I just watched the show on j mccain's years as a pow in vietnam. If'n his sadistic captors couldn't break him, I doubt the special interest lobbiests will. At this point, I'd seriously consider voting for the guy and i've never voted republican in me life.
lw
Sucker.
:-)
-TM
McCain does come up with a few remarks now and again that almost seem genuine, even well meaning, or altruistic in nature; but alas, in nature a pit viper is to be considered dangerous regardless... :lol: senorsal
I see him as being dangerous to the status quo. And I don't see ANY other viable candidate from either/any party that fits that bill. I must like loose cannons.
The stoopid thing is, I'm willing to bet that movie goes a looong way toward cementing his place in the next election.
And there are lots-o folks in washington who would benefit from getting bit in the ass by a viper, imo.
lw
Yeah well, I guess I should go ahead and come clean... See the thing is, senor too has taken a look at McCain. I must admit that I have lightly toyed with the idea of supporting him.. That said, I always ended up ignore the man, because the bottom line is that when push comes to shove, he's a Republican, and therefore I could not bring myself to cast a vote in his direction.... Ha :D --- Yep, those in the hallowed halls of the beltway could sure use a bite in the ole derriere :lol: :lol: -------- senorsal
The dems aren't much better than the reps...
Vote for who you believe to be the best candidate, regardless of "external considerations" (it's MHO that we have Bush in office now 'cause the dems tried to "vote smart" instdead of "vote heart", but I can't support that belief, so don't ask me too ;) )
Yes, it's true that for most purposes the Dems/Repubs are one and the same.. I do though, cling to a somewhat futile hope that every once in a while, someone will step forth from the Dem Party that will truly make a splash on issues that are thought to be historically the Dem Party Platform... 'cours that may well just be a pip[e dream of mine to keep myself placated into pacifism------------- It'd sure be great to witness the birthing and triumph of a viable 3rd party. Lemme hold my breath on that one eh????---------- senorsal
At this point, I'd be happy to see someone step up from either party. Don't forget, the republicans used to stand for freedom from gubmint. I know many libetarian leaning ex-military peeps. But then freedom of gubmint intrusion has gradually been gifted to corporate amerikka while being taken out of We the Peoples' hands.
I guess I'm just tired of judging clothing when the truly improtant aspects usually lie beneath the surface. Anyone who endures the horrors of six plus years in an enemy concentration camp has plumbed their own depths, imo.
I'm guessing a person learns much more about themself in particular and humanity in general while spending six years being tortured than another person living behind the ivory covered walls of academia ever dreamed possible.
lw
Quote from: "senorsalvia"Yes, it's true that for most purposes the Dems/Repubs are one and the same.. I do though, cling to a somewhat futile hope that every once in a while, someone will step forth from the Dem Party that will truly make a splash on issues that are thought to be historically the Dem Party Platform... 'cours that may well just be a pip[e dream...
And I'd like to see a republican step up in defense of a tradtional republican plank (let's not forget that abolition was originally a Republican issue).
I think neither of us should hold our breath ;)
start getting the word out about McCain even if you are a hardcore Dem, because, here in TN, we are hearing and seeing Frist working on his presidential campaign. Frist is a waste of life, puddle of used douche, and if you think Bush said the word "God" a lot, just wait.
McCain is more of a threat to the republican agenda than Kerry ever was. Karl Rove even spent more time discrediting McCains war status/history than he did on Kerry's. I see more Libertarian views in McCain than anything, he is a hardened man and might not have a lick of compassion for bums and whiners, but atleast doesnt have a staunch religious agenda.
A-men, psylo.
lw
this cannon is firmly tied to the NWO mast. Check out his immigration policy--same as Bush and Fox. And he's from Arizona, a state being destroyed by illegal immigrants. Every time it looked like McCain might oppose his masters, lo and behold, there he would be, pushing their agenda...
Nobody will be elected unless they are in the pockets of the special interests. McCain got sunk same as Dean same as anyone who is likely to rock the boat. It doesn't matter how many people like them, the news reports will find something negative about them and harp on it until they lose. If that doesn't work, they'll just fiddle with the election results themselves. The whole system is crooked.
You're prolly right stoney.
I will have my head in the sand until further notice. (To be issued by the U$ media, of course.)
How the fook am I supposed to breathe down here?
lw
lw, we'll pull you up in an h ur for some air :wink:
McCain, he's the one who eulogized Pat Tillman at the dead GI's funeral, after being killed by his own troops in Affy-guh-NIS-tan.
Now that the truth has been published, that Tillman was not killed by the enemy after all while being a big hero, and that the Army lied about it to everyone, is McCain speaking out and demanding accountability for the liars? No, McCain is silent.
And don't you think he knows that those WTC towers didn't "burn down", or that the military was ordered to stand down on 9/11?
You know, some people can get thru a horror like prison camp by means of an obsessive fixation of some kind. Such an experience doesn't automatically result in a person plumbing the depths of their soul, or the arrival at any kind of truth..
den: I'm guessing if he had anything to say on the matters at hand, he'd say it. I'm not sure everyone agrees that the military was on stand down or that the wtc didn't burn to the ground.
As far as the torture goes, I imagine there would be outward signs mental or emotional defects by now that would have precluded him from getting where he at. I know his detractors tried to go that route already.
SHow me someone else to respect, eh?
lw
lw, I know that not everyone agrees that the towers were bombed down, or that the military stood down. Personally, I'm pretty sure McCain knows the truth.
BTW, I'm not implying that his war imprisonment resulted in any form of mental illness on his part. He may be mentally sound after all. But as we have seen, the mentally sound also are capable of committing crimes against humanity.
For myself, the events of 9/11 are a sort of a watershed. Those who think that the Towers "burned down", or that the military was trying its best to stop the attacks, in my view fail the test for functional intelligence.
edit: O, and someone to respect? That's a hard one. I assume you mean someone on the public stage or in political life?
Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, UK MP George Galloway, plenty more, really anyone willing to speak and act out against the neocons and their agenda.
quote den: For myself, the events of 9/11 are a sort of a watershed. Those who think that the Towers "burned down", or that the military was trying its best to stop the attacks, in my view fail the test for functional intelligence.
Then I guess you can call me functionally unintelligent, as I'm not privy to enough information to do more than speculate on the matters mentioned, imo.
The military's unability to act in a timely fahion could have been due to gross incompetence, arrogance, denial or a host of other reasons short of intentional treason. I see enough viable, documented reasons to consider shrub a war criminal without having to get into speculation.
Am I entitled to some sort of disability payments now?
lw
no disability payments, sorry ...
but we're making a nice labor camp for you, with happy folks making wonderful things for the good of all :)
Seriously, you have seen the videos of the towers going down, and you doubt that they were demolished by explosives? Personally, I consider you to be reasonably intelligent (hey, you liked my book enuff to read it, thanks for that!). I think if you were to study the incident carefully, you would be convinced the towers were bombed, as well as the pentagon.
here's a link to a decent recent synopsis page on the 9/11-WTC question:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm)
plenty more available, of course...
Though I have nadda to add.. I must say I really like this thread. :shock: ... Lw leadin the choir for IMHO a guy not unlike several hundred other POW's .. (don't see his incarceration as anything heroic , nor agree that it somehow indicates a particular strength of character).. Then Den rings in with assertions that would make any conspiracy nut salivate.... As the venerable Don King would say::: ONLY IN AMERIKKKA :wink: :wink: :P -------- senorsal
Shit. Bring those other pow's up for election and I'll vote for them too.
To be honest, I'd really rather vote for a woman to lead this country. Almost any woman. Except Conde.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some reading to do. Thanks for the link, den.
lw
Quote from: "dendro"lw, we'll pull you up in an h ur for some air :wink:
McCain, he's the one who eulogized Pat Tillman at the dead GI's funeral, after being killed by his own troops in Affy-guh-NIS-tan.
Now that the truth has been published, that Tillman was not killed by the enemy after all while being a big hero, and that the Army lied about it to everyone, is McCain speaking out and demanding accountability for the liars? No, McCain is silent.
And don't you think he knows that those WTC towers didn't "burn down", or that the military was ordered to stand down on 9/11?
You know, some people can get thru a horror like prison camp by means of an obsessive fixation of some kind. Such an experience doesn't automatically result in a person plumbing the depths of their soul, or the arrival at any kind of truth..
It is stuff like this that got the majority of the Democrats to question Kerry. You have been Karl Rove-ed (my new word) into voicing a strawman argument against the political agenda of a candidate which has nothing to do with the current affairs, personal fortitude and general compassion for the well-being of America, and everything to do with character defamation through non-sequitir points and a personal front to appear as though you keep up with current events.
No candidate is perfect, no one candidate will house every salient point you feel is congruent with American wellbeing. I am Libertarian, do I vote Libertarian.... No, because come election time I have to decide who is the lesser of two evils. America is Americanized, we want a pretty president, anything close enough to be good enough to be on American Idol. It doesnt matter to 80% of the American population what Bush says, it is how he says it, which is astoundingly backwards. People are sheep, voting for whatever placates to the lowest common denominator of thought per their agenda. They are willing to accept anything which agrees and promotes their agenda without ever questioning or ratifying it, and are the first to jump on any speculation of character flaw to defend their political intelligence and candidate.
Am I a republican?....no, Do I like John McCain and his agenda?.... NO. Do I see the first logical, non-extremist to emerge without an agenda handed to him?.... yes.
While you have adequately described some of the variable salient points whilst waxing somewhat philosophical; dare I ask you to deliniate, nay to elucidate which candidate/statesman/racconteur/or 'ner do well that you find likely to be somehow pulled out of the political morass and cast in the light of reality as being even halfway worthy of consideration????------senorsal???????????/
Here, here, sal.
I'm even up for including the 'ner-do-wells and racconteurs. Mas, put them at the top of the list!
lw
like I said before, anything to stop Frist from even making it out of the gate. It is sad that I have to use my vote as a tool of defense.
ahem...all I'm saying about McCain's past is, being a POW doesn't automatically make a man into a moral giant, or even a moral average joe. There are many accomodations that one can make to prison camp without becoming the Buddha.
But psilocyberin is right, this isn't about McCain's past. His current actions are neocon. I see his current role as a sort of gatekeeper, for propaganda purposes . "Look, McCain is not part of the Bush admin, and is a presidential hopeful who will someday oppose a Bush son in an election race, and even HE supports W in (insert latest lie here). We can trust McCain's voice of reason."
I'm simply saying, "No, we can't".
Yeah, den... I read your book and dug it to boot, man.
I've been reading from the provided link. Thanks again. I've seen a lot of that info already and am still not convinced.
First off, on the issue of the pentagon strike..... I've seen the footage and it would appear as a missile hit the wall. (But complete detonation doesn't seem likely, or I'm guessing there would have been more damage. Anyway, I'm willing to concede the fact that a missile hit the pantagon. And I can see many reasons why the gubmint would want that fact covered up short of them facilitating the attack.
As for the demolition fo the wtc towers..... I can imagine the impact of a jet laden with fuel to cause explisions post impact. And I'm guessing I'm not the only one who has watched charcoal on the grill appear to go out, smoke for awhile and then burst back into flames? Again, just to play the devil's advocate this time, lets say there were more explosives planted at the towers bases. Let's say the attack was orchestrated with that by air. Does this necessarily point to complicity by the U$ gubmint? I don't see how any reasonable person could hold the gubmint accountable for more than covering up the real nature/sophistication of the terrorists acts in question by the evidence presented. And that's a far cry for holding the gubmit (tacitly) responsible for the attacks.
lw
lw:
"Yeah, den... I read your book and dug it to boot, man."
that totally rocks brah, tanks for that! 8)
So I hear you saying that any guv "complicity" in the events of 9/11 may be limited to obfuscating and covering up the facts (for some logical and important "gubmint" reasons?)? Fair enuff, so would you care to opine about the ID of the actual perps? Somehow, I doubt the supposed and alleged "Arab hijackers" also orchestrated a non-commercial jet attack on the pentagon. So, who?
I think the fact that WTC 7 was clearly demolished by placed charges to be sufficient evidence that bombs could have also been placed in the towers prior to the day's events, and the buildings brought down in the same manner as number 7. A viewing of the slo-mo video footage of the tower collapses also clearly shows lines of explosions bursting out of the tower external walls FAR BELOW the level of the first "collapsing truss floors" to be a clear indicator of placed charges. Another of course is the sheer speed with which the towers descended, and yet further, by the fact that the building was effectively turned to dust during the collapse (highly unlikely if the collapse was due to mechanical forces only). Prior to the event, Giuliani was told the towers were going to go down, but the rescue and fire workers were not told, and perished in the buildings. Again, why did they know the towers were going down just then? If not with government complicity, then how could Giuliani get away with this stuff?
And of course, just prior to the collapses, we see the basement explosions, indicated by the expulsion of smokes and concussions (measured on seismograph readings) and apparent loud noises.
I can't think of any reasons why burning kerosene would have caused further explosions in the buildings long after the crashes themselves. Barbecues may flame up again (as the bricks themselves, with their self-contained flammable agents, begin to burn on their own), but they don't explode. BTW, the whole point of charcoal is to keep burning, unlike office buildings with limited fuel supplies. Seen any other steel-frame buildings burn down? Also, the fires in the towers were not large, and as the link I gave indicates, there is evidence that a "smudge fire" was used at the pentagon to give the impression of a large blaze, not borne out by the subsequent building damage. A smudge fire could also have been pre-placed in the towers to exagerate the volume of fire in the buildings for the cameras, done all the time in Hollywood. The firefighters in the buildings reported limited burning, to be easily controlled.
And without government complicity, we have only the ridiculous "incompetence theory" to explain the military stand down.
And how to explain the obvious nonchalance of the secret service guarding the prez at Booker Elementary, unless they knew already that the prez was not a target??
I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, but I am satisfied by the evidence that the official version put forward by the gubmint is a lie, which to me is the main issue to remember. But if not complicit, why the lies and coverups? What are Cheney and Rumsfeld (who both btw played key and pivotal roles in the day's events and the obfuscations immediately following) hiding?
Good question, man. What are they hiding? Gross incompetence that allowed them in the end to perp their done deal in iraq, maybe?
As for the charges placed in the towers....... I fail to see how the gubmit would benefit from the towers coming all the way down when they already had terrorists doing a needed (in a neocom way) dirty deed by running planes into the towers.
Btw, you ever see those charcoal towers used to light coals? The structure isn't flamable, but given the proper mix of fuel and oxygen, quickly burns everything inside. (Is jet fuel really kerosene?)
Btw2: If'n the initial flames were as controlled and minimal as stated above, what caused all of those people to jump t their certain deaths rather than remain in the building?
lw
Quote from: "dendro"For myself, the events of 9/11 are a sort of a watershed. Those who think that the Towers "burned down", or that the military was trying its best to stop the attacks, in my view fail the test for functional intelligence.
And the way I see it, those who see the events of 9/11 as the hand of some vast conspiracy fail the test of emotional intelligence. They are caught up in the speculative agendas of those who have real reason to have you believe in a conspiracy and ignore many important and almost incontrovertible facts, messy as those facts may be.
There are two small children in the small town in which I live whose mother was killed in the pentagon attack, and it bothers me to see those who use her death to promote their own twisted political agenda. And make no mistake, those on both the "right" and the "left" (both moderate and extreme) are doing this.
"As for the charges placed in the towers....... I fail to see how the gubmit would benefit from the towers coming all the way down when they already had terrorists doing a needed (in a neocom way) dirty deed by running planes into the towers."
First benefit-the shock effect of the visual images of those two towers crashing down one after the other in a highly dramatic manner. Ideal for mythmaking and social control.
Second-destruction of evidence.
Third-vastly increased death toll (see first benefit). Death is an end in itself for the military industry, and the numbers impress the public sufficiently to cause them to endorse military action. See "PEARl HARBOR".
Jet fuel is not much different than kerosene, or from charcoal lighter for that matter.
I don't know how many people jumped from the buildings. I doubt they were counted. Certainly, if they were trapped by flames and smoke, they may have jumped to avoid death by flame or suffocation. Some may have been terrified and panicked beyond belief, and freaked out. But you have seen the photos of people standing in the hole made by the crash of the jet? No flames there. The firefighters in the building reported that the flames were extinguishable. However, I have not said there were no flames or smoke, that would be silly. There was flame, just not enuff to bring down two steel frame skyscrapers at the speed of freefall within minutes of each other.
Amom:
"There are two small children in the small town in which I live whose mother was killed in the pentagon attack, and it bothers me to see those who use her death to promote their own twisted political agenda."
It bothers all of us. But it was a public event, and is spun as the justification for war, so the events of 9/11 will be discussed endlessly, from now on. I don't see why they shouldn't be discussed. Personally, I admit to a "twisted political agenda", as you term it. I want to know the truth, I want to punish the perps, and I want to STOP THE WAR. Does that offend you?
I'd be interested to hear your "messy facts" that neatly explain the events of 9/11.
"And the way I see it, those who see the events of 9/11 as the hand of some vast conspiracy fail the test of emotional intelligence."
Why emotional intelligence? How does one's "emotional intelligence" (not sure what this term means, actually) relate to which explanation of the events of 9/11 he chooses to believe or disbelieve?
Which explanation of the events conforms best with "emotional intelligence"?
I wonder what sort of arguments were (or would have been) used by military apologists in 1942 to attack those (few) who dared to say that Pearl Harbor was engineered by Roosevelt. Were they also termed "emotionally unintelligent"?
Here's a "messy fact" for you. Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor, and lied about it.
I guess I disagree on your analysis of the gubmit's hand in bringing down the towers. Jets crashing into Amerikkan skyscrapers after being hyjacked by terrorists would have been all the impetus the gubmit needed to carry out Its latest dirty deeds, imo. I think the gubmit would have benefited more by the towers staying up after the attack. (Amerikkan resiliance/craftsmanship and all.) A coordinated attack on amerikkan soil that made our leaders look like a bunch of bumbling bafoons. You think thats what They wanted?
If'n the neocoms are that damnable smart, I doubt they would risk getting caught adding explosives just to take the towers all the way down. It makes no sense, imo. Especially after setting up their biggest patsy yet, Osamma, with blame for the attack. Too much risk of the entire plan being discovered with too little payoff, imo.
Just what "evidence" at the towers crash site needed to be destroyed by our gubmit. den?
Btw, If'n I remember correctly, the nation was in a state of shock long before the towers came all the way down that day. The attacks alone brought the country to a stand still.
Nobody benefited from the towers coming down except for the terrorists, imo.
lw
I just found this quote from den while searching for the link provided in a post....
But as we have seen, the mentally sound also are capable of committing crimes against humanity.
....................
I disagree, for the most part. Unfortunately that which passes for "mentally sound" has been denigrated over time to include atrocious actions by supposedly civilized peeps. Rationalizing away bad behavior seems to be a hallmark of current, mentally sound majority.
lw
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm)
I agree with your assessment of "mentally sound".
The evidence destroyed was primarily the evidence of demolition. The remains were quickly shipped to China by a demolition contractor. Important and potentially incriminating financial and intelligence data was also destroyed.
"A coordinated attack on amerikkan soil that made our leaders look like a bunch of bumbling bafoons. You think thats what They wanted?"
No, and that's not what they got. They got a coordinated attack on American soil that (when they acted like cowboys and swore immediate and drastic retribution) made our leaders look like strong, capable patriots. Pretty much the way the majority of voters thinks of them to this day.
So you don't think that the death toll was a significant contributor to the success of the military recrujiting effort, or the quick rollover of congress on the vote to empower the president to war? If so, I disagree.
PLus, there is the propaganda effect of building a new "Freedom Tower" on the site, and turning it into a memorial for the "War on Terror".
Not to mention the simple fact that private businessmen made a profit off insurance from the destruction of an obsolete building.
Why not ask, "Why was WTC 7 demolished?".
quote from serendipity site: This article by Cheryl Seal mostly accepts the official story as a premise, that on September 11th four Boeing jets were hijacked by Arab terrorists and that these four planes crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, but she argues plausibly that, if so, high officials in the Bush administration must have known in advance what the Arabs were planning, but, knowing what was likely to happen, stood aside, allowed it to happen, and then took advantage of it in order to further their aims. She shows that *if* we accept the official story then George W. Bush, as commander-in-chief responsible for decisions made in the event of America being under attack, is also responsible for allowing the September 11th attacks to occur. Thus either the official story is false or George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
quote detail from above: but she argues plausibly that, if so, high officials in the Bush administration must have known in advance what the Arabs were planning, but, knowing what was likely to happen, stood aside, allowed it to happen, and then took advantage of it in order to further their aims.
....................
Imo, the author is making quite a leap above. And it appears to be a blatant effort to make the known facts meet her conclusions.
I believe Shrub knew in advance that the radicals were planning an attack on the US. However, I highly doubt He had enough specifics on time, place and means. Its also easy to imagine the neocons WISHING for a terrorist attack in order to further Their twisted adjenda. But that's a far cry from having their pulse on the international terrorist community, or worse yet, them working in unison with the terrorist factions to pull off the attacks, or even doing it themself, as speculated by another serendipity author.
I've now read a bunch of the info linked above, den. The authors seem to stray into conjecture and wild speculation, giving me the impression that the truth of the matters at hand prolly fall somewhere between the official accounts and that of the conspiracy theorists.
lw
cool, at least you did some reading on the subject.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that elements of the US guv couldn't be in tune with the pulse of the terrorist community. Seems obvvious to me.
Also, I have to ask, if the Secret Service was not briefed about the actual targets of that day, why did they take no action, as required by their job description and mission statement, to protect either the president or the elementary school and community where he was visiting?
And of course, why no military defense of the US?
quote den: Also, I have to ask, if the Secret Service was not briefed about the actual targets of that day, why did they take no action, as required by their job description and mission statement, to protect either the president or the elementary school and community where he was visiting?
Again, I have to say the above strays ver' far into speculation. It makes no logical sense to me for the agency in charge of protecting the prez to base their job performance on a terrorist attack of which they had knowledge. After all, I imagine there are countless lesser threats to a president that they would be expected address regardless of terror alert status. Or maybe I miss your point.
I also fail to see how it is obvious that our gubmit would have detailed knowledge of an impending attack. Clinton's advisors seemed certain something big was being planned. And it sounds like they passed that info onto shrub. SOmeone dropped the ball, that's for sure. But I remember flying pre 9-11 and security was lax for the most part. I believe the commercial airline industry would have been tightened up much quicker if'n the country wasn't ruled by the almighty dollar.
lw
lw:
"Again, I have to say the above strays ver' far into speculation. It makes no logical sense to me for the agency in charge of protecting the prez to base their job performance on a terrorist attack of which they had knowledge. After all, I imagine there are countless lesser threats to a president that they would be expected address regardless of terror alert status. Or maybe I miss your point. "
OK, let me restate for clarification. The country was under major attack. The prez' location was public knowledge, and he was at risk, as was the school and community. The secret service did not move the president for a very long time. Why?
I understood your comment about the "pulse of the int'l terror community" to mean that you think that US intel wouldn't have had the knowledge and means to pull off such an attack. But I see you were focusing on knowledge of the details of this specific attack. I won't quibble as to whether or not the Intel community's participation was obvious, or not. What I meant was, the intel community was in a perfect position to know. Especially if they were participants. I don't see any reason to believe that they could not have been, or were NOT, involved. The circumstantial evidence that many were "in the loop" on this affair is substantial-I think of the lack of military defense, and the failure of the SS to move the prez from the school in a timely manner.
Again, I do not see why it is so impossible for US intel to have been involved, or why Mossad would not have been involved, or even other groups. Why could US intel have not been involved? They could have been. They certainly had the knowledge to successfully participate in such an operation. You may not agree that they did participate, but again, I see no reason to believe that they did NOT participate, and certainly not on the basis that they lacked sufficient data or expertise to do so.
Again, if the SS knew the day's targets, they knew the prez was not at risk, and that they did not have to hurry him out of the school for safety reasons. Cuz there was no danger!
here's a link to Web Tarpley's latest pages regarding the demolition of the buildings:
http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf (http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf)
lw, can you link me to the article by Cheryl Seal that you quote from above? I don't know where on that site her paper is.
Ahh, I see, this is it:
http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/seal01.htm (http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/seal01.htm)
Altho available on the serendipity site, this is not a page linked on the pages I offered. I had not read it, and don't necessarily endorse it. I haven't explored this site, as I followed a link just to the article I posted. The paper I linked, I liked.
I really don't endorse this writer's (Seal's) conclusions. I believe elements in the Bush admin, DOD Pentagon, NORAD, FEMA and other key groups participated knowingly and willfully in the attacks, along with agents of foreign governments.
I still can't help but think that the gubmit comes out smelling WAY better by foiling any terrorist attack than they do by allowing it to happen or even orchestrating the action.
Occam's razor makes be wonder if'n there may be a few slices and dices of reality remaining in between the official version and the radical U$ gubmitt attack on the US peeps as described above in your last post.
I don't think the neocoms are as messed up as you do, even though I believe they have plenty of well documented abuses of power of an impeachable or even criminal nature. I see no reason to get into speculation concerning thsi bunch.
This is a MASSIVE cover-up if true, brawh. Massive.
lw
Quote from: "dendro"Amom:
"There are two small children in the small town in which I live whose mother was killed in the pentagon attack, and it bothers me to see those who use her death to promote their own twisted political agenda."
It bothers all of us. But it was a public event, and is spun as the justification for war, so the events of 9/11 will be discussed endlessly, from now on.
Absolutely. And it's being used by the left to sow fear and terror too, but of a different enemy. Same shit, different day.
(Be afraid! Be afraid! The Evil is outside! It's Us against Them! Fnord!)QuoteI'd be interested to hear your "messy facts" that neatly explain the events of 9/11.
Well, as an example, many of the more paranoid fear mongers claim that no jet hit the pentagon, that -- in fact -- a missile was fired at it, probably by our own government to generate fear and hatred (how's that for irony?). This ignores the messy fact that there really
was a plane hijacked from Dulles, and some fairly public figures were aboard, such as the CEO of a publicly-traded hi-tech NoVA company. A missing airplane and the passengers aboard comprise a pretty messy fact if you ask me.
QuoteWhy emotional intelligence? How does one's "emotional intelligence" (not sure what this term means, actually) relate to which explanation of the events of 9/11 he chooses to believe or disbelieve?
Well, if one let's oneself get whipped up into a froth about the events (fear and hatred), one gets focused on the outward situation and misses the fact that situation is ultimately a distraction, a drama, an entertainment. If you really want to understand the situation on a deeper level (beyond the disputed "facts" of the occurrence), one needs to look
inside, towards ones own heart. If one focuses outwardly, one ultimately learns nothing beyond the sports-scores of some contrived Archetypal melodrama.
But to understand
that requires a level of self-knowledge lacking and discouraged by the people on the right and left who are creating the myth.
QuoteHere's a "messy fact" for you. Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor, and lied about it.
So? Believe it or not, Roosevelt and all of his cronies are dead, and the "government" as a static thing-in-itself does not exist. If you're trying to say that one group of people could engineer a disaster because another group of people did over 60 years ago... perhaps, but forgive me if I don't find this particularly insightful.
lw:
"I still can't help but think that the gubmit comes out smelling WAY better by foiling any terrorist attack than they do by allowing it to happen or even orchestrating the action."
mebbe so--IF their goal was to come out smelling great. But if the goal was to invade Afffy and Irraqqy (and Syria and Iran and Petrolistan and Poppystan and...), then mebbe they wanted a dramatic demolition and high death toll, even if they don't look too good. And I don't think you can discount the possiblity of important occult purposes for the destruction as well.
Most Amurrikkans are happy so long as they are shooting at someone. They have already forgotten most of the "mistakes" made pre-9/11. Witness the lack of interest in the so-called "Downing St. Memo", ignored by the congress and press for the last month. Who cares?, let's watch the "Duke" Wayne flik, yeah!
"Occam's razor makes be wonder if'n there may be a few slices and dices of reality remaining in between the official version and the radical U$ gubmitt attack on the US peeps as described above in your last post. "
again, mebbe so, but would you care to parse it? I can't see many slices, so feel free to show me...
"I don't think the neocoms are as messed up as you do, even though I believe they have plenty of well documented abuses of power of an impeachable or even criminal nature. I see no reason to get into speculation concerning thsi bunch. "
fair enuff, we disagree. I don't really need to speculate, becuz I see stacks and heaps of evidence pointing in their direction, over the last 50 years. I recommend you read some books about the Bush crime family, involved in every dirty deal for fifty years or more. That's a lot of dirty! I do think if you investigate the Bush crime family, you will understand why I put nothing past them.
"This is a MASSIVE cover-up if true, brawh. Massive. "
Absotootly, bro. It's what they do. My perspective is perhaps augmented by the fact that my Dad was a top FBI guy, '40's to '70's, and was involved in the coverups of the murders of JFK, RFK, Marylin, and the cleanup of the Watts riots and the Black civil rights groups and PAC's, among many other things. Remember CoIntelPro? Yeah. There is a huge industry of cover- and cleanup guys out there. It doesn't take that many people at the top to engineer the acts and know the facts, then the attack dogs follow with murder and intimidation. Seems to work well for them.
Amom:
"Absolutely. And it's being used by the left to sow fear and terror too, but of a different enemy. Same shit, different day. "
true. But as of now, the 9/11 Truth Movement is not trying to terrorize anyone, unless you believe that calling for an independent prosecutor is a form of terror. And one of the goals is to stop the wars, which I feel would DECREASE the terror load considerably.
"Well, as an example, many of the more paranoid fear mongers claim that no jet hit the pentagon, that -- in fact -- a missile was fired at it, probably by our own government to generate fear and hatred (how's that for irony?). This ignores the messy fact that there really was a plane hijacked from Dulles, and some fairly public figures were aboard, such as the CEO of a publicly-traded hi-tech NoVA company. A missing airplane and the passengers aboard comprise a pretty messy fact if you ask me. "
Messy, yes, in terms of life lost. But disposing of a planeload of people is not that hard, or messy. How does fifty miles offshore in the Atlantic sound? Clean enuff?
"Well, if one let's oneself get whipped up into a froth about the events (fear and hatred), one gets focused on the outward situation and misses the fact that situation is ultimately a distraction, a drama, an entertainment. If you really want to understand the situation on a deeper level (beyond the disputed "facts" of the occurrence), one needs to look inside, towards ones own heart. If one focuses outwardly, one ultimately learns nothing beyond the sports-scores of some contrived Archetypal melodrama. But to understand that requires a level of self-knowledge lacking and discouraged by the people on the right and left who are creating the myth. "
OK, fair enuff, I agree. Altho I don't see where I have posted anything whipped up or frothy, or fear-laden for that matter. I'm just pointing out that a crime has been committed, and a nation led to war on the basis of lies. In the interest of world peace and justice, these things need to be dealt with in a legal manner, and the criminals brought to account.
Perhaps your idea fits better in The Mountain? Here in The World, us less-enlightened types discuss world events and politics. Altho, I do believe that even enlightened beings have an interest, perhaps a duty, to be aware of the goings on around them, and to participate in an enlightened manner, to bring about peace and safety for all. For example, I may know that, in reality, I am Shiva. But I am also currently a finite, mortal being who embodies a portion of Shiva, and I interact with others of my self, and with the environment, in time and space. I would hope that I would accordingly attempt to bring the wisdom of the Cosmic Supreme Lord to bear on finite and temporal situations, for the benefit of all. While I understand the Gita (death and suffering are illusory), I also understand the Bodhisattva (continue to work for enlightenment for all). Personally, I just want to save the children.
"So? Believe it or not, Roosevelt and all of his cronies are dead, and the "government" as a static thing-in-itself does not exist. If you're trying to say that one group of people could engineer a disaster because another group of people did over 60 years ago... perhaps, but forgive me if I don't find this particularly insightful"
Yes, this does show that it is possible for governments and leaders to lie about their mass murders, in case there are any doubts. Examples too numerous to count. These are the messy facts that give rise to the understanding that they cannot be trusted. And while I agree that the government, as "ding an sich", does not exist, the spiritual descendants of Roosevelt are still in control of our society, so their spirit persists, as do their acts of murder and tyranny.
Quote from: "dendro"Messy, yes, in terms of life lost. But disposing of a planeload of people is not that hard, or messy. How does fifty miles offshore in the Atlantic sound? Clean enuff?
I just don't follow this. Why would one hijack a plane, dispose of it in the Atlantic, and shoot the pentagon with a missle? Wouldn't it be much easier (and less likely to be found out) to just fly the plane into the pentagon to begin with?
Amom: Thanks for slicing that last one concerning the pentagon attack for me.
den: I've read most of the bush family history from the prospective of the opposition. (The prolly true prospective, if'n you ask me.) A couple of radical friends have been sending me literature for a couple of decades now. But IU still say there are enough documented cases of shrub's executive branch excesses to impeach or jail for was crimes. Why speculate?
lw
some ideas--after the so-called fire, at the pentagon, there was little real evidence left that a plane had even crashed there. Look at the pics I linked to in my first post on this thread--immediately after the impact, precious little damage visible anywhere at the pentagon, precious few plane parts anywhere--from the crash of a loaded 767 at ground zero! Official story--the dam thing vaporised! No survivors! Neat. If you DID crash a planeload of people there, there would have been a huge mess all over the place, major damage to the building, and lots of evidence (parts, damages etc.) of what had happened to the plane. Unless you gassed everyone on board, there may have even been survivors, who could talk. Also, it was prolly easier to guide whatever fully-rigged RC Global Hawk plane was aimed at the pentagon than it would be to guide a commercial passenger 767-witness that the second plane (not saying IT was a 767 either-in fact, the engine of a 737 crashed to the street) to crash into the WTC almost missed the building completely. Basically, it is not physically possible for the typical professional pilot, much less an untrained Arab hijacker, to maneuver a 767 in the bizarre arc of flight path supposedly taken by the alleged 767 in order to drop down and hit the pentagon. Yet the pentagon crash was precisely guided--it hit exactly in the part of the building that was vacant, minimizing loss of property etc. It made for good theater, but did little real damage. Yet we are to believe that planes that crashed into the tops of the towers quickly burned the suckers to dust.
They claim they did DNA analysis of the bodies of the victims, to verify the passenger list. But strangely, NO ARABS on board. And where are the black boxes for any of these crashes? And the local security video footage? Supposedly all confiscated by the FBI, and too classified to display. The official story doesn't work. So given that the official story is a joke, where does Occam's Razor lead next?
Slice and dice away, amigos...
flash animation about the pentagon strike:
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm)
firefighters in the WTC discuss the situation, on floor 78-the crash site floor:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_ ... hters.html (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_firefighters.html)
Different article than the above link:
"Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.
"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.
"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."
However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.
Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.
Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..
--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
--The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.
--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.
One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.
Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.
Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.
Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.
And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."
Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.
In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.
"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.
"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."
After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.
"In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes."
I see this topic is a nonstarter. I triple triple suckanipple promise not to go there again. 8)
What topic? John McCain? heeh
lw
hey, I WAS on topic--for a while :wink:
SO, back off topic....
I read some info at one of the last links provided earlier today concerning the isreali/wtc connection.......
It would seem to me to be only natural for members of moussad to be cheering on what happened on 9/11 for the simple hope that the act would solidfy the bond between the U$ and Isreal. I'm willing to bet there were high level talks in the isreali gubmint concerning cncerning just this scenario way before it happened.
I can't figure out any connection of the isreali spy masters ot the events in nyc duriing 9/11 with the exception of dogs sniffing traces of explosives when nothing specific was found in their vans.
Why go to all the trouble and potential danger in rigging an attack to APPEAR masterminded by islamic extremists when there are factions lining up for the honor of doing the job.
And also, it would appear natural for the isreali agents to HOPE to pin the attacks on palestinian factions in an effort to further their national cause wit hthe U$ as well.
But then one question still remains.... wtf are isreali massoud agents doing sniffing around our back yards?
lw
yeah, a lot of Israeli "art students" and "movers" left the US right after 9/11. DC is an Israeli capital now.
Lewin, a MOussaoud hijack expert, was seated in the center of the group of so-called "Arab hijackers" on one of the NY planes. Initial reports from the plane during the hijack, given by the stews, said that the passenger in seat 6, Lewin, was shooting the pilots.
The extremists may have been lining up (where's THAT queue?), but that doesn't prevent them from being led by "agents of a foreign power". Some so-called Al Qaeda have turned out to be Israelis or their surrogates. There are Israelis in Iraq now, and they are able to do much espionage.
Anyhoo, I like to ask, "Who benefits?" Iraqis? Iranians? Afghanis? Pakistanis? Israelis? The Israelis wanted much more than just more support in their Palestinian struggle. They wanted to take the ME. They are now well on their way. What's next? They now push for Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon.
I'm watching The Grateful Dead Movie, and thinking about the Book of Laughingwillow, what a trip. The movie shows the highlights, everything a stone groove. But the Book of LW shows the occult side of the trip too. You went thru way more than it would take to put me in a rubber room, brah. And you're still truckin, 8)
Thanks for the kind words, den.
Now, I know this may look like I'm sucking up to you for spreading on the flattery above, but I can assure you thats no the case. The isreali's pulling this off makes more sense to me than our admin. (unless you think they were in cahoots.)
Isreal is in a tenous position. They prolly feel their very survival is on the line. Depserate folks do desperate things. I can at least conceive of this as a possibility.
Add that to the fact that the U$ relationship with isreal has historically ran hot or cold, I can see how they would feel the need to attempt to influence the directions of world events and maybe our loyalty to their cause.
lw
LW:
"The isreali's pulling this off makes more sense to me than our admin. (unless you think they were in cahoots.) "
cahoots, yeah. Neocons in the Pentagon, DOD, White House, State, etc. etc. Dov Zakheim, dual citizen, ran the pentagon for many years. He also was involved in a remote control aircraft corp. Read Operation Northwoods for a blueprint of 9/11 written in the sixties. The war industry needs war to profit. Israel is a natural partner in US war industry. AIPAC fed Franklin (DOD office of special plans) the fake Iraq intel needed to sway congress, with Cheney's blessing.
"Add that to the fact that the U$ relationship with isreal has historically ran hot or cold, I can see how they would feel the need to attempt to influence the directions of world events and maybe our loyalty to their cause."
yes. with great success, at present.
Is the Book of Laughingwillow lost from the web, with the demise of SPF? I think I may have missed some early chapters.
Hey, den.
I'm guessing the book of laughingwillow is partially gone now that spf went down. I'm pretty sure i have a copy of most of the chapters on my computer somewhere. I'll snoop around a little and post if found.
Thanks for the encouragement, btw.
lw
O yeah brah, an important work of social history, insight into a special scene, and psychedelic spirituality, should be widely read imo.