

is more  imporatnt than the result here. I made it clear in by article ' Blessed be the 9/11 Truthers..' As  for those who  still    want someone else ( our children) to  die for Bush--- we can't help them aandd they can go back to their sleep from which they can wake up dead.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:21:22 AM

  (0+)

Pipelines To 9/11

By Rudo de Ruijter

 snip :

Not all material about 9/11 has been released to the public. Some of the reliable evidence has been confiscated by the CIA.  Statements of officials often turned out to be contradictory. And, in particular about possible advanced knowledge, the White House has confiscated dozens of documents of the 9/11 Commission.  It doesn't make truth finding easier.

The official version of the events on 9/11 involves a very high number of coincidences that facilitated the "success" of the attacks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Putin revealed he had a premonition about terrorists and September 11.

"I told my American colleague, 'This really worries me. I have the feeling something is going to happen, that they are apparently preparing something'"

Even Vlad Putin knew it was coming. And there's that word "they" again !

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 8:50:07 AM

  (0+)

A nice work of fiction is in that link - complete with all the drama and intrigue of a Grisham novel.  Do you know if anyone is trying to buy the movie rights for it?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:25:03 AM

  (0+)

Tom, the official version of 9/11 is a complete work of fiction. But what we're really interested in reading is your version, the way you see it...as a Diary (entry) here on OpEdNews. As a Diary, only in case of "blockage" or because submissions for Articles are screened. Your recent comment, with reflections on the background were a nice try but it fell short of what I would dare define as a "story" or a basis for further discussion.

I do have to admit that I rapidly came across that link while in search of 9/11 related quotes from Vlad Putin...and I have yet to have found the time to read it through. Yet, when it comes to 9/11, who is in a position to differentiate betwixt fiction and non-fiction ? I think that you'll agree with me when I say that most of what we have seen and heard is fiction. There is, of course a large chunk of non-fiction available. Precisely that portion that I quoted...

"Not all material about 9/11 has been released to the public. Some of the reliable evidence has been confiscated by the CIA.  Statements of officials often turned out to be contradictory. And, in particular about possible advanced knowledge, the White House has confiscated dozens of documents of the 9/11 Commission.  It doesn't make truth finding easier.

The official version of the events on 9/11 involves a very high number of coincidences that facilitated the "success" of the attacks."

....can clearly be defined as non-fiction.

Okay, say someone broke into my car ans stole my i-pod. I'm highly upset. But by leaving it in the car, visible to all who chance to look inside....have I not "facilitated" the theft of the i-pod ? Not to mention that I may have hired the theft to break into my car and grab the i-pod in the first place. Worst case ; I've hoodwinked my insurance company into replacing my i-pod after I sold it to my neighbor. In the police report, I clearly stated it was stolen. For example.

I've only added this as a means to point you in the direction of a desired outcome. I'm convinced we can come to agree on the LIHOP version of 9/11. For me, that would be a major accomplishment....with most anybody I know. For anyone to buy into the official story, lock, stock & barrel is beyond acceptable with all available information and history. In fact, it borders on complicantcy - aiding and abetting the enemy. 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 1:12:31 PM

  (0+)

   Damn it, Murphy!  Just calling it a work of fiction without backing up your claim is not an argument.  This is an example of the way you usually resort to a patronizing statement when anyone does give some facts.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 326 comments) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 2:42:21 PM

  (0+)

Sadly, there are at least 2 levels to the 9/11 cover up and www.ae911truth.org aren't giving the whole or complete story. They repeatedly mention molten metal - a story I was initially taken in by. However, there is no reliable evidence to say that there was any molten metal at the WTC site.

 The only scholars who are currently taking legal action against the US Government are Prof Judy Wood and Professor Morgan Reynolds. They have done their own independent inquiries.

 I would also advise interested readers to check into the history of the Physics Professor Steven E Jones - whose links to Cold Fusion may indeed be relevant to the technology that was used to destroy the WTC complex.

Thanks for reading.

by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 97 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:00:48 PM

  (0+)

     Ground control to Major Tom.......I respect your depth of knowledge, your ability to make and support your arguments with documentary links as opposed to simple verbal assaults. I even enjoy sometimes, though not often, your responses that can offend. And I have read some rather nasty words thrown you on occasion, that have made me realize how we all have the capability of losing our empathy for one another for the shallowist of reasons. I even would like to take a moment to apologize if I have ever in a response fallen to that level with you or anyone else.

     My beliefs are built on my life and my research. You on yours. I am happy to be shown different or new angled viewpoints as I continue my gathering and digesting all I can to help in my quest for understanding.

     But for me sir, I will simply say here I do believe (at this point in my travels) that 9/11 is just one of many in a long line of symptoms of a much greater disease that is eating away at this organism we call our country. I support the idea that 9/11 is a rallying point for many. I go back quite far in my lifes accumulation of good, bad and sometimes limited knowledge of our history and can only offer that it is my opinion based on that information that the petri dish was poisoned long ago.

     Mr. Hirschhorn's article is a rallying point. I applaud the search.

     We will never agree on the evidence, which points to eschew and which to file as the final word. We choose what we regard as valid. Many times instinct overrides empirical evidence not because we are lacking of depth but because we have found an obligation within each of us to follow a path that is a mirror to who we are. Our beliefs in what we think life is or what we hope it can be. 

     I can't explain it really, although I keep trying. Words, like great songs we've heard and carry in our hearts mean far more than what they 'say'. There is a feeling we get that allows evidence valid, legal or overuled and inadmissable to become merely a prop leading us away from the truth we sense within us. Our nation of 'laws' that attempts to 'clarify' and control does the opposite. It puts order above flexibility. It imbalances by decree. We are not the first, nor the last evolutionary society to attempt to, in an effort to safeguard, instead set in motion a process to devour itself.  

     I believe our forefathers with all their imperfections, gave us a unique opportunity to have a functioning system that allows adjustments, however painful, to be made as needed. It seems to me that our system is broken, not because it was doomed to, but because like all others before it, evolved to where now it is fear that is its impetus. Evil exists. In many forms. But alas, so does beauty, also in many forms. It is how we perceive all that is around us and within us that gives us shape. If we continue being fearful of 'them' and now it seems even of 'us', we have learned nothing.

      Water always finds its level.

      I share this with you because I choose to.

      Dave Mason. Simple. True.

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 1:22:39 PM

  (0+)

First step in our awakening process is to start at Unanswered Questions, then wse usually move to Cover-up because of Innocent Failings; if we keep going then third stage is LIHOP on a Pearl Harbour analogy; Fourth stage is MIHOP - made it happen on purpose, but still with two mistaken assumptions, both still unfortunately present in Joels' manifesto (and by the way I really like Joel's proposal for the 911 truth movement, whatever our differences, to pro-actively dictate what kind of inquiry/ies we insist on, with what procedures and scope and deadlines).

MIHOP first stage still swallows the hijacker demonology. But it is racism pure and simple to believe the worst about 'outgroup' people without any proof, or on the sayso of proven racist liars. There is NO evidence except from world-champion liars who brought us Saddams' WMD etc, etc, of any Arabs going through the two airports that day (same as at Madrid, London on July 7, 2005 and no cameras working as Diana drove to her death ....); No passenger-manifest names of Arabs. Some of the 19 names still alive. No physical possibility at that height and speed for any mobile phone calls about Muslim fanatics taking over planes; Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a puddle-jumper; and though there is plenty of evidence for (US military-trained, drug-runner) Attah and co being noisily around flight schools, vegas, strip clubs, etc there is NO evidence that they were hijacking anything that morning, least of all that they were ever devout Muslims. Just patsies positioned to turn American shock and grief into hatred of the folk with the oil who don't much believe in consumer capitalism and debt-money ....

So once we drop the racist fairy story or 'meme' which the CIA etc had been predisposing people to believe at the drop of a hat for years, e.g. FBI gave the explosives for the 1993 WTC bomb explosion, we should also rename the Attack on America (including Pentagon building) as the Manhattan Murders of Sept 11th, requiring good domestic police work , not international military action, to respond to.

MIHOP second stage (No Hijackers) moves through to MIHOP third stage, or MIHOP DEW or Directed Energy Weapons, when we revisit the evidence of WHAT happened, which we need to look closely at before we can work out how it was done, who did it, and why. Once we do this then the thing which really strikes one is that WTC7 is like a classic controlled demolition (may not be) insofar as there is a huge pile of concrete and steel at the bottom, 47 floors pancaked into a 7-stories high pile (at freefall speed, perfectly dead-centred symmetrical, steel-framed buildings always withstand fires, as Building 6 did with MUCH bigger fires and sideways debris, which was between WTC1 and WTC7).

Hard as it may be to believe the twin towers were also destroyed at the equivalent speed of a falling object, but actually they fell upwards, through the top open fountain, into big mushroom clouds and only descending some time later as very fine dust. And even if you disagree with this interpretation of the extraordinary photo-graphic evidence of the dustification of the buildings, the clincher is surely Prof Judy Woods question: well, where did the buildings go? Cos there just arent two big piles of (say) 110 into 16 stories height, barely even one story height - at the base of where the twin towers used to stand. Remember the iconic image of the high outward-leaning spandrels - they stand proud at the base, from day one, albeit many people (I did too for years!) have bought cover stories such as the steel all being shipped off to China real quick to prevent it being examined. And much of the merchandise in the shopping mall below WTC2 (South tower) was still resaleable, albeit only one floor below ground level, ground on which 110 stories of concrete and steel is supposed to have fallen.

At this point many 'truthers' get nervous and some turn abusive - and it particularly distressed me when they assassinate the character of Prof Judy Wood as she has twice had close colleagues slaughtered in recent months - surely to warn her I believe. So often have we been hurt by being abused as crazy conspiracy nuts, that unconsiously we tend to do exactly the same to researchers who spoil the official party line of controlled demolition using thermite which Prof Steven Jones (with very disturbing Los Alamos fusion research etc connections) - and Alex Jones \nd Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth have helped to popularise, largely based on the ?'psyop' of molten metal in the rubble which is supposed to have come from thermate steel cutters [could be true for bottom ten floors?] and stayed hot for 100 days and never gave off any flash steam explosions, no matter that the site was hosed for 100 days ... (hmmm).

Anyway for those still wanting to keep sussing out the truth, and not settle for cutting a party-line partial cover-up deal, the next stage is one which gets the mainstream 'truthers' even more nervous - namely to go from No Hijackers, and MIHOP-DEW to MIHOP-NPT, No Planes Theory, or No Passenger Planes or Big Boeings at all. Not just at Shanksville and Pentagon, but even at Manhattan!!!??.

 
Now this seems wild to people, who can get very contemptuous because so many people think they saw it with our own eyes, or believe, because we have been told, that hundreds of people saw them smash into those buildings. (Remember that the box in the corner was part of people's 'Critical Parent' as we pre-schoolers grew up in the West, so it is unconsciously like Big Brother, who must not be questioned, else what is left that we can hang on to? But keep breathing and keep investigating with an open mind and good will, the Buddha advises us, being neither swayed towards or against anything before we have examined it ourselves, and without being swayed by 'what everyone thinks'.)

Suppose it is logically impossible for Big Boeings to smash up with not any parts ever found, not even huge engines, and for the soft aluminium to cut through steel frames like butter through a knife ?!?? and for this invincible plane to then next millisecond become so vulnerable that it shreds and burns to nothing left because of the super-intense friction and aircraft fuel blaze (so we are told) , but then what is that we see but secretaries looking out of the holes, and unsinged books on filing cabinets beside them ..... That is the Morgan Reynolds line, more or less, who didn't invent it, but he is a significant player because he is determined as hell, has launched a court action and he has good creditability with the Right.

So then we have to ask what about the media eyewitnesses on the day/media? - (maybe pre-planted CIA actors, a common thing at False-flag terrorism events) - and what about the holes in the buildings? (either bombs along the frontages or missiles) - and what about the Manhattan eyewitness? (well there were planes around but the number of people who say they both saw and heard planes hitting the towers is less than those who didn't, who reported bombs, or flare up fires with no sound efffects, etc).

Next stage is video-fakery - and there are probably whole offices in Foggy Bottom dedicated to dissing this Woods-Reynolds-VideoFakery line - for that check out September Clues, especially the Fox news 'live feed' of the plane hitting the South tower and coming out the other side with (seemingly) little damaged nosecone. Actually although I am very persuaded by the Woods and Reynolds work, and it does necessarily dictate that the 'live TV footage' of that day must logically be faked, we should be rather cautious of any particular video-fakery evidence, as it is very technical, and it could be that the Powers That Be could be pulling a JFK/Garrison on us, with fake evidence about a real fake, so that when the fake evidence is discredited, then they hope to get us all to go back to sleep again - or at least accept a version of what happened which doesn't have such tremendous implications. (But also remember that video-fakery in the shape of the Zapruder hoax was used to contain the remains of the JFK turth movement in the seventies.)

By 'tremendous implications'  I mean a) the issue of super-controlled media conspiracy with co-ordinated 'real time' forgeries (like also they steamrollered the evidence of multiple explosions out of the way at Oklahoma);

b) the notion of super-secret 'black' DEW or laser technology (also used in Iraq by the way) which can vanish stuff into dust (mocked by Jones et al as Space Beams, but no need to assume it comes from Space) - and conversely the excellent news of alternative massive free energy physics which could be used to get us out of the clutches of Big Oil and the Planet Jonestown they insist we don't leave.

Except 'They' screwed up on 9/11 bigtime. The triple towers are iconic for us now! I completely agree with Joel that, together with election theft in the last 8 years (at least), 9/11 can become a huge catlyst for r/evolutionary awakening by the citizens rising free... But for that we citizens have got to learn to discuss with each other calmly - no matter how passionately we feel - , using nonviolent communication (NVC) and according to reason and evidence, and not be swayed by emotive shills, wild defense mechanisms of those good folk still in denial or in thrall to rigid ideological a prioris, etc.

May all beings be happy ... and seasonal Good will to all (but no naivety, please).

by Keith Mothersson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:33:46 PM

  (0+)

     "But for that we citizens have got to learn to discuss with each other calmly - no matter how passionately we feel - , using nonviolent communication (NVC) and according to reason and evidence, and not be swayed by emotive shills, wild defense mechanisms of those good folk still in denial or in thrall to rigid ideological a prioris, etc."

     Thank you.

     peace

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 9:26:41 PM

  (0+)

Missed your insights.  Now this important article/discussion has dropped down the page so far, many may miss your valuable input.  Please engage sooner if possible on further discussions...

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 557 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 9:42:24 PM

  (0+)

911 was not done by a conspiracy of criminals, but by a movement of criminals.  They probably consisted of crooks from the pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the Whitehouse,  Republicans, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.    The important thing to remember is that these crooks did their thing through the force of influence and money and the fraud of the media.  I have no real proof, but I suspect that the Bush family and Halliburton were central in tying it all together.  Any manifesto should be this simple.  Let the readers search the net from there and make up their own mind.  They have to convince themselves that Denmark is rotten.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 6:48:42 PM

  (0+)

   SEEMS TO ME LIKE BROTHER TOM MIGHT VERY WELL BE A PLANT, WE'VE

 HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCES WITH PLANTS IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS 

by GUY P. FRASER (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 72 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 6:07:57 AM

  (0+)

As I've always said, think of me as a "plant" provided it makes you feel better about yourself and your beliefs.  Were I a plant, I'm thinking a holly bush would be nice given its dedication to being green throughout the year - almost eternally correct in color.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 9:31:19 PM

  (0+)