Wednesday, March 07, 2007

A Dot Too Far

Nothing was delivered
And I tell this truth to you,
Not out of spite or anger
But simply because it's true. - Bob Dylan

It seems appropriate enough that that old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times," isn't Chinese at all, but American. What's more, it may have been coined by Robert Kennedy, which makes it so appropriate it hurts. And as interesting as our times are, and may even be beyond our imagining, it astonishes me how much attention is paid to the far less compelling and unconvincing distractions.

The conclusion of the Libby trial tells me I was right to have tuned it out a long time ago for expecting nothing but a Black Fitzmas. Juror Denis Collins can now say the jury wondered a "number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove... where are these other guys?"' The investigation is inactive, says Fitzgerald, and has been for some time, and all the liberal blogosphere has to show for its years of better-not-pout best behaviour is the head of a failed pornographer most of it wouldn't have heard of before he became what unhappy jurors are calling the "fall guy." And a head still attached to its body at that, since Libby just jumped the queue for a presidential pardon in another year and a half.

I wish conspiracy culture had some higher authority which could hold accountable the voices who said things would prove so different. I don't mean those who merely speculated incorrectly, but the ones who claimed the prerogative of inside information and "unnamed sources." Perhaps some of them did, and what they were told was simply wrong (or more likely, not so simply). But I hope at least the trial's end helps expose the disinfotainers, and separates honest truth seekers from mere consumers of conspiratainments.

Remember the 28 indictments, including Cheney and Bush? Remember, good God, the MI-6 agents caught trying to blow up the Chicago subway? And I've always been curious, and increasingly suspicious, about the intentions of Fitzgerald's oft-cited and seemingly well-informed anonymous cheerleader "Citizenspook" ("Libby was just an appetizer," he wrote last month. "The plot thickens. Be patient. FITZ!"). The one time he turned away from fanning expectations for "Treasongate" was to bizarrely slag Daniel Hopsicker as a "damage control mole messiah for the government.... They are grooming him as the atom bomb to destroy the 911 truth movement." And why did the only 9/11 researcher left who could be called a legitimate investigator deserve such approbation? Naturally, because he doesn't believe the towers were "laced with explosives," and "How could anybody with even half a brain look at the Pentagon footage and not have serious questions about what hit [it]?" In other words, the wedge issues. And who do you think might be driving the wedge?

There seems a prevailing consensus that a concession of uncertainty is a sign of soft-headedness, or even indicative of complicity in disinformation and cover-up. At the risk of being tagged a disinfo artist, I don't think so. When I'm unsure of something - and I'm unsure of a lot of things - I like a nice maybe or perhaps. In fact, I think an admission that one might be wrong should be the price of serious appraisal. Not only am I disinclined to heed those who claim to have solved the puzzles of our time's hidden riddles, but I'm likely to red-flag them with suspicion. And the same should go for me if I ever say, unreservedly, that This is the way things are.

I'm going to try not to write any more on this subject, because after I'm done I feel like I've only helped feed the energy sink, but here I go again: I'm not on board with demolitions and Pentagon missiles, partly because I find the physical evidence unpersuasive. Though "physical" is a misnomer, since it's almost entirely based upon selective video clips and cherry-picked testimony. (For instance, that the first thoughts of a witness in a tower's sub-basement was not unreasonably of bombs somehow becomes "proof of pre-planted explosives.") But also, and more deeply, because I'm suspicious of how these narratives have acted like cancer cells to effectively ingest, mutate and bury the chance for a credible and effective 9/11 Movement. The most recent example may be the flap over BBC "foreknowledge" of building 7's collapse, which has wound up a lot of people for, I think, some pretty poor reasons.

To many, it's an unchallenged assumption that no one expected WTC 7, and so Aaron Brown's report that "we're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing" is received as confirmation that someone pre-released the "script," rather than as evidence that its fall may be yet unexplained but was not a surprise. That is why so many cameras were fixed on it to capture its fall, and yes, that is why the fire team was "pulled." The day was full of confused, false and conflicting news, and that's the nature of reporting an unprecedented catastrophic event in real time. Yet the medium is not the message here.

But you know what? I could be wrong. I just wish 9/11's demolition experts could make similar admissions.


Blogger just_another_dick said...

Good post.

I'll admit I've never agreed with everything you've said in the past. But I will say that, all in all, I think your bullshit detector is pretty damn good.

For what that's worth, anyway.

Although, I think I'll avoid the comments for this one because I can already read the accusations of disinfo agent & gatekeeper , etc., that haven't even been written yet but will be very soon.

I will give you sure aren't shy about pissing off your target audience are you?

3/07/2007 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger Wilko said...

As a journalist I know how the media beast feeds off circulating information where speculation is passed on and on and quickly transforms into fact. On a day of unparalled choas and destruction, it is not suprising that a BBC journalist, desperate to fill air time, spoke about the collapse of a building not knowing it loomed large behind her. "Break the story first" is the mantra of every journalist and the temptation is to serve up 'facts' wihtout research or qualification. Having said that I am open minded and there may have been 'dark actors' dropping a prescribed narrative into the mainstream media frenzy. That's what makes me different from Bush and the Neo-Cons. I'm willing to admit I could be wrong. I'm willing to review the facts and change my mind. I do not think in absolutes and I'm wary of jumping to conclusions. I recognise speculation for what it is - speculation (although great to mull over with friends during conversation) So before 911 truthers fill up the message board with vitriol against Geoff for going against the 'truther' orthodoxy just remember that it's good to have an open mind or admit to being unconvinced. I for one believe in the demolition theory (there are dozens of eye witness testimonies for a start) but lets keep this a conversation not a mud-slinging, tirade.

3/07/2007 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger bksacks said...


I'm a board member. I very much appreciate your comments, even as I understand they may be in part directed at The unwillingness to admit uncertainty is just as cancerous as you imply - I see it all the time, and it takes up far too much of my energy. But no longer.

I also am not on board with demolition and/or "no plane at Pentagon" theories. The other board members understand this [most disregard the no plane theories, but are strongly in the demolition camp], and are tolerant (for the most part) of my skepticism here.

Please don;t lose sight that there is very good 9/11 research being done in places other than Florida. We hosted a recent essay on the work of Maher Osseiran, who is doing very important work. He argues that the 'bin Laden confession video' is not a fake, but is the product of a US-sponsored sting operation.

His conclusions, which are based on arguments too complex to summarize here, show (in my view) that the US military leadership is very likely guilty of treason and had no intention of capturing bin Laden prior to the attack on Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, when we publish something like this, we get the predictable responses: "You are a shill." "You are covering for the government." Way worse stuff, too.

My suggestion is: completely ignore them. Completely. I don't always hold to this, but I am convinced it's the best approach. They are not our audience, I've come to understand. They are their OWN audience, ifn we will just let them be. We have bigger fish to fry.

I hope you will turn your prodigious talent to these subjects more often, and write less on 'magick'. But you have to be you. I for one am very glad to have your perspective.


3/07/2007 01:04:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

One does not really need a bullshit detector on this site.

A pair of hip waders and a large shovel are much more useful.

3/07/2007 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger muddy elephant said...

Jeff said:

When I'm unsure of something - and I'm unsure of a lot of things - I like a nice maybe or perhaps. In fact, I think an admission that one might be wrong should be the price of serious appraisal. Not only am I disinclined to heed those who claim to have solved the puzzles of our time's hidden riddles, but I'm likely to red-flag them with suspicion. And the same should go for me if I ever say, unreservedly, that This is the way things are.

Perhaps I'm just teaching you RI dolphins how to swim but Jeff's sensibilities here are duly appreciated. Check out this article on general semantics.

3/07/2007 01:48:00 PM  
Blogger Quiller said...

And the same should go for me if I ever say, unreservedly, that This is the way things are.

I apply this attitude especially to religion. The honest answer is "nobody knows for sure what happens after we die." Look out for the person who knows all the details.

3/07/2007 02:17:00 PM  
Blogger et in Arcadia ego Eve said...

Re: "Not only am I disinclined to heed those who claim to have solved the puzzles of our time's hidden riddles..."

The riddles begin to unwind very quickly when you take this famous man's advice:

'If truth calls you, follow it, and all will come right of itself.'

3/07/2007 02:26:00 PM  
Blogger dbd said...

Let's just look at these two words

this means that things happened in an orderly manner. The basement supports were removed, girders and beams were cut in the correct order so that the building itself is "taken apart into a million pieces and placed in the basement" to quote the owner of a demolition company. Everything is done in the correct sequence so that the building doesn't suddenly fall over ruining everything around it. It is easy to clean up because it is already in manageable pieces. As William Rodriguez points out, the first explosions happened in the basement which is the correct order in operations of this kind.

explosive force used to break steel and pulverize concrete.

Are these two elements to be found in the three building failures at the WTC?
Steel was reduced to managable lengths. In the over 50,000 feet of continuous stretches of steel, none are over 30 feet long.
Concrete was indeed pulverized into dust. There was very little concrete debris at the scene as we see from photos.
Since the debris is not piled hundreds of feet high on top of intact basement understructures and since there were no long lengths of steel or large pieces of concrete; we know that this, by definition is controlled demolition.
It was not a "structural failure"
It was not "damage from fire"
It was global disintegration of structures over 1/4 mile high.
Cognitive dissonance afflicts those even with very very high IQs.
Those so afflicted cannot relate cold facts to the conclusions that must follow.
Next Jeff will be telling us that he "trusts our president"
Just like Oprah.
Maybe by then he can have his own msm tv show.

3/07/2007 03:18:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Next Jeff will be telling us that he "trusts our president"

In other words, "You're either with us, or - " right?

Here endeth the lesson.

3/07/2007 03:28:00 PM  
Blogger sandymac said...

I am not in any 9/11-truth camp. I’m not in any camp at all – political camp or ideological camp. I just want to try and make sense of the world - for me. To find the puzzle pieces that bring the bigger picture into focus.

I was very active in ‘03 and ‘04 in the 9/11 question and research category. I was searching for an explanation of why we started a war. I devoured everything I could read or watch or listen to on the subject. I gave presentations. David Ray Griffin’s book, A New Pearl Harbor, laid out the “evidence” in a reasonable style. Jeff’s Coincidence Timeline filled in the blanks. Paul Thompson’s Terror Timeline and Daniel Hopsinger’s excellent investigative journalism were helpful. Hopsinger’s reporting reminds me of Gary Webb’s work, another piece of the puzzle. These are the places I began to put things together. Then I watched the videos that were available.

Regarding demolition, the buildings were demolished, after all. The videos speak for themselves. I’ve decided to believe my own eyes in this case. Just knowing Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of the security company that covered the WTC through 2000 was enough for me. No need to argue. Divide and conquer is their main tactic. And as President Bush said, when describing the reading program he was attending while the buildings collapsed, “it works!” Divide and conquer, that is. As David Icke would say, divide and rule.

The media propagandists have so much power, we simply have to question everything they say and continue to think for ourselves. I present my case to the world with those ideas in mind.

I live just outside the box, inside which most of my friends and family continue to live. It’s sometimes quite lonely. Sort of how I felt back when I was a kid and used to listen to my transistor radio under my pillow at night - listening to the “conspiracy theorists” try and sort out the JFK assassination. I was not a conspiracy theorist then and I’m not one now. I would just like to know what’s going on. Now, I realize, it’s really, really complicated.

I've learned so much from this blog, not just from Jeff, but from all the dialogue and links. Thanks.

3/07/2007 03:33:00 PM  
Blogger Fuck Blogger said...

The Babbling brook babels endlessly for your titillation and distraction, until you´ve finally shot your load, ejaculated and fallen fast asleep...contented like an embryo in a coat of honey-like ´goo...´ until the next day, when the cycle begins all over again...until finally, you are six feet under and your life is fucking over.

Here endeth your life.

3/07/2007 03:33:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Jeff writes:

I'm going to try not to write any more on this subject, because after I'm done I feel like I've only helped feed the energy sink, but here I go again: I'm not on board with demolitions and Pentagon missiles, partly because I find the physical evidence unpersuasive.

Such as what? You don't provide any. And its completely misconstrued of you to attempt to put the cat back into the bag of "video interpretation," because videos are not the only evidence available.

Even FEMA found the sulfurated steel at WTC7, and pools of molten steel in the basements for weeks and weeks. So can you.

Even thermite specific recipes have been found: physical evidence gathered by Dr. Stephen Jones, so persuasive a truth teller he was virtually fired from teaching.

Thus with that, Jeff, yours is a strange comment:

Though "physical" is a misnomer, since it's almost entirely based upon selective video clips and cherry-picked testimony.


Didn't the building concrete get pulverized into dust? At freefall speed? With steel shooting out? Wtih demolition squibs? Know of any other situations where this occurs? Talk to the firemen who would agree on demolition. Particularly a fireman who didn't find "more than half a keypad" from a phone in the dusty demolition remnants. Jeff, the emperor has no clothes, and I'm surprised of your attempt to clothe yourself in such a transparent raiment as well.

Jeff mistakenly writes:

That is why so many cameras were fixed on it to capture its fall, and yes, that is why the fire team was "pulled."

No. There was no fire team in WTC7, like you and Silverstein are arguing from the same page. That's what Silverstein falsely claimed as his three-years-late alibi on what he meant by "pull it" in reference to WTC7, so he just gets caught in a double lie.

Jeff writes:

But you know what? I could be wrong. I just wish 9/11's demolition experts could make similar admissions.

They did, you selectively forgot. Let me remind you.

They quickly recanted. One of them actually worked contract for the Pentagon, out of Arizona. You can read at I'm sure on that, I forget his name. He was real quick on the (with)draw of his statements about controlled demolition.

Recently another Dutch demolitions expert, Jowenko, got caught on film and was unable to recant. He was caught off guard giving his expert analysis of WTC7 saying that they "obviously demolished WTC7 a few weeks later because it was damaged, I've seen the film..." When he was told by his interviewer, that, no, actually, that film he was referring to of WTC7 being demolished was of the same day as 9-11. You could see the 2 + 2 = 5 on his face. He looked really sad. He didn't want to believe it. When he got some more confirmation from the journalist interviewing that it was indeed of the same day as 9-11 what he was a moment ago describing as a controlled demolition of WTC7, he looked like the other 84% of the U.S. of A. who think Bush is lying. It's a pretty painful interview to watch in his even mournful empty reaction (looking to me like "well, gee, the whole thing was pre-rigged, I'll be damn, America has really gone to hell. What a shame."

Later he additionally opines that he can understand why no one wants to talk about it: he said they would probably see "their career finished."

Besides, you've got Silverstein admitting to perpetrating a pre-rigged explosion in his WTC7 building, wired for 9-11 in advance.

That's not some sort of "interpretative video" there. It's simply the order of events and the physical information. There are plenty of witnesses as well, though they are videoed, I've additionally heard some audio. I "interpret" what they are saying about pools of running molten lava steel in the basements before the collapses of WTC1, and WTC2 as having something to do with a controlled demolition and thermate reactions. Though even without my "interpretation" of that, there would still be the witnesses, filmed or unfilmed.

"It's all just Interpretive video" is the most grasping sort of argument I have ever heard to explain concrete dust, and molten and sulfurated steel.

Besides, the only three buildings in world history collapsing into dust at freefall speed, on the same day?

That's hardly interpretive video.

What's interpretive (even imperative, with only 16% believing the official conspiracy theory) is the spin to keep people off guard.

Framing your arguments as "saving the 9-11 truth movement," sounds rather strange to me. The 9-11 truth movement is doing quite fine as "the bare lie shines through" even more than ever. I'll never understand how you blame others for cherrypicking, when you are doing this in a divisive fight to little purpose. Though I expect you will continue to do so. So be it.


And as for the Pentagon, there is more than "interpretive video" there. There's the small (literally) fact that the hole is too small for the government conspiracy theory Boeing to go through. Much less "vaporize" as they claim to get rid of itself, hypocritically claiming that the bodies on board didn't vaporize so they could link bodies to the site. (Those 9-11 Pentagon bodies were autopsied by the ever trustworthy "bone guys" who did Waco's autopsies as well.)

it is known that they used a radiological device at the Pentagon as well: "One of the confirmations from EPA, according to DU weapons specialist. ">There's the fact that radiation discovered at the Pentagon site and its environs the day of, was verified by the EPA."

Then we've all seen the radiation suited Pentagon workers that day, right?

There's too much evidence actually of controlled demolition and DU-tipped bunker busting missiles. Physical evidence.

My favorite from that link:

"If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, as the EPA confirmed on the scene, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft the federal government alleges hit the building. Why is that?

[6] Because Boeing said so! "Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP. The "official story" of 9-11 is thus contradicted once more--since the federal allegation is that the Pentagon hit was a Boeing 757. Boeing confirms the federal allegation is untrue since such a plane hit would not produce the radioactivity."

The video evidence merely clinches the arguments and makes it understandable to the population at large, though it is unrequired to exist to prove controlled demolition or something other than a Boeing at the Pentagon.

3/07/2007 03:35:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

I'm not on board with demolitions and Pentagon missiles, partly because I find the physical evidence unpersuasive...But also, and more deeply, because I'm suspicious of how these narratives have acted like cancer cells to effectively ingest, mutate and bury the chance for a credible and effective 9/11 Movement.

And more power to ye, Lad, for all of the above--including your rare insight that certainty in a revelation is an invitation to misdirection. Why is maybe such a slippery eel that everyone's afraid to acknowledge it as the fundamental condition of our "knowing"?

The other high point in this short post is the focus on the wedge. I've been hanging out on the other side of the electric curtain a bit of late--the conservative hemisphere of the blogoverse--just to see how receptive those folks might be to the notion that these wedges exist for a reason that has nothing to do with the causes championed by the practioners of this suspicious, pointy tool. The surprising result of my research is that those folks, while perhaps somewhat more repulsed by my politics than the folks on this side of the curtain, are no more (or less) opposed to the idea that we're being divided along arbitrary ideological lines than reasonable people like us are.

This is the most puzzling thing in this business of info-tainment: are we so blinded by our allegiances that we can't accept the notion that everyone (with the exception of the ruling classes and the mouth organs of division) basically wants the same things? Truth, justice, freedom, peace, sustenance, opportunity, and a clean environment in which to enjoy all of the above. It's true. Further, we're not so much divided on how to achieve these things as in our willingness to believe that our counterparts genuinely share our most basic values.

I also noticed a surprising degree of tolerance in some of the reactionary wacko outlets. In the well-traveled Captain's Quarters, the Captain himself went on record to say that Ann Coultur was a divisive, insipid harpie without whom their side would be much better off (in reaction to Annie's recent reference to Edwards as a "faggot"). While the Captain's equanimity wasn't exactly shared by all his readers, many of them did agree.

When I was haranging them last week about secrecy in government, specifically in reference to the official end of democracy with the signing of the National Security Act of 1947, many of them said, "Why stop there--it goes back much further than that in our history." The only real difference between us and them on this issue was that most of them couldn't imagine how we'd get along without small groups of men who understood the world better that than we do to make the hard decisions for us.

Overall, the experience has been both revealing of my own prejudices and also affirmative of my belief that the way forward is tied to exposing the falseness of our divisions and in describing the simple solutions to supposedly complex problems that await a public not fooled by those cheesy wedges. Thanks, Jeff, for helping point them out.

3/07/2007 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger Fuck Blogger said...

Deckard: Yeah. -- Remember when you were six? You and your brother snuck into an empty building through a basement window. You were gonna play doctor. He showed you his, but when it got to be your turn you chickened and ran. Remember that? You ever tell anybody that? Your mother, Tyrell, anybody huh? You remember the spider that lived in a bush outside your window? Orange body, green legs. Watched her build a web all summer. Then one day there was a big egg in it. The egg hatched--
Rachael: The egg hatched...
Deckard: And?
Rachael: And a hundred baby spiders came out. And they ate her.

3/07/2007 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Spreaking of redirecting lines of enquiry, remember Dewdney's "plane substitution" theory? That one kept a lot of us away from the more probably remote control of the actual passenger jets. Then there's the whole Cleveland airport hoopla. (Maybe that's where flight 77 really ended up, we are told.)

Thing is, I'm still inclined towards demolition, though I may be wrong. As for the no plane claim at the Pentagon, I am confident its disinfo. How about you, Jeff? Are you more confident that the no plane claims are disinfo than the demolition claims?

I read John Judge's arguments against demolition, and remain unconvinced. I feel no arrogance in stating that I am still "inclined" to believe demolition. To sit directly on top of the fence would just hurt too much. I'm hanging off one side because to do otherwise would be dishonest to myself (though I haven't let go completely.)

Here are some of the reasons I am inclined towards demolition:

1. I think they needed the collapse to create the carnage and more importantly the spectacle or psychological impact to fuel a 50-year war.

2. I think there's no way the perpetrators could not have known the towers were going to come down beforehand. This would make them into idiots, which I do not believe they are. Therefore, they either knew for sure that the planes would naturally bring them down, or they had to *make sure* it happened (controlled demolition of some sort.) And I do not think they could have known *for sure* that the planes alone would bring the towers down.

3. I think an element of unbelievableness is crucial to suspend the rational thinking of the masses. It's a similar principle to the Big Lie principle. It's easier for the masses to disbelieve an official mundane lie than an outlandish one.

I don't believe there were explosions in the basement. I don't buy the proofs of thermite. I don't, in other words, believe many of the most popular arguments rationalizing the collapse, but phoney, easily-debunked evidence is a standard disinfo tactic and often points to the an underlying truth.


3/07/2007 04:20:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Jeff brings up the "Chicago bomb" story as if he knows definitely what went on. If you are going to be consistent, perhaps and maybe you can't be all that sure, right?

I wanted to refresh myself with some stuff I read on that a while back. The gist of it follows from some claims through Tom Flocco as well as Stew Webb it seems:


Flocco wrote:

"Two weeks ago Heneghen said he had talked to sources just ten minutes prior to French and U.S. intelligence agents intercepting British intelligence agents who were attempting to bomb the subway underneath the Dirksen Federal Building where Fitzgerald was presiding over grand jury hearings.

Serious questions can also be raised as to whether intelligence forces linked to President Bush and Tony Blair had participated in a failed attempt to scuttle the Fitzgerald probe by literally blowing it up--at a time when UK reports reveal that military-grade explosives were used to blow up the London subway on July 7.

Sources say the alleged Chicago subway bombing attempt has been attributed to an underground and closeted enmity involving warring intelligence and military factions within the United States government.

Moreover, reports indicate that the disturbance occurred at the same time that the Chicago Tribune and local web blogs had reported that the subway had been evacuated for 45-50 minutes regarding a "suspicious package" late on Monday afternoon, July 18.


And this is from the federal whistleblowers Tom Heneghan & Stew Webb:

French Intelligence and The U.S. Marshall Service Monday night July 18, 2005 caught eight of Tony Blair's British MI-6 Agents trying to bomb the Chicago Subway system. A shoot out killed 4 British Agents. Four were captured in the act of Terrorism and arrested. The British Agents part of Bush & Blair's Al Quaida network were charged in Federal Court today with explosives. The British MI-6 Terrorist Cell Operated out of Laidlaw Corp in Chicago.

Chicago US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald served Tony Blair a subpoena in the CIA Valerie Plame case on July 13, 2005 to answer questions regarding his role in the leaks connected to George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Condi Rice, Andrew Card, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. Tony Blair has not yet responded to his subpoena. George W. Bush has not responded to his subpoena either. Tony Blair had supplied George W. Bush with falsified British Intelligence stating that Iraq leader Saddum Hussein had obtained "Yellow Cake" Nuclear materials from Niger. This was the reason Bush gave to start the war in Iraq. This has all now been proven to be lies by Bush and Blair. CIA Valerie Plame's husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson submitted his report prior to the Bush-Blair lies that Niger never sold yellow cake to Iraq. Wilson came forth stating Bush lied in his State of the Union address to the nation. Valerie Plame's CIA Network was further investigating Bush & Cheney's orchestrated attack on America on 9-11-2001. New York Police Bernard Kerik who ran a FEMA operation out of pier 29 known as Code Angel also known as Tripod II planted the bombs on the 7 World Trade Center Building that were demolished on 9-11-2001. This operation was a US Justice Department operation involving Gary Best of Defense Intelligence Agency a George H. W. Bush Shadow Government Crony who is currently in Prison in the French Guinea for espionage against the French Government. Best has admitted to French Authorities of his 9-11 involvements. As I am writing this press release two more British MI-6 agents were arrested a few minutes ago details are forthcoming.

Few details were forthcoming, though in a situation like that, if it were true, that a bit of heavy leaning (or explosives) has been put on (or under) Fitzgerald, it's hardly surprising. After all how many dead defense attorneys did "Saddam" go through?

Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to judge from silence in strange cases like these.

Equally strange of course were the "one time report" and then silence about the ex-Mossad about to blow up the Mexican Parliament building exactly a month after 9-11-01.

3/07/2007 04:21:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"How about you, Jeff? Are you more confident that the no plane claims are disinfo than the demolition claims?"


If for no other reason, I think the fortuitous destruction of the SEC records in WTC 7 is argument enough to have lingering questions. But that's questions, and not answers.

3/07/2007 04:35:00 PM  
Blogger Hawkeyi's Blog said...

I wish conspiracy culture had some higher authority which could hold accountable the voices who said things would prove so different. I don't mean those who merely speculated incorrectly, but the ones who claimed the prerogative of inside information and "unnamed sources." Perhaps some of them did, and what they were told was simply wrong (or more likely, not so simply). But I hope at least the trial's end helps expose the disinfotainers, and separates honest truth seekers from mere consumers of conspiratainments.

Its one of the hazards being a conspiracy theorist, or in my case a seeker of truth. I accept that weakness though...

3/07/2007 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger dbd said...

Well, now we see that Jeff is really a magic kinda guy.
He believes in all kinds of impossible stuff.
In fact David Ray Griffin has summed it up rather nicely when referring to George Monbiot's own magical set beliefs:

"The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic."

You remember that Monbiot has accused the 9-11 truth movement of believing in "magic" and "idiocy".
When we think of the "collapse" of the three WTC buildings, we just have to suspend belief and put on our magic caps. Then we can see it through Jeff's eyes--magic is possible--anything is possible.
The moon is blue cheese and when it disappears someone puts it on a rye crisp. Then it grows back. It's possible.
Buildings just explode into little bits and fall down--entirely possible.
Why jump to conclusions. Don't be hasty.
Always leave the door open for the possible and just in case because if you shut it you could really piss some big cheese off. Right?

3/07/2007 05:11:00 PM  
Blogger Goodyear said...

Jeff, this is off the planet stuff. The owner of WTC7 said that the firefighters thought they should pull it "so we pulled it and we watched the building collapse" - Jeff, he's talking about WTC7 NOT THE FIREFIRGHTERS - you are, for reasons best known to yourself, muddying the waters here. THE GUY COULD NOT HAVE OUT IT IN PLAINER ENGLISH!!

CNN, ABC all have lots of live footage of people discussing the blasts, lots of police and firefighters have given evidence..

But that's not the main point: the main point; the point is just o see those buildings come down at freefall speed like controlled cdeos jobs wheich they were.

The govt says they pancacked: it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to pancake at freefall speed..

Don't deny PHYSICAL LAWS Jeff - THEY WOULD LOVE US TO LOOK AT WTC7 and say "OH No2, that's not a controlled demoplitition - it just looks like one!" (which, by the way, is exactly what the guy from Popular mechanics said on the recent BBC W"documentary")


3/07/2007 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger dbd said...

Yeah I would say that this Jeff guy is in total demolition mode.
Is he imploding?
Is all his credibility disintegrating into very fine dust?
Did he go from giant intellect novelist blogger to six inches high?
Wow I would say so.
it's a melt down.
Nothing left but a pile of hot steaming shit.

3/07/2007 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger dbd said...

Yeah I would say this guy Jeff is really in demolition mode...
Is he imploding?
Is all his credibility disintegrating into very fine dust?
Did he go from giant intellect novelist blogger to six inches high?
Wow I would say so.
it's a melt down.
Nothing left but a pile of hot steaming shit.

3/07/2007 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Foolery said...

Here is youtube video of the bombs being planted. Original 2hr WTC Video filmed from Hoboken was taken down off net. This video has a rough copy of same see from 4:02 till 6:04 see copter4
A Helicopter hiding in the smoke "dropping a line" tosses several heavy objects into
openings in WTC tower then bang bang bang it falls over this is not bullshit and has 2 diferent camera views. This collection of copter videos assumes Copter 4 is part of FEMA's operation TRI-POD begun on SEPT 10th no coincidence that 3(tri) buildings fell the next day.
I think they had to have back up in case one plane missed.

as for dismissing BBCs early prediction of WTC 7. It is no more of interest than to see a reporter telling of JFKs assasination as he drives by still alive....then 20 mins later he is shot.

Oh how I long for the old RI & Jeff, Before he physically moved and before the switch to the mirror site complete with new blogger login rules. Why no more annonymity?? Google has g-men

3/07/2007 06:48:00 PM  
Blogger Brentos said...

I saw WTC 7 go down live on TV, it had to be the most crazy thing I have ever seen, since it looked just like CD. It really stuck with me mainly because it was not ever mentioned again within about an hour after it fell, so I bent my mind (and intuition) to believe that it fell due to damage that way on that crazy day. Looking back I have to take my hat off to the power of the media and my own lack of intuition.

There is so much pointing to the evidence (rick siegel's video, peer reviewed papers) & motives (see dave mcgowen's work for instance) that there was some type of CD or intent to destroy, that its turned out like one of those 3d pictures within a picture, some people see it, some dont. This will naturally cause division.
Morgan Reynolds, associating holograms or death rays with CD theory discredits CD theorists, is there a motive for this?
Hopsicker attacks CDers, yet despite Citizen Spook possibly being disinfo, he does raise some interesting points about Hopsicker being associated with ABC & Wall Street for one. Citizen Spook's criticims actually make sense too, since Hopsicker waxes a great deal of detailed stories, very interesting stuff, much of it probably true, yet his central thesis is one of containment to merely a bunch of arabs pulling off a miraculous day for jihad. Yet I prefer Webster Tarpley's thesis, that there was a form of coup going on that day, which accomodates Hopsickers stories as well as what my eyes saw that day.

By the way, the video of WTC7 going down should of prompted a massive investigation on the construction of ALL skyscrapers, but it didnt.
Think about it carefully, if WTC7 was merely a casuality from the damage of the attacks, why arent there discovery channel documentaries going into detail about why it collapsed so catastrophically, just like a CD? Surely this type of morid crap the discovery channel would eat up, since they talk about killer asteroids.
Jeff you may be right to doubt CD, it just goes against what I saw that day and from what I have learnt since then. I do agree that its unfortunate that there is a divide between cders and non-cders, but both sides have to blame for that.

3/07/2007 07:19:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Jeff I think you must be avoiding the Canadian connection to 911. I'm not talking about WTC. I am referring to the events on that fateful day and the part played by your government. It wasn't Moslems it was the Canadians that did the dirty deed.

3/07/2007 07:49:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Jeff's like a pusher who gets you hooked by giving you some relatively clean stuff, and cheap.

Once he's sure you're going to keep coming back for more, he switches the deal from white powdery smack cut with clean lactose to brown horse shit cut with pcp.

Then while you're nodding maybe he'll rifle through the contents of your wallet.

Wake up, suckers. It's a giant con.

Fuck Blogger knows it.

So does DBD.

I heard someone say "cognitive dissonance".

It's what the Cowsills drink.

3/07/2007 08:04:00 PM  
Blogger Someone's Pet Terebinth said...

Jeff does brilliant, powerful, astonishing analysis of every cultural thread EXCEPT 911 and the Zionist/Israeli/Jewish connection.

On that one topic, Jeff just can't see any reason to suspect that the official account is anything but the plain truth. And the people who are discussing the many gaping anomalies in the official story, Jeff labels contemptuously as an "energy sink," which he must fastidiously refrain from contributing to, by "try[ing] not to write any more on this subject." He implies that a key conclusion in the "911 truth" discussion (demolition of the WTC by explosives) is simply based on manipulated ("cherry-picked") evidence. Within the context of Jeff's refusal to discuss or even acknowledge the massive evidence of controlled demolition that does exist, that's not a neutral statement of a logical position. That's a subversive attack, by means of a subtle nasty imputation of dishonesty.

This issue (911 and Mossad/Israel, etc.) is the real UFO that Jeff has flying around in his space. It's his Unacknowledged Forbidden Object-of-inquiry!

If you look, I believe you will see the very same UFO hovering over Xymphora and Justin Raimondo and some very prestigious commentators: Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, and Greg Palast.

So, Jeff, you're in good or bad company, depending on how you look at it.

What is the personal allegiance that has you sounding falsely on this one special topic?

3/07/2007 09:02:00 PM  
Blogger barracuda said...

True believers, their faith is unassailable. Demolition is a digression. You people remind me of those scientists looking at the "magic bullet" fragments through an electron microscope in a bunch of recent news articles. Forty-five years after the whoops d'état, and they dramatically announce that the fragments may point to a conspiracy. A week later E. Howard Hunt died fat, happy and over eighty years old. It's like looking for Mengele in Argentina while the Nazis were "paperclipped" over by your own government.

Maybe the buildings fell because of the planes. Maybe big ol' planes will do that to skyscrapers in the right circumstances. It's important to find out. If it was discovered to be the case - that jumbo jets flown fully fueled into skyscapers can cause catastophic structural failures - the possible retrofitting of existing buildings would certainly be an enormous and costly task. Remember what it took to get the asbestos removal going? Thirty years of litigation. Yeah, let's get on that project right awy.

All Jeff seems to be saying is what he's always said. The "how" matters way less than the "why" or the "who" here and in the end, technical issues are a distraction ad nauseum. The Libby trial resolved only "technical" questions, did he lie? did he obstruct? and in no way points out a meaningful political resolution of the actuality of the lies that took us to war. Lies that coalesce around the events of 9/11. The end result of the trial is that Americans sit impotently in the knowledge that our "elected" leaders outed a NOC to strongarm a critic of their lies, and we will never know, by that crime's very nature, what the consequence of that crime was. were agents allieed with Plame's organization killed or tortured? We won't find out. Were covert WMD national intelligence assets destroyed? We won't find out. We won't find out, but don't you know it? And what are you gonna do about it?

Check out Christopher Ketcham at Counterpunch,

Yeah, I know we all hate Counterpunch, but this article adds some polish to one facet of the diamond, the Mossad angle, and gives, if not transparency to the tale, then at least a position from which to ask new and relevant questions concerning the loyalties of our leaders and their closest allies. If you find out that Israel had prior knowledge of the plot, because, of course they had spies all over the place here in the good ol' US of A, you won't be surprised, will you? And you won't do anything, huh?

Just keep it NATO - No Actiion, Talk Only.

3/07/2007 09:02:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"The owner of WTC7 said that the firefighters thought they should pull it "so we pulled it and we watched the building collapse" - Jeff, he's talking about WTC7 NOT THE FIREFIRGHTERS" - you are, for reasons best known to yourself, muddying the waters here. THE GUY COULD NOT HAVE OUT IT IN PLAINER ENGLISH!!"

What's the more attenuated argument: that the "it" in "pull it" referred to the team of firemen, as Silverman has explained in plain English, or that he casually made an on camera confession to complicity in the crime of the century?

This pre-collapse video of WTC 7 shows the damage to the southwest corner, unseen on the frequently replayed collapse videos. On the audio track firemen are heard saying "pull everybody out of here ... the building's 50 stories ... we gotta get everybody out of there, that's for sure."

It's not CD theorizing I object to, it's the lazy groupthink that presumes CD is beyond theory and is an established fact, and that has made for a movement so easily manipulated by disinformation.

"Jeff's like a pusher who gets you hooked by giving you some relatively clean stuff, and cheap."

No, I'm like a guy who makes up his own mind about things, and doesn't care overmuch whether those thoughts are fashionable. I'm like a guy who told his wife one day, "Y'know, I think I'll start a blog," and who's wished many days since that she'd said "I'm not sure that's a good idea."

I mean everything I write, but I don't presume that everything I write is correct, so don't think it hurts me to find disagreement. (And this is nothing new; some CD proponents have found me disagreeable for years.) The only thing I can say unreservedly about my conclusions is that they are mine. I hope everyone here can say the same.

3/07/2007 09:03:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...


On all counts.

Go watch the Silverstein video again.

He doesn't say "pull it".

He says, "...pull the building."

The building, mates.

Get real and get honest

Too tall an order, eh?

PS the video is on Utube and also PBS Nova site. Find it yourself. I did.


3/07/2007 09:15:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"Pull it."

Don't know what you're seeing, sam.

3/07/2007 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger MrFiji said...

Bravo Jeff!!

Nice post.

3/07/2007 09:29:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

From Implosionworld's paper on the collapse:

"We have never, ever, heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement."

Unless we want to say they're all in on it - but hey, some of you want to
say I'm in on it, too - I think the perspective of people in the business, who know the industry and its jargon, ought to be heard.

3/07/2007 09:31:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

More lies, eh Jeff?

Luis Mendes, Engineering Dept., City of New York: "Hello, we're getting ready to pull building six," as they prepare to pull the switch on the controlled demolition of building six seen at approx 2min30 secs of this clip, where you can also see Larry Silverstein saying, in one breath with no pauses or even a breath taken in the second sentence: Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.>

Now parse that as you are wont to do, it seems pretty fucking clear to any native speaker of the english language what that sentence means. No pause. No, "and then we waited after everyone left until the building started to weaken and eventually fall." None of that bullshit. Just plain and simple one sentence without a pause in it:

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

I wonder if they served popcorn?

Maybe martinis and caviar?

Or baby's blood.

3/07/2007 10:24:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

But Building 6 was pulled. You can see the cables attached to the structure. There were no detonations. As the Implosionworld paper says, "The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement."

3/07/2007 10:36:00 PM  
Blogger Civic Center said...

Dear Jeff: You are among the handful of great writers on the internet, and it's your use of "maybe" that makes me trust you. Not only that, but your sense of humor, which gives the insane things you write about an edge of sanity.

And thanks, iridescent cuttlefish, for your outreach into the world of non-ruling-class compatriots on the right. I've had the same experiences and empathy with "conservatives," and your observation about the false divide rings true.

And barracuda, thanks for pointing out that Jeff doesn't disbelieve ANYTHING about what happened on 9/11. He just doesn't believe in religious certainties. However, I take issue with "everybody hates Counterpunch." I'm bored with about 80% of it, but there are a few great writers popping up with brilliant essays on that site.

3/07/2007 10:47:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

So Larry Silverstein isn't a demolition expert and got the finer points of his jargon messed up, according to your hypothesis.

The syllogistic logic implied in his two consecutive statements, along the lines of If A then B + If B then C .: If A then C is quite clear:

[A]: "Maybe the smartest thing to do would be to pull it. [B]: And they made that decision to pull [C]: and we watched the building collapse."

You really have to desperately want to see it another way to spin it the way you and Silverstein and the Powers that Be have been trying to spin it.

So I guess that does place you among that coterie which you have so divisively termed "they".

An arbitrary distinction, I would submit, since we are all still (theoretically, anyway) humans in this same earthly boat.....unless by the us/them thing you mean specifically to ally yourself with the PTB?

If so, then the point is moot and you win.

If you call that winning.

3/07/2007 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger rp said...

i didn't want to create a google account, but i couldn't resist.

just_another_dick's argument about silverstein is pretty good. i had thought that jeff was probably right about silverstein referring to the firefighters rather than the building, but j.a.d. makes a decent case.

that said, we absolutely must try to figure out why silverstein would have told the world about it. some possiblities: (1) he did something really stupid; (2) a lot of people knew that the building was going to come down, and maybe a lot of them knew that it was going to be demolished; (3) it was a move in some sort of political or legal chess game that we don't know much about yet.

i doubt it was (1). regarding (2), i recall the media reporting before wtc7 collapsed that they weren't sure whether it would be able to remain standing. but they weren't saying that it was going to be demolished. (3) would be interesting. was it a little revelation that told the powers that be that he might reveal more if he didn't get his insurance money? something like that.

there are a lot of good questions about this guy. was his acquisition (99-year lease, actually) of the wtc six weeks before 9-11 a coincidence? you'd have to say probably not. was he a chump who had the thing pawned off to him at the last minute? somehow i doubt it. was he taking advantage of an opportunity? in other words, did he have some foreknowledge and was he participating in order to profit? did the owners or the plotters need to move the wtc into other hands for some reason?

it occurs to me that someone who might have a good hunch about silverstein is catherine austin fitts. i say that because she has such interesting things to say about why 9-11 was done, including closing down the investigations of the late 90s stock market pump-and-dump job. and because she is so good on the motives of high-level business people and politicians. she knows the stakes pretty well.

a few more comments for what they're worth. i think a plane that was the size and shape of an airliner hit the pentagon. the pics of the wall aferward don't rule it out, and there were lots of eyewitnesses.

and i think that the three wtc buildings were demolished. a lot of us didn't consider that idea for quite a while, but i think most of us were totally surprised when the towers fell. then we saw the pbs show, and then, for those whose timeline is anything like mine, we started considering that it was an inside job. we have to undo the long gestation period of the official theory and see that the videos and many aspects of the results, such as most of the steel being broken into truck-sized pieces, and simply acknowledge that the whole spectacle looks very much more like controlled demolition than what you would expect airplanes alone to have brought about.

the disinfo pattern also confirms these ideas, i think. they are pushing the pentagon-missile idea, but they are trying to discredit the demolition theorists and muddy that whole discourse.

while i'm here let me throw in one slightly off-topic thing. jeff: you ought to write about the latest f. william engdahl piece about u.s. nuclear strategy. the piece forced me to make some big mental adjustments, and i'd like to know what you think.

3/07/2007 10:58:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"So Larry Silverstein isn't a demolition expert and got the finer points of his jargon messed up, according to your hypothesis."

No, Sam. I don't think Silverstein was using unfamiliar and incorrect jargon and blithely indicting himself in crimes against humanity. I think it's more reasonable that the "it" of "pull it" referred to the team of firemen, who were actually pulled from the building before it collapsed. "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." What is being pulled in that sentence is predicated on the earlier loss of life. In context, I think referring to pulling out the fire team, which was actually pulled out, makes much more sense than an outrageous self-disclosure of controlled demolition. A little critical thinking, okay?

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.... We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

3/07/2007 11:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Weird synchronicity Jeff with the title/image of this entry and the hyper-synchronicity study site of all synchronicity sites Etemenanki:

3/07: The two back-to-back Indonesian impact events [including a plane crash and an earthquake designated symbolically as a circle with a concentric dot in the middle] are part of an ongoing 'Stereo' (two-channel) pattern related to our long-running 'double sun' theme and NASA's STEREO twin solar probes launched last fall. Note that the ancient name of Sumatra was 'Isle of Gold', 'gold' being interchangeable with 'Sun' (sharing the same symbol of a circle with a dot in the middle). Thus the twin impacts in Indonesia were a 'double sun' event - especially so if you consider the fact that both events took place right next to a Mt. Merapi, two different Mt. Merapis.

Just another daily gazette churned out by the mysterious printing press of the hyperdimensional galactic clockwork, I guess... :-)

3/07/2007 11:17:00 PM  
Blogger Vemrion said...

first off: i don't think Jeff is a disinfo agent because we disagree about WTC7. That's stupid, and I don't think any of us really knows what went on that day. I only know that "why did they fall?" was one of the first things I thought that day as I watched the two towers fall live on TV. I stuffed that thought down deep into my unconscious. Years later it bubbled out, especially as I started thinking about the weird things that happened that day. I didn't even know WTC7 existed until years after, but when I found out about it I was floored. Finally, a crack in the facade.

I guess for me, not knowing much about demolition or building construction, I think it's pretty amazing that 3 buildings managed to collapse on the same day -- and all fell neatly onto their own footprint. Just imagine the chaos if WTC1 had tipped over at the 30th floor and sent 80 floors falling onto other, nearby buildings. It would have been incredible chaos -- moreso than we already experienced.

Why did the buildings fall in the first place? If you think a flying tin can can take out a skyscraper then why do you get into big buildings? I mean, the official story states that the planes were fragile, tiny things to explain the small hole in the Pentagon, but then the planes become gigantic missiles when crashing into the towers. What gives? You can't have it both ways. I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I'm pretty sure those towers were rigged up. People reported hearing explosions repeatedly in the towers... and that's another thing. Why did they stand for around an hour before suddenly collapsing? What's the mechanism that brings them down so smoothly? Jet fuel? Then explain pictures of survivors milling around the hole created by the plane -- with no fire anywhere nearby. Was it the jarring impact of the planes themselves? Take a look at a video of impact... the building does not even twitch.

I certainly don't know for sure, but I do know that buildings don't normally fall on their own footprints. And if they do, why do we even need controlled demolition companies? Why can't we just put a decommissioned airliner on remote control and slam it into the building we want to collapse? The building will collapse into a tidy pile of rubble and dust.... right?

3/07/2007 11:50:00 PM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

rp said:
"just_another_dick's argument about silverstein is pretty good"

"It wasn't me, no oh babe, it wasn't me.
It must have been some other body no oh babe it wasn't me"

Please, give credit where credit is due.

I happen to agree with Mr. Wells assessment.

Said so once.

If unimpeachable evidence against controlled demolition was produced tomorrow I don't think that it would make the giant turd we've been handed over the last 6 years smell any less like a turd.

I also don't think that the unveiling of unimpeachable evidence for controlled demolition would make the last 6 years smell any more like a huge pile of bullshit than it already does.

Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, those incredibly large testicled democrats have already said that they're not going to impeach anyone.

So, while everyone with the stench of crapola in their nose sits around arguing about exactly where the smell is coming from, Bush sails along towards the end of his term, merrily fucking up everything within fucking up distance.

I'd say it's business as usual in the good ol' US of A.


3/08/2007 12:32:00 AM  
Blogger forgetting2 said...

I'm thinking about what Indira Singh said about Patrick Fitzgerald just after he got put on the Plame case. She didn't trust him. Thought he was a tool of the Powers That Be and that a fall guy would be put up and the real players would walk. This was based on another case she had followed. I think it was the 93 WTC bombing, but I'm not sure...

3/08/2007 12:41:00 AM  
Blogger tridentblue said...

Thanks Jeff. Common sense seems to shut down a lot with the 9/11 stuff, and its good to hear a thoughtful voice. There is no reason, for instance, for conspirators to use a missile rather than a plane to hit the pentagon...If they did, all it would take to foil the whole plot would be for ONE PERSON to be filming something in DC that also captured the flight path of the missile. Fucking come on!!!!
The most compelling arguments for bombs in the WTC are based on BS too. Temperature that jet fuel burns doesn't melt steel? Asshats. WOOD burns hot enough to melt iron in a blacksmiths forge, there is no set temperature that fires burn at, just a minimal temperature for combustion of materials like jet fuel.

Anyway, I shouldn't get started. But to counter another poster, I DO love the magick and occult content of your site. This cuts to the heart of matters from a symbolic and archetypal psychosocial level, which is not something I can find at conspiracy/poltical sites, whose name is legion. Keep up the good work!!!

3/08/2007 12:52:00 AM  
Blogger Kenneth LaFave said...

Jeff, you're not thinking straight about this.And you're usually a very straight thinker.

If the towers weren't brought down by explosives, what brought them down? Think: Even the hottest imaginable fire could not have dissolved desks, phones, computers and concrete to dust. Only explosives could have done that. At most, a fire would have melted the steel, caused a collapse and left an enormous shaft of drooping steel (the inner core) standing in the middle of massive rubble -- not ash, but identifable pieces of computers, desks, phones, etc.

Please write an entry explaining what you think caused the collapse of the towers and the dissolution of its entire contents. Because fire alone (or fire abetted by structural damage from the planes that hit them) could not -- not might not have, but logically could not -- have done it.

3/08/2007 01:08:00 AM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

Then there was the asbestos problem in the two towers. Several estimates in the billions to remove them and 3 times denied permits by the EPA, but what of that?

It was McDonald's scalding hot coffee that brought 'em down. The firemen went up there and poured it on the beams.

That stuff burns like nobody's business. Cuts steel like a hot knife through butter.

Like thermate.

Did I say that?

Sorry, late for work.

3/08/2007 01:27:00 AM  
Blogger rp said...

sorry just_another_dick, it was sam hill's post of 10:50:42 that was not badly argued (others of his are pretty bad) on silverstein's statement. but jeff's reply is strong. i don't think silverstein was telling the world about demolition. but lots of 9-11 activists yell and scream about how he obviously did, and they really weaken themselves with that kind of certainty.

the other day i was listening to ralph schoenman's radio show and noticing how often he would raise an important piece of evidence and then just flatly assert its meaning in the scheme of things, and i'm thinking, this is really one of the things that keeps people so convinced that "conspiracy theorists" are a little crazy. usually if a skeptic says, "wait a minute, you don't know that for sure, there are many other possible interpretations" he or she is right.

if it's possible to hermetically conceal a great crime, it probably isn't so great, so consequential. the great crimes affect humanity profoundly, and therefore they can't be totally hidden. so what the perpetrators do is build a heirarchy of concealment where the closer you get to the crucial truths, the harder is it to find out what they are.

it's like a mountain that rises into the clouds. we generally don't have any way of seeing into the clouds, so our best argument is to describe the overall phenomenon as we can see it, and note the pattern. we can say that there is a mountain peak even though we can't see it.

to go around asserting that cheney and rumsfeld masterminded 9-11 is an example of the error that jeff is talking about. i'd like to know who masterminded and managed the whole process, which seems to have taken a lot longer than eight months. but i don't know. is marvin bush tight with the two of them? somehow i think not. i think he's tighter with his father, who is decidedly not tight with rumsfeld, and probably wasn't with cheney as soon as cheney made himself dubya's running mate, at the latest.

i think peter dale scott has the right approach. there aren't many out there who avoid the pitfall that jeff is pointing out. in effect most of the conspiracy advocates aren't saying what they mean. they go around asserting things, acting as if they know what happened, but they don't know, and they know that they don't know. but they don't disipline themselves. it doesn't make for very convincing discourse.

3/08/2007 01:36:00 AM  
Blogger alzafar2012 said...

i too was once swayed by the no-plane-at-the-pentagon theory, until i read jim hoffman's excellent article dissecting the evidence that shows:

--Debris is Consistent with a Jetliner Crash
--Pentagon Facade Damage Fits a 757
--Interior Damage is Consistent with a 757 Crash
--Damage to Surroundings Fits a 757
--Specific Debris Matches a 757
--The Attack Plane's Approach Is Consistent With a 757

found here:

about WTC-7, i think that if long cables were attached to WTC7 throughout the day on 9-11 and were ready to "pull" by 5:20pm, *someone* would've:
a. gotten a pic of the rigging with cables
b. gotten some footage of the rigging with cables
c. spoken to the press or someone else about the rigging with cables, as in, 'i helped rig it with cables', for the simple reason that such an operation certainly take hours to complete.

a couple of other questions linger, tho, in my mind:

a. why would silverstein say "pull" the firefighters if
"according to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study, firefighters were never in the building: 'Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY'"?


b. would a building "pulled" down with cables collapse on its footprint as neatly as WTC7 did?

i don't know the answer to either of those questions, to be honest.

about this bullshit sam hill is peddling, folks, just keep in mind the following quotes from jeff (taken from just this combox) as you scroll past sam's screeching posts:

jeff said: "If for no other reason, I think the fortuitous destruction of the SEC records in WTC 7 is argument enough to have lingering questions."

jeff said: "It's not C[ontrolled] D[emolition] theorizing I object to, it's the lazy groupthink that presumes CD is beyond theory and is an established fact..."

take him at his word, numbnuts....

3/08/2007 02:05:00 AM  
Blogger alzafar2012 said...

on the other hand, live news footage from ground zero on the morning of 9-11 *does* seem to indicate explosives and/or "secondary" devices were used, as compiled in this video:

reminds me of the second and third bombs found in the alfred p. murrah building on the morning of april 19, 1995 and that were duly reported by the media until the official story 'concluded' that only one bomb was used....

3/08/2007 02:18:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Breidenbach said...


I deeply admire your blog, as well as the work of Hopsicker. I also think Nafeez Ahmed is an important and underrated voice on 9/11 and I can’t recommend his WAR ON FREEDOM and WAR ON TRUTH highly enough.

Reasonable people may and do disagree about the controlled demolition hypothesis, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that “physical evidence” can be a tough angle to make stick, forensically speaking, especially now that most all of it’s been swept away.

That said, I’m morally certain (as the philosophers say) that the Towers were blown up. And that even if I’m eventually proven wrong (and I might be), there is every reason at present to defend the controlled demolition hypothesis. Here’s why.

Molten metal, in all likelihood steel, was found under WTC buildings One, Two and Seven. This metal appears on film of the site taken nearly six weeks after the attacks. Its presence was commented upon extensively by various officials and first responders at the site. It roiled and smoldered for many weeks, perhaps months. I live in New York and, along with millions of others, smelled that pile burning for nearly half a year after 9/11 (the longest uncontrolled fire in any city in US history, if I remember the article in the NY Times correctly). Anyone following the controversy has heard testimony from various witnesses, including firefighters and first responders, about the molten metal. Those of us here in the city probably remember reading articles about it. It was common knowledge in the weeks and months following the attacks. I’ve spoken at length with a first responder who’s active in the 9/11 Truth Movement and is very sick now; he testifies to what others on “the pile” reported seeing: flowing metal throughout the rubble following the attacks. A lot of it. He also confirms that the steel beam cut slant-wise was visible, very much as it appears in photos, when he first arrived at scene within an hour after Tower One “collapsed.”

Architect Bart Voorsanger, attempting to account for the survival of the North Tower’s antenna, clearly confirms the view that the molten metal underneath the rubble at Ground Zero was steel. Commenting on the antenna, which was made of steel, Voorsanger says, “It was the piece that collapsed onto everything else, and I think it must have fallen far enough away from the internal fires within the center of the Towers that it was not melted into some unrecognizable fused mass.” Here the man described by the Associated Press as having “headed the team of architects that retrieved trade center steel” is acknowledging what multiple eye-witnesses including engineering professionals working at Ground Zero, as well as video and “thermographic” aerial photography (not to mention scientists including Jones) all point to: that masses of molten steel roiled beneath the Towers for weeks, even months after they’d “collapsed.” There has been no rational explanation as to how this could have occurred without the use of explosives or some source of destructive energy other than hydrocarbons.

NIST appears to understand that no such explanation is possible, that the molten metal (most probably steel) is the Achilles heal of the official “collapse” narrative. Which is why NIST Engineer John Gross now simply denies that molten metal ever existed under the rubble pile.

Here we might identify the source of some of the rage being directed against you on this post. In the face of what appears to be a bald and arrogant ploy by authorities, one echoing all those others we’ve seen play out in official responses to almost every other aspect of the attacks, you—who’ve fought this battle bravely on so many fronts—appear to capitulate here, going weak in the knees, as if resigning the fight to hold on to the very history of 9/11 even as others risk their livelihoods and reputations to salvage and defend it.

Yes, the painstaking contextualization of the 9/11 attacks provided by Ahmed is essential and sadly under-emphasized in 9/11 studies. Caveats expressed by Sander Hicks and others concerning the “physical evidence” school of 9/11 skepticism are well-taken, at least by me. Clearly, even if we prove the CD hypothesis, knowing the buildings were blown up won’t tell us all or even most of what we need to know about 9/11.

But on the other hand, it isn’t fair (though it might appear far more respectable in some circles) to leave the matter at that, especially with the multiple indications in the public record indicating the possibility—make that the likelihood—of controlled demolition. Besides the molten metal issue, there’s the powerful and corroborating testimony from multiple eye-witnesses that has been categorized by David Ray Griffin into eleven categories of observed phenomena, each strongly indicative of, if not exclusive to, controlled demolition.

With the broad array of relevant data on the matter, 9/11 Truth appears on solid, even fruitful theoretical ground with the controlled demolition hypothesis, especially given the state of the aptly titled “collapse” theory, that “ever-changing, but always flimsy, story” in Kevin Ryan’s words, reliant on “anti-science” whose handful of actual proponents “started with their conclusions and worked backward to some ‘leading hypotheses.’” Of course the bitter fact remains that most of the evidence regarding the Towers’ destruction was hastily and, as has been strenuously argued from official corners, illegally destroyed. (Retired NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, who labored at Ground Zero, reports rumors widely circulating on “the pile” that “the mob was stealing the steel.”) While certainly crippling to the material investigation, this destruction of evidence, protested vehemently in official quarters, in itself is highly indicative of official complicity. As with 9/11 in general, it is the broader context of the controlled demolition issue, more than any one or few of the multiple anomalies in the official account, where the charnel depths of state complicity come into focus.

The controlled demolition theory not only best explains the array of specific phenomena witnessed that day, it also points up some disturbing circumstances relating to security at the Towers complex prior to the attacks, and to the roles played by certain agencies—private, State and municipal—in 9/11 and the corrupt military/industrial power structure more generally. The controlled demolition hypothesis also begs some very serious questions pertaining to the precise nature, structure and tactics of state-sponsored terrorism, implying among other things the existence of a special forces unit whose expertise includes spectacular feats of mass human slaughter.

And then there’s the crux of the matter: the psychological angle.

Kevin Ryan, who was fired from his job with Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components of the WTC, observes, “if we really want to zero in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into chaos, we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. This is where our hearts were wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending war, torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American. If we are ever to emerge from this insanity, we need to know how three tall buildings collapsed due to fire, all on the same day, when no such thing has ever happened before.”

As Ryan implies, whether we like it or not an intelligible account of what brought the Towers down is essential to determining the character and fate of our society. Short of any cogent explanation from our officials we are morally compelled to advocate the most consistent hypothesis regarding their destruction—however incredible we ourselves may find it.

Here I’ll quote from an essay in which I paraphrase and reflect on observations by Webster Tarpley: “the subliminal effects of 9/11 threaten to permanently distort our at-home-ness in reality, in the physical world, which on that day became a place where majestic state-of-the-art buildings, marvels of engineering and modernist architecture’s capstones, monuments (affirmed by cliché) to human ingenuity and spirit…unpeeled so strangely to dust. The question of how the towers fell isn’t merely academic, but in some measure crucial to our psychological health as a people. If they were destroyed by explosives planted in the structures, then we’ve been compelled to accept a counterfeit view of physical reality, marking the radical intensification of a schizophrenic mindset already endemic in—and increasingly definitive of—Anglo-American culture.

“The effect of the Towers’ destruction is tied to the structures’ form as well as the place of the ‘tower’ and ‘twin’ archetypes in legend (whether in Tolkien, the Tarot or the Pentateuch for the former, or astrology, religious esoterism and classical myth for the latter). Anthropomorphic totems, the Twin Towers connoted a unity of two (or balanced duality), the harmonious couple (thus love, or lovers), or the self and its reflection: in short, completion, with the North Tower (with its antennae) the yang to the South’s yin (slightly recessive, as if, from the greater Manhattan perspective, backing the other up). Their destruction, then, was an eidetic inscription, rooted in mortal shock, of the shattering of unity, the failure of love, the death of the iconic companions, God’s wrathful judgment (ala Babel) upon our aspirations (and the futility of endeavor) and the fracture of communion (language, community—or logos, word or idea embodied…meaning). Situated at the millennial cusp, at the crossroads of macrocosmic time and superhuman space, the structures’ spectacularly surreal dematerialization unmistakably declared the triumph of disunity, unreason, separation and loss—in short, the reign of antichrist, which 9/11 would appear to have been intended by certain of its architects to herald.”

I do not imply here that I necessarily believe that the fall of the Twin Towers announced the advent of the “end-times.” But I do believe their destruction reverberates as such an omen, however reflexively, among many in western society and beyond. And based upon express oligarchic intent to reduce Earth’s human population, I also take seriously the possibility that 9/11 was intended as such a harbinger by at least certain of its sponsors. And I certainly do not discount the possibility that the fears engendered by 9/11 might yet qualify it as the herald of a final judgment (perhaps in the form of nuclear or biological war), especially if they are not bravely, rationally and collectively confronted.

Tarpley warns that 9/11 plays into radical millenarian or “end-time” neuroses, exacerbating fears and paranoia exemplified by the many millions strong “Left Behind” or “rapture” movements, whose adherents—including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, implicated in facilitating 9/11—have been powerful allies of the current administration. Investigating, determining and articulating more or less precisely how the Towers fell may be one of the central acts of demystification that breaks the pernicious spell under which 9/11, called by Tarpley the “myth of the 21st century,” holds the world. The “pancake collapse” is perhaps the chief idol of the official 9/11 cult to be smashed, as it appears to most effectively mask the iniquity of the attack’s actual sponsors.

To fathom what was taken from us on 9/11, recall the technological achievement represented by our shimmering Towers, once widely assumed—whatever their aesthetic flaws—to be masterpieces of engineering, state-of-the-art and revolutionary. The Twin Towers occupied a lineage of epic industrial expressions including the Brooklyn and Golden Gate Bridges, the Empire State Building, and the moon landing. In this sense they signified a soaring, celebratory triumph of our nation’s commitment to science, industry, technology and commerce, and were an enduring symbol of our collective ingenuity, ambition and intelligence. (Whoever expected to outlive them?) As the casual TV viewer understood, they could withstand hurricanes, earthquakes and jet-liner impacts. And most anyone watching that day knew they weren’t about to fall.

Here we may begin assessing the precise depths of our betrayal on 9/11. Again, one doesn’t need to have liked the Twin Towers—our blasé, even disdainful regard of them is the point. The extent to which we took them for granted marks our shock upon their destruction, in which we were faced with—and forced to swallow—our own failure as a culture to protect those left alive in the buildings, awaiting our rescue. Mistaking it for humility, we internalize this guilt, inducted into a collective masochism marked by a loss of analytical impetus, of which our acceptance of the simplistic pancake-collapse “theory” is symptomatic. Shamed children, we abide the illegal destruction of the rubble pile, eager to see our mess cleaned up, erased, and blamed on others.

Imagine one of the Towers collapsing without the handy scapegoat of a people whose natural resources we covet, and which our leaders had already divvied up. A lost or malfunctioning airliner had freakishly struck a Tower at high speed, let’s say. The building’s failure should have been an unacceptable err, a blow to our collective sense of ourselves so severe no resources would be spared in careful scrutiny of the event, as happens after catastrophes in societies valuing knowledge, quality, professionalism, craftsmanship, expertise and life. To recover our sense of ourselves, we would have taken every care—as healthy societies have throughout history—to articulate as precisely as possible the causal aspects of the disaster. Once the search for survivors was called off we’d have carefully and thoroughly scrutinized, documented and analyzed the scene. Recognizing that untold lives may depend on our investigation, that our findings could rewrite engineering code books, we would have encouraged a period of active and open debate, sparing no sacred cows, until clear, concise and reasonable explanations emerged as to why the Tower failed to live up to its revolutionary design.

On 9/11, the Twin Towers’ massive 47-interlinked-column core structure and 240 interlocking outer or “box” columns failed to impede the weight of the upper floors in their rush to the ground by so much as a second. Yet with next to none of it subjected to forensic examination, the rubble was hauled away as quickly as possible and nearly all of the steel sold as scrap on Asian markets. As Kevin Ryan notes, the NIST report, refusing to consider the controlled demolition hypothesis, dares take us only to the onset of the “collapse event,” after which its authors merely declare that “global” failure of the astonishing order observed was, somehow, “inevitable.” It takes twenty-two thousand pages of ignoring principles, observed phenomena, eyewitness reports, of distorting physical and computer models, fudging numbers and morphing variables, for NIST to swindle us into an abstruse combination of confessedly “less-likely” scenarios.

To register the wound dealt to our collective imagination on 9/11, we must appeal to archetype. The esoteric associations with the Twin Towers are profound. From Hebraic legend they reference the two great pillars Joachim and Boaz, placed at the entrance to Solomon’s Temple. Besides the ancient Hebrews, the Spartans, Phoenicians, Aryans and Scandinavians all associated the twin pillar motif with the presence of the deity. The Vedas refer to the twin Asvins, the Spartans to the Dioscuri, “clad in shining armor” and associated with clouds. The twin pillars: for the Greeks, symbols of Heracles (heroism), for the Scandinavians, of Thor (might). Legend associates them with Castor and Pollux, the twin brothers, one who gave his life for the other. They recall the twin Trees of Eden—Knowledge of Good and Evil (duality), and that of Eternal Life (unity)—as well as the Tree of Life diagram of Kabala, between whose pillars all is made manifest. For the Hebrews symbolizing establishment and strength, justice and mercy, as pillars of cloud by day and fire by night they led the Israelites from bondage, connoting a union of opposites, or harmony, fullness, the guidance and immanence of God.

Joachim and Boaz are central symbols of Freemasonry, bespeaking the resonance of the twin pillar motif at the deepest mythic strata of our cultural imagination. Guardians of the holy-of-holies, the twin pillars are ineluctably associated with mystery and initiation. Their magical destruction then, in the imago of the Twin Towers, is a sort of reverse, false or diabolic initiation into the realms of unreason, into the death or withdrawal of God. In the face of this threat to our image of the protective deity (or state) we accept the Towers’ “pancaking” and like raped or battered children turn the blame inward. With grasping sincerity, we acknowledge as dogma officialdom’s bloated appeal to its own authority.

What the controlled demolition hypothesis confronts us with is the likelihood that on September 11th, 2001, 2800 people were purposely—nay ritually—immolated, over a third of them vaporized beyond trace, while of many others mere fragments were found, some fleck of bone or viscera. This implies a most obscene affront to human dignity, blinding in the vastness of its degeneracy, a primordial and epic violation of a people by their leaders. Such cold-bloodedness is wholly distinct in character and degree from the comparably flaccid or sloppy negligence invoked by the LIHOP crowd, or the “roll ‘em” mentality naively attributed to complicit officials by those 9/11 skeptics who squirm at suggestions the planes may have been remotely guided into the buildings, or the buildings blown up.

You suggest in the previous post that Morgan Reynolds is a disinformation artist sent to emphasize the controlled demolition hypothesis in order to keep us barking up that tree. Yet if he is a plant, Reynolds may have intended what it appears he’s actually accomplishing, dividing a hitherto unified view on the destruction of the WTC with his “particle beam” theory and thereby inserting a timely “wedge” into an inquiry that was gaining traction. If so, he’d be accomplishing what Martin Schotz, a psychiatrist who’s studied the JFK assassination, points out is the real objective of disinformation, which is not to persuade us of the “official account" but to create so much uncertainty that "everything is believable and nothing is knowable."

The molten metal. The multiple eye-witness accounts. The incessant bad-faith responses (forensically speaking, “guilty behavior”) on the part of defenders of the official story. The profound psychological implications. These are powerful inducements against letting the controlled theory die, as you verge on proposing.

Jeff, you call yourself a pessimist, and (if I may) I suspect you’re living up to that title here. That is, that your skepticism on the controlled demolitions issue has crossed into pessimism that we may ever arrive at the verification of CD which many of us might desire. Might your dismissal of CD be a sort of preemptive strike against what you subconsciously feel is the possibility that your hope for “proof” of a conspiracy will eventually be dashed anyway? A kind of beating-the-devil-to-the-punch? “The wolf who cannot reach the grapes claims they are sour.” We may never reach those grapes, Jeff, but I’m not through trying. And I respectfully submit that personal predilections and reasoned analysis may be blurring in your irked and seemingly wholesale rejection of CD.

As far as the Silverstein comment, it’s not that relevant. Though it sounds to me like he’s talking about the building and not the firefighters, as with the CD hypothesis, I could be wrong.

But of course I was down there on 9/11, about five blocks north of WTC 7, on the west edge of the West Side Highway. A loose bunch of us New Yorkers standing around had heard and passed on the message since maybe forty minutes before that “They’re going to bring it down.” And we were staring up at building 7 as it fell. But then again, who the f**k am I?

Keep up your excellent work on your blog. Don’t know what I’d do without it. And no, we certainly don’t need to agree. A coalition of the dubious can be a beautiful thing.



PS: When JFK was assassinated, people understood he’d been shot from the front. There was no reason for anyone to deny it at the time, the President’s press secretary testified publicly to it, and all six Parkland doctors did as well, mentioning the large exit wound in the back of Kennedy’s head and indicating where it was with their hands. It was only later, when “they” needed the lone gunman and his magic bullet, that “they” took that truth away. And now “they” are taking the molten metal. And you are slipping away with it. I think what a lot of people are trying to say here, in our more or less clumsy ways, is we’ll miss you. (And by this I’m NOT implying you’re either with us or against us, Jeff…just that the metal was there.)

3/08/2007 04:43:00 AM  
Blogger Fructedor said...

Tom Breidenbach's last post is about as clear as it gets in my opinion. I recently had a long discussion with my brother - initiated by him - he's a member of MENSA and no slouch by any measure, and he continually insisted that until he was presented with 'proof' of the various 'conspiracy theories' concerning 911, he would continue to assess them as 'mirages'. I sent him a few links which clearly ask valid questions about the official story, and he responded that he would not look at them because he doesn't want to waste his time with mirages.

There's no obligation for anyone to spend time looking for answers, but the questions are so insistent that it's hard to understand why people continue to cling to demonstrably false explanations. The JFK assassination is a good case in point. Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film intuitively understands that Kennedy was hit from in front - the violent splash of matter from his forehead, and the powerful reaction of his body being flung backwards into the car seat. This is basic human experience of life on earth - and also basic physics - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 45 years later people are still wading their way through acres of bullshit which are designed to support the case that he was shot from behind. Who benefits from the inertia thus created?

Likewise, I contend that anyone who saw the twin towers fall felt intuitively that there was something wrong with what we were seeing, even though we were incapable in the moment of understanding what it was. From this confused feeling naturally grew the desire to clarify and understand, fuelled immediately by the myriad questions raised by conflicting and spurious 'explanations' trotted out by the media.

There are so many obvious anomalies in the obsessive defences raised against these questions - for instance, as someone else pointed out in this thread, how can aluminium planes carve their outline through the steel lattice-work of the twin towers, when, at the Pentagon, the aluminium plane is supposed to have folded up and disappeared into a small hole?

500,000 tons of concrete and steel turning to dust in mid-air? Twice? Hijacker's passport found on a pile of crap in the street? Identities of the 19 hijackers broadcast within bours? Essential evidence removed as fast as possible? Molten steel found months later? Extensive war games tying up the USAF at the same time as the attacks, games which used software over-riding the ATC radar? The official enquiry not even mentioning Building 7? Condi Rice claiming that no-one could have imagined such a thing, when such a thing had been precisely the point of numerous official exercises for years, not to mention being the subject of mainstream TV shows.

And so on ad nauseam. The questions raised are essential, if only because so much of recent history is entirely dependent on public adherence to the nasty-Arab theory. Afghanistan, Iraq... Construction of major military bases in the Middle East well-placed to lock down the region of the Caspian and ME oil reserves, and also probably contain Russia while keeping a wary eye on China.

Though human, it is probably a mistake for 'conspiracy theorists' to claim to have the only answer, and the waters are easily muddied by outrageous claims (UFO's) - however
the events beg so many questions and the answers officially presented are so unsatisfactory.

My brainy brother said - 'why would the US government go to all that murderous trouble just to start a war with Iraq when they could have done it anyway?' I contend that public resistance, based on extensive experience and research on Vietnam and Gulf War 1, would have been too great - '...absent a major event like Pearl Harbor.' The effect of 911 has been described elsewhere as shock and awe. It certainly got the American people behind Bush and charging over to Iraq.

But of course, that is not an 'answer' or 'proof', just questions and suppositions. Perhaps my brother, and others, would only accept the confession of an entire cabal - yup, we did it, and this is how, and they told us to. How likely is that? Nuremberg?

All we can know for sure is that the official accounts are demonstrably untrue. That both sides of the present administration, and the UK government, stand behind the official accounts and the constant stalling. This understanding should radically change our conception of the world we live in, or the world to which we are expected to be chained.

Building 7 - if Silverstein's comment 'pull it' meant attach large chains and haul it over, why didn't we see any of that? It would have been newsworthy coverage for such a day - and if the fires were as intense as they claim, how could the chains have been attached? And the chain-pulling mechanism is apparently intended to heave a building over on it's side to facilitate further demolition work - Building 7 went down perfectly straight in seconds. I also watched the BBC clip where Jane Standley announces the collapse of Building 7 20-odd minutes before it occurred, and you can see the building in question standing behind her as she speaks. This does not prove that the BBC is complicit in a murderous conspiracy, and may only demonstrate that the BBC jumped on an opportunity to scoop the competition. But it begs the question - where did they get the information from? I'm going to try and ask Jane Standley. If and when I get her answer I'll let you know.

Finally, if CD took down even one of the buildings on 911, we have to ask how and when the charges were prepared. You can't do that in a couple of hours.

If our governments are not totally and criminally incompetent, they are lying to us. That's where we start.


3/08/2007 07:27:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"why would silverstein say 'pull' the firefighters if
'according to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study, firefighters were never in the building: 'Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY'"?

I'd answer that by saying it's confusing firefighters with firefighting. I quoted in a reply above two of the firefighters who were in WTC 7 and were pulled, but they weren't fighting fires. They were doing search and rescue. "Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there."

3/08/2007 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

I have long been committed to a stance towards understanding reality that relies on 'possibility factors'. This has helped me in the past to deal with my tendency towards credulity. Believing something without proper evidence.

So I relate to Jeff's maybe logic and stance towards reality.

While I do not 'believe' in much, in this case I choose to believe my lying eyes. Those buildings were brought down intentionally. OKC Murray building did not collapse because of a fertilizer bomb and the wet dream of some militia nut. False flag operations are common and those buildings needed to collapse to advance an emotional entrainment exercise.

The single bullet theory never stood up, yet Arlen Specter still does. Facts are not enough when they can be buried in fear.

That said, my interest is not in 'what' people think; too much he said, she said, it makes my head spin. 'How' people think holds more interest for me, and Jeff has my respect for this factor alone.

Still as I look back at history, a fairly well controlled dominant narrative is to be observed. It must be that the larger community gives sanction for this narrative.

We remove the sanction only by creating a new aesthetic towards reality.

Thanks Tom, good stuff.

Thanks Cuttle, do you see this attempt at reconciliation as central to my ontological stance?

3/08/2007 08:00:00 AM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Jeff, you confabulated: "But Building 6 was pulled. You can see the cables attached to the structure. There were no detonations."

Like we used to say as kids: "Liar. Liar. Pants on fire."

Look at the video link I put up. When the NYC Engineer Luis Mendes says "We're getting ready to pull building six" he then goes on to discuss how they wanted to bring it down carefully in a narrow footprint.

Then watch the video of the building coming down right after he discusses it.

No cables. No wires. Clearly a straight falling down from explosives at the base, which is then immediately hosed off with fire hoses to cool it down and prevent any fire.

Stop peddling your bullshit.

It doesn't wash.

And to which ever numbnuts, Fructedor or otherwise, said someone suggested there were cables attached to building seven, yeah, sure, just keep putting up smoke and mirrors till the cows come home, or the chickens come home to roost. You give yourself away.

And as for the planting of the charges, there are scads of accounts of the power down of the towers over the weekend before 9/11. Several witnesses employed by investment firms or banks have written extensively about the shutting off of all security cameras and the release of all electronically locked doors for three days, and how all the financial firms were instructed to back up their data because the towers would be "powered down."

Included in these accounts by the same witnesses are the teams of "maintenance men" wheeling in palette after palette of draped heavy "equipment" and of the floors in each tower where it appears the
explosives were set.

These accounts, at least two of them, were present to the 9/11 omission Commission, but they failed to respond to the authors' repeated inquiries and refused to take any evidence on the subject.

No surprise there.

Wake the fuck up.

3/08/2007 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Here's an entertaining piece for both doubters and believers alike, whatever it is you happen to believe about 9-11 and whatever it is you happen to doubt about it.

This video is value neutral about 9-11, even to the point of being nihilistic on that score.

It simply shows in some detail the embedded symbols in the ritual writ large. They used to call it Geomancy. That's one name for it.

As I wrote in my first appearance on this blog, and will reiterate now in my last, my swansong, as it were:

We definitely do not need Cosmic Consciousness to sort out our problems. Indeed, cosmic consciousness may be a bane on our existence.

We do, however, need good and repeated dosings of survival-oriented Common Sense.

Use your common senses. Like Sounder said, choose to believe your 'lying eyes', little things like the action of gravity and basic physics, Newtonian mechanics. It's a bit hard to refute some obvious conclusions if you are merely honest with yourself.

Or you can choose to be like George H.W. Bush who, when confronted with the video of him patting Teri Hatcher on the ass last week said: "The video lies. It's a fraud. I never touched her."

The scary thing was, when shown the video, Hatcher herself reportedly freaked out, not realizing that the contact had happened. As someone who recently talked publicly about her childhood sexual abuse, it is not too surprising that she would be unaware of what happened. Or have compartmentalized it, at least.

But check out this video link. It is different than anything you have seen or considered thus far, I warrant.>

And I guarantee, whichever side of the fence you are on, or if you are mugwumping the rail, you will find things in it that you did not know, and have not anticipated. And it will require you to reconsider some of your most basic assumptions about 'our world.' That is, if you are a thinking person.

As I said once before:

The world as we know it is not as we know it.

3/08/2007 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

As promised - I called the BBC and ended up with this. So far.

As I said, Jane Standley's report doesn't prove any complicity by the BBC in anything - it doesn't make any difference to the big picture anyway.

As for Sam Hill, you don't even read the threads you're criticising. Jeff's post of 3/07/2007 09:31:11 PM passes on info from Implosionworld's paper on the collapse - which in my opinion is a post facto smother job.

And as I thought my post made clear, I don't believe it for a second.

As Wilhelm Reich said, once you've determined that you're trapped in a cage, it's a waste of time arguing about the colour of the paint on the bars - you'd do better to spend your energy getting out.

3/08/2007 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger AJ said...

These days you can admit you had affairs with male prostitutes while snorting pounds of cocaine, or raiding & draining the retirement accounts of senior citizens during a weak moment (or two) -because you were under tremendous pressures at work , get in re-hab and all will be forgiven in a few months.
But mention that you have serious questions concerning the official 911 report and you're given a vacant stare as those within ear shot go glassy-eyed or begin to search for something nearby that they can club you with.
I respect Jeff and all the commenter on board here, your opinions and research are outstanding as we all attempt to find something resembling a modicum of truth and reason.

I am reminded however, of a story in our humble Neo-con city-by-the-sea paper-on the Virginian-Pilot front page a few months ago pertaining to a local fire chief captain that had took his team up to the Pentagon to assist in recovery efforts. Why they would ask a fire department to go from a city a few hundred miles away to assist in "recovery" efforts poses another question, but the article in the paper described the captain affirming the "official" version of hauling away plane parts, and body parts from the wreckage in a not-so-subtle way of reminding all of us mortals that there were indeed body and plane parts to be hauled away, several years after the fact.

Front page. Umm.

I wonder if he got a promotion.

3/08/2007 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger woodywoodman said...

From my perspective Tom's rebuttal was the only one needed. It is what I would have said if I had the subtlty, skill and historical understanding to do so. The divisive comments and accusations have got to go. I dissagree with Jeff on this one but I'm not going to attack him, just try and see from his perspective and try to find a more compelling reality to hold on to that the one I'm currently riding.

I'd happily vote for a moratorium on angrily telling someone to "wake up" aswell.

3/08/2007 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger sunny said...

Tom Breidenbach-

I posted a comment on your blog asking you to copy, or allow me to copy, your essay and transport it to the forum. Thought I'd also ask permission here in order to make doubly sure you saw it.

3/08/2007 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger plectic said...

It's in the Governments interest to promote theories that support the conclusion of controlled demolition on 9-11, because it cannot be proved (or disproved) due to the lack of physical evidence...JFK anyone?

3/08/2007 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

dbd wrote:

Well, now we see that Jeff is really a magic kinda guy. He believes in all kinds of impossible stuff. In fact David Ray Griffin has summed it up rather nicely when referring to George Monbiot's own magical set beliefs:


"At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic."

If this was a controlled demolition, then why are those steel beams being thrown 600 feet? That doesn't sound very controlled to me. And of course there were other forces than gravity at work: an explosive force of compression, for instance, that had nowhere to expend itself but on the horizontal.

No need to invoke magic here, just a little rigor.

3/08/2007 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

Watched your video Sam...

....all i can say is wow.

Or better yet WOW!

I think a better title would have been synchrobullshiticism.

Particularly enjoyed the Transformer film clip.

Yesirreebob, having the Pentagon & Mars & aliens in a movie sure does prove something alright.

Everything in that little "film" was completely & totally subjective & proves nothing other than the human ability to connect anything to anything given enough time.

The effing Godfather of synchronicity was old C.G. Jung, who loved to wax rhapsodic about the divining power of the I Ching.

But what's apparent to anyone who has ever attempted to interpret the exquisite obscurity of the I Ching's gnomic observances, they can(and do) mean almost anything to anyone, and are probably intended to.

In short, Jung along with your film-maker, appear to be attempting to create a universal, objective principle out of something that, intrinsically, can have only subjective meaning.

Jung, and others who discern enormous substance in mundane events, are suffering (or simply experiencing) something called apophenia-the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena.
Peter Brugger of the Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Zurich, notes how the playwright August Strindberg's perception warped during psychotic episodes, as when his crumpled pillow repeatedly took on a nightmare appearance. Strindberg said that, "these occurrences could not be regarded as accidental, for on some days the pillow presented the appearance of horrible monsters, of gothic gargoyles, of dragons, and one night...I was greeted by the Evil One himself..." And in a sense these images weren't accidental: they were the imaginative tricks of a mind under appalling stress.

It is not, of course, necessary to crack up mentally to see, or be tempted by, projections of one's own preoccupations. Brugger himself remarks: " The propensity to see connections between seemingly unrelated objects or ideas most closely links psychosis to creativity...apophenia and creativity may even be seen as two sides of the same coin." Or, one could say, mad people may all be lateral thinkers, but not all lateral thinkers are mad.

All & all, I'd say your earth shatteringly explosive video amounted to little more than a really tiny "uncosmic" fart.

Better luck next time.

3/08/2007 11:55:00 AM  
Blogger Vemrion said...

As an FYI, here's an article by a certified civil engineer (in a Vermont paper) concerning the mysterious collapses.

I must say, Jeff. You seem pretty damn sure of your convictions -- to the point of cherry-picking the comments you reply to and ignoring the rest. Doesn't seem fully rigorous to me.

It's pretty easy to argue with Sam Hill since he's obviously lost all objectivity on the matter.

How about we turn this around. Since you don't believe the controlled demolition theories, what is your explanation for how they collapsed? I'm curious as to your mechanism for a delayed-reaction collapse, especially since the jet fuel was mostly gone by that point. I'd also like to get your take on the WTC7 since nobody, not even NIST has been able to explain that one to any degree. I'm more than willing to admit I was wrong if you can prove it. But just to accept your (so far) weak arguments is not very rigorous or smart.

3/08/2007 12:57:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Since you don't believe the controlled demolition theories, what is your explanation for how they collapsed?

Planes strike, structures fail. Fall down, go boom.

"I'd also like to get your take on the WTC7 since nobody, not even NIST has been able to explain that one to any degree."

I don't know. Do I have to know? I've freely said I have questions and suspicions, but they haven't resolved themselves into a answer, and I don't believe a confident answer is possible from this kind of evidence by doing blogospheric research. A real investigation would be nice, but CD's fundamentalists are way past the investigative stage. They have no questions anymore. They know. Well, not me.

I know a lot of other things about 9/11, things a lot of 9/11 Truthers don't seem interested in talking about anymore. And if I was only coming to the subject now, I probably would never have learned about them on account of how demolition is sucking up all the air surrounding "9/11 Truth" and making of it nothing but a honking fart. To which I only want to say, Smell ya later.

3/08/2007 01:20:00 PM  
Blogger et in Arcadia ego Eve said...

This is the truth...this is what it's all about:

It's only the devil that's in the details. And we know enough of those to know that 9/11 was a well planned checkmate on the geopolitical chess board. The US got to usher in the war that followed, but the collective responsible is transnational.

3/08/2007 01:24:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Yes, Sounder, your philosophy and my attempts at reconciliation are intimately connected. They're as similar as Jeff and Sam's respective positions are dissimilar--Jeff has always championed the crucial, indispensable ability to look at another angle with fresh eyes, while Sam is rooted, adamently anchored to his "my way or the highway, wake up! you're a liar! disinfo!" screeching. The funny thing about Sam is his use of cosmic consciousness as a badge of respectability. On a previous thread he told us he'd "been there, done that, but it don't pay the bills, so here's my 'realistic' approach" (presumably to the monolithic, "plain truth").

Now he's telling us (in his second swan song) that CC is definitely the problem here--what we need is more intractability. Let's think this through a moment. CC is that directly-intuited knowledge that all things are so fundamentally interconnected that divisions and dualities are the only real enemies, not the folks on the either side of them. Black is black & white is white. (And only one is right.)

What you're up to, Sounder, is very much what I'm attempting, although not necessarily through the medium that you've chosen. (Although I have to say, again, that the link I gave you last time which discisses Jaap Bax's reconciliation of the Newtonian universe with the Goethian holism with which Im so taken of late is nothing short of brilliant. It took some degree of surrender on my part to even acknowledge the need for reconciling the two "competing" explanations, but now that I've finally seen the light, new doors have materialized in the Wall.

It's also interesting to note that Sam wants to rub our faces in Newton's explanation of 9/11, since that's the only POV that's "real." What's the remaining, or residual value of CC, then? Something to make you feel expansive about your perceptions in a quieter moment, glass of wine in hand?

The thing I've learned in my recent exchanges with the other side is that the key to unraveling the knot of confrontation lies in finding the most fundamental accord--that we all share the same desire for clean air & water, freedom & peace--and then, instead of getting bogged down in how to achieve these things, to turn our attention on the divisions which separate us and those doing the dividing, asking (always) who profits from our mutual antipathies.

If you want to see a sample of this kind of beginning dialogue, look through the thread I'm linking here at Captain's Quarters for the exchanges between a poster named docjim505 and me. It's starts off pretty rough, and then you can see us transcending our biases enough to find agreement within the space of a few short exchanges. What's particularly breath-taking is that this all occurs against a backdrop of the sort of rightwing ranting that would have gotten my goat every time just a short while ago. Amazing.

As is Jeff's integrity and his resilience in the face of the dividers casting aspersions about the qualities they lack, chief among them flexibility.


Isn't being open to any possible explanation a workable framework? If, for example, I distrust the "ironclad" dating of monuments that is the foundation of conventional Egyptology (which I do, incidentally), does this mean that I have to buy into someone else's pet theory in order to think about where the truth might lie?

Strangely similarly, just_another_dick's diagnosis of Sam's apophenia could be both correct in this case and also not rule out the validity all sorts of weird, hitherto unguessed connections between "disparate" entities. There is rigor in discernment, logic in agnosticism. (Or at least there can be, if you're careful about it.)

3/08/2007 01:31:00 PM  
Blogger sandymac said...

Thanks Vemrion:

“I mean, the official story states that the planes were fragile, tiny things to explain the small hole in the Pentagon, but then the planes become gigantic missiles when crashing into the towers. What gives?
“Why do we even need controlled demolition companies? Why can't we just put a decommissioned airliner on remote control and slam it into the building we want to collapse? The building will collapse into a tidy pile of rubble and dust.... right?” I had to laugh.

And thanks Tom for the insight. I have multiple photos of the towers in my apartment, day shots and night shots. They were really magnificent.
But I was caught off guard by your comment:

“The Twin Towers occupied a lineage of epic industrial expressions including the Brooklyn and Golden Gate Bridges, the Empire State Building, and the moon landing.”

I can’t let it go by. The “moon landing”? If you believe we went to the moon then why not believe that 19 Muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, building 7 included?

3/08/2007 02:10:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

I watched a movie called "Blast" day before yesterday. Produced in 2004 with the special guest appearancce of an EMP weapon. Fiction leading the future?

As I mentioned above, 911 was a Canadian black op. You're supposed to keep your enemies closer right?

3/08/2007 02:26:00 PM  
Blogger Doc Nebula said...

I think it's essential to always be able to admit that you could be wrong. None of us are infallible. However, I must admit, this sudden "I don't think the towers were brought down by demolition" thing baffles me. This is the site that turned me on to the idea that something OTHER than what we'd been told had happened on 9/11; since then, everything I've read, including material on this site, has pretty strongly concluded that there is NO WAY the impact of two jetliners could have brought down the WTC towers, especially the way we all saw them fall live on TV.

So if it wasn't demolition, Mr. Wells... what do you think it was? Professor X's brain beams?

I'm just curious. It's all well and good to say "well, I just don't believe that". But precisely what else fits? I mean, we are still willing to accept that the WTC actually did fall down on September 11, 2001, right? And that what we saw on TV that morning, in terms of how we saw the towers more or less turn to dust and then implode into their own footprint, was an accurate depiction of what happened?

Assuming we're not positing anyone actually CGI'ed the so called 'live' broadcasts we were all looking at... then, again... what else would have done that except internal demolition? I'm honestly curious.

3/08/2007 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger Brentos said...

Thanks for posting that Tom.

Jeff posted a pdf from a company which was contracted to be involved in a cleanup which (according to common sense at least) broke federal law by helping to remove evidence from a crime scene. Thats not the issue excuse can be made that they removed it for safety reasons.. but why ship to asia asap?

From the paper, they immediately site seismic, video & photographic evidence countering critics of the 'official' story. Where is this evidence? Have these seismic charts & other evidence been locked down too?
Perhaps this paper was released to save the companies face, since they had been badgered? Maybe not, but if that paper is to be taken seriously, they need to show more evidence, rather than just their opinion and derision. Another issue I saw was that they were framing the argument in terms of CD advocates believing in purely traditional CD for the WTC 1 & 2 collapses. Many CD advocates *dont* claim to know how it was done, just that a lot of energy beyond potential energy collapse was involved. Prof Jones avoids these issues too. Jeff mentions massive girders flying laterally to distances of 600ft, yet simple newtonian physics of projectile motion suggests major lateral energy was added (rick siegel's video does a great job of demonstrating this). Then there is the fine particle dust clouds, which exploded outwards, relatively simple thermodynamics can get to order of magnitude energies which potential energy collapse alone cannot account for. Molten steel has already been covered.

I do see what Jeff is saying though, that once people make their minds up (either way), they can hold onto beliefs religiously. I liked his post of the 'other side of wtc 7' footage which showed that the damage was more than just a 'few small fires'. I've seen the footage before, and it makes me cringe when it is avoided by people like alex jones & loose change. This footage IMO, doesnt explain the way WTC 7 collapsed like a CD, though it *should* dissuade people from just focusing on the one side of WTC 7.

Thanks for the blog Jeff, keep up the great work.

3/08/2007 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger alzafar2012 said...

does jeff absolutely *have* to agree with us 100%, folks? it's his perogative if he feels that because soooo much attention is given to the collapses that he must add 'balance' to the equation by going along with the official story of how they came down. big deal...

seems odd, yes, that jeff would draw a line in the sand on this, but he has *more* than proven with RI that he is a fellow skeptic... (altho i do wonder what mr. wells thinks of the *first* building struck lasting longer; that the second building didn't take as direct a hit as the the other but collapsed first--very bizarre, that.) none-the-less, are we going to harangue him all day on this? he isn't exactly trying to persuade anyone of his "Planes strike, structures fail. Fall down, go boom" idea, and has made it obvious that he doesn't think the 'proof' exists to persuade him otherwise either.

so let's get on with it--i mean, this week alone we've got the us attorneys story; the bit about the new auto pilot soon to be added to planes that will allow said planes to be manipulated from afar; the wayne madsen story about israel arming indonesian terrorists; the body of the head of the israeli defence ministry mission to europe recovered from the river seine near rouen.... lots more out there, peeps.

3/08/2007 04:03:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Big Gav's got a great, great post up at Peak Energy on some of that stuff we were talking about the other day--Edwin Black, etc. If you can tear yourselves away from the current chastisement Jeff is enduring for not knowing exactly how the world works, that is.

Personally, I think that what Big Gav's talking about is a much "bigger" story than just another in a long line of false flag ops here in the Empire, but, hey, you've got to plant your feet somewhere, I guess...

3/08/2007 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger Banned by Blogger said...

Jeff's like a pusher who gets you hooked by giving you some relatively clean stuff, and cheap.

Once he's sure you're going to keep coming back for more, he switches the deal from white powdery smack cut with clean lactose to brown horse shit cut with pcp.

Then while you're nodding maybe he'll rifle through the contents of your wallet.

Wake up, suckers. It's a giant con.

Fuck Blogger knows it.

Well, I wouldn't´ go that far me paranoid and perhaps this is all rather obvious, but I think Mr. Wells has taken his particular form of satire a little too far and is playing socio-political experiments (...or mind games, if you will...) with his readers.

If this page appears stale or frozen, please refer here for blog's status.

It just rubs some people the wrong way after a while because, imo, we are living in desperate times, as opposed to interesting times. With a click of a button, Jeff can help organize armies of people in a certain direction...but this just ain´t happening...and therein might be the source of some of the frustration.

3/08/2007 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"I must admit, this sudden "I don't think the towers were brought down by demolition" thing baffles me."

I don't know why people think this is a sudden turnabout for me. In my very first post, the Coincidence Theory Guide, I avoided the physical evidence because I didn't trust it, and I got some complaints about it back then, too. And I've written numerous times since that I think the 9/11 movement was weakening itself, and likely manipulated to do so, by an undue emphasis upon demolition. I'm more convinced than ever that that is true, as I've watched 9/11 Truth shoot itself first in the foot, and then in the head.

I wrote this back in 2004:

Truth, especially with a capital "T," is elusive at the best of times, and these aren't they. We ought, rather, to be 9/11 skeptics, of not only the official story but also the competing narratives, because if we abandon critical thought and lapse into solipsistic dogma, we become nothing but evangelizing priests of a conspiracist cult. (And if that happens, then my wife is going to say "I told you so.")

In large part, I think that's exactly what's happened to the 9/11 Movement. If I'm not orthodox enough for it, even though I've never wavered in regarding 9/11 as a deep black op, it doesn't matter to me. Fundamentalism is not only wrong-headed, it's deadly dull.

3/08/2007 05:08:00 PM  
Blogger alzafar2012 said...

or maybe we could focus on jose luis de jesus miranda, who's getting a hell of a lotta press time lately....

3/08/2007 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Breidenbach said...

sandymac wrote:

"I was caught off guard by your comment:

'The Twin Towers occupied a lineage of epic industrial expressions including the Brooklyn and Golden Gate Bridges, the Empire State Building, and the moon landing.'

“I can’t let it go by. The 'moon landing'? If you believe we went to the moon then why not believe that 19 Muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, building 7 included?”

sandymac: I’m just not sure about the moon. I’ve looked at both sides of the argument, but I'd need a lot more time with it to approach the moral certainty—either way—I apply to 9/11 and CD. It’s an open question, and there are mysteries around the matter certainly. Just not sure what’s up there, though I find the suggestions in Joseph Farrell’s THE SS BROTHERHOOD OF THE BELL interesting.

That said, to the extent that the moon landing is a perceived accomplishment, it represents a feat in which our culture generally takes great pride. Should it be firmly revealed (and I appreciate your belief that it already has been) to have been faked, I’m sure this would prove a (further) blow to the national psyche. Thus I think its inclusion, along with the Twin Towers, in the lineage of great technical accomplishments of our culture is warranted.

“Why not believe that 19 Muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, building 7 included?” A quantitatively and qualitatively different question, in my opinion. And one I’ve looked at much more closely.

3/08/2007 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger jules said...

Fuck jeff you must have one hell of a thick hide.

Copping so much shit from a few wankers cos you state repeatedly that are AGNOSTIC on the subject.

tell me this peeps

If a tower building collapsed into its own footprint how did bits of it end up flying several hundred feet outside the footprint, and why are chunks of it falling outside the footprint, clearly on any footage? if the building turned to dust why are there piles of concrete and steel several stories high?

If the building(wtc 2) collapsed at free fall speeds how come the video shows that it took closer to 15 seconds (Tho there is some evidence for the half arsed or deliberately misleading work of NIST in that one, who also claimed free fall collapse times)?

If as Sam hill seems to claim, building 6 was demoslished by explosives, why is that not part of the conbspiracy, or if it was and building 7 was, why couldn't building 7 have been demolished as a response to the days events as sam seems to think building 6 was?

Finally and most importantly:

If all of those whinging about CD had actually put the time and effort they have into arguing about CD into defending the provisions in the US constitution that are there to protect citizens from the power of the state, would the Admin have been able to get away with its effective dismantling of the US as a free nation post 911?

3/08/2007 06:57:00 PM  
Blogger Doc Nebula said...

In large part, I think that's exactly what's happened to the 9/11 Movement. If I'm not orthodox enough for it, even though I've never wavered in regarding 9/11 as a deep black op, it doesn't matter to me. Fundamentalism is not only wrong-headed, it's deadly dull.

I appreciate you answering my comment at length; I'm very flattered. I'd be overjoyed, though, if you'd actually answered my question -- if not demolition, then what?

3/08/2007 07:26:00 PM  
Blogger Doc Nebula said...


I'm not chastising Jeff for not knowing. I understand we don't know, and I salute him for admitting it.

If I'm chastising him, it's for saying he doesn't find the evidence of demolition convincing (when many, including Yr Humble Narrator, kinda do) while not bothering to say what he DOES find the evidence indicative of.

I believe in keeping an open mind, but I also believe that tearing shit down without trying to put up anything in its place is, well, just tearing shit down. I expect better of Jeff than that.

If that expectation gets me world wearily bitch slapped, well, so be it.

3/08/2007 07:30:00 PM  
Blogger MrFiji said...

Like Jeff said: Planes strike, structures fail. Fall down, go boom. Cause we all KNOW what happens when planes fly into buildings It's the stuff they teach in grade 2.

3/08/2007 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger Brentos said...

This video title is a misnomer, there is no mention of molten steel, but 6 weeks after the collapse, the construction worker mentions 'red hot' steel of around 1500F, *6 weeks* after the collapse:

6 weeks after

here is a table of steel temperatures related to the steel's heat color:

steel temperature table

Presumably it was quite visibly red hot, so from that chart the temps must of been at least 1000+ F conservatively, 6 weeks after.

As far as the lateral motion of he debris from WTC 1 & 2, check out this simplistic, but effective example from rick siegel's 911eyewitness:
911eyewitness clip
It shows how much lateral energy there was. Applying simple newtonian projectile motion is adequate to get the order of magnitude energies involved laterally, even though the system observed is not simple (like a ball).
Physicists do these 'back of the stamp' calculations all the time to get at order of magnitudes. It's not just dust, but girders being thrown way out. Thats a lot of energy, it also doesn't seem to look like what traditional CD generally looks like.
Pancake theories have a very hard time explaining where all this raw kinetic energy is coming from..twice. ..let alone molten steel & pulverization of tons of dust. So what if the towers didnt quite go down just as fast as gravity or not every ounce of concrete was pulverized, there is still collosal amounts of energy unexplained.

I totally respect Jeff's agnostic viewpoint by the way and his view to look at other evidence. If it wasnt for sites like Jeff's I wouldnt have even considered CD as a possibility.
This is a place though to discuss his post, so Im not sure why people are angry at people who find it difficult to understand his agnosticism. With the para-political evidence he thinks is more important, isn't that stuff just as hard for the general public to get their head around as to why buildings do weird things? People simply don't want to change their comfy world view and spend hours trying to connect dots and see patterns.
For some people, they will put in the slog to gradually learn more about the world, for others it may take watching WTC7 for the first time to 'wake up' a bit. Most people will ignore both though.

3/08/2007 08:38:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


First off, I wasn't lumping your comment in with those of the most egregious agnostic-hounders--you certainly weren't calling our host any of those childish names that seem to be flying about today. Next, I do disagree that one shouldn't tear any theories apart unless one has one to take its place, especially when all this business of looking for the wires behind the illusion takes energy & focus away from solutions to the very large problem of which the deception of 9/11 is only a very small part.

Jeff called it the "crime of the century" (when talking about the likelihood of Silverstein casually admitting complicity), but I think he was just indulging in a bit of hyperbole. The real crime of the century is the absolutely unnecessary and cynical degradation of this lovely blue-green orb (animal, vegetable & mineral) by vested interests who fear nothing more than an equitable distribution of wealth & power. I wasn't kidding when I said in my last comment that my buddy Big Gav was talking about a far greater conundrum than this Colonel Mustard in the library with the thermate mystery.

David Stannard talks about 3,000,000 casualties just during the last half-century of the largely "unknown" American Holocaust --how many more casualties have resulted from the Fear of Free Energy that has motivated a swindle so large that we can't even see it? Take a gander at Big Gav's post and see if it doesn't put this episode in the War On Us in its proper context. And then, for extra credit, imagine Joe Klein's response to the grandest conspiracy theory ever. Your last effort was priceless--see if you can't go one better.

As Pete said, quoting Wilhelm Reich;

"...once you've determined that you're trapped in a cage, it's a waste of time arguing about the colour of the paint on the bars - you'd do better to spend your energy getting out."

3/08/2007 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

"Planes strike, structures fail. Fall down, go boom. "

Now that was, by far, the best goddamn comment on this entire cd-er lynch mob dominated thread.

3/08/2007 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger Nate Cull said...

Jeff, thanks for posting this. I'm also concerned by the stridency of the '9/11 Truth' people and the demonisation of anyone who admits that they aren't persuaded by an insistence that controlled demolition is a 'proven fact'.

Perhaps these are people whose understanding of complex events is so shallow that they *need* to believe that 9/11 was fully an 'inside job' in order to oppose the wrongs which the White House committed in its name. That's the only way I can understand such harshness directed at their critics. That they feel that if you don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy, then you have no right to oppose Bush.

But I *don't* need to believe the towers were dropped by US forces in a premediated plot in order to feel deeply, from the moment I saw it happening on TV, that the US reaction was going to be massive, misdirected, and counterproductive to peace and humanity. Some things are definitely wrong, no matter whether or not they're done in the name of righteousness.

Frankly it frightens me quite a bit that so many people's thought systems don't seem to understand this; that the categories of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are fuzzy, overlapping, and dependent entirely on what people *do*, not on what they believe or on which political group they align with. If you kill people, you're a killer. Does it matter if you're a 'good' killer or a 'bad' killer? Not to the person you killed; maybe to the people who would have died otherwise. But you don't get a free pass to kill people and remain 'not a killer', whether you're US Marines or Al Quaeda.

And you don't need to construct elaborate conspiracy schemes in order to 'expose the bad guys'. Just *watch what they do*, how they act, and you'll be able to tell the difference.

Conspiracies do exist, and exposing them is useful, but if you *need* conspiracy theory to identify the bad guys then your bad-shit-detector is already way too broken to be dependable, so you're as likely as not to peg the wrong people as conspiracist

3/08/2007 10:58:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Jeff writes:

"Planes strike, structures fail. Fall down, go boom."

Where's the third plane, Jeff?

There was no third plane to make WTC7 collapse identically like WTC1 and WTC2. So your argument is not very rigorous I'm afraid either as to why three buildings fell freefall identically with planes hitting only two of them.


What about about the EPA confirmed radiation at the Pentagon, where there never was a Boeing 757, only something smaller that lunged into the Pentagon wall?

Short five minute film for everyone that you have probably seen already:

The Pentagon Strike / 911

3/09/2007 02:58:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"There was no third plane to make WTC7 collapse identically like WTC1 and WTC2. So your argument is not very rigorous"

Read it again. My remark was addressed to the collapse of the twin towers. Re: WTC 7 I said it's still unexplained satisfactorily and an investigation would be nice. (And no, the towers did not collapse identically. WTC 7 looks controlled; WTC 1 and 2 look nothing like it.)

3/09/2007 05:59:00 AM  
Blogger Fructedor said...

Building 7 LOOKS like a controlled demolition - no problem there. WTC 1 & 2 look like ... nothing we've ever seen before - but trying to make sense of it leads us very quickly and inescapably to the conclusion that the official story is untrue. Just like with the JFK event, as has been pointed out above. Not to mention a number of other major events, including assassinations, which have marked the last few years on earth, and which have all clearly advanced the agenda of certain political and financial interests.

I want to say that I am in total agreement with the idea that there is nothing more pernicious than the cast-iron declarations of people who attack PC thinking by creating a new form of PC. This sort of shit is all over the Internet and only adds to the confusion, tremendous energy wasted in pointless infighting.

All of these events are geared to maintaining the population in a state of fear and insecurity which makes it so much easier to control - no-one can deny that the social climate of the Western world has quickly become increasingly repressive since 911 - even in hedonistic little France, where I live.

CD certainly seems to be a reasonable hypothesis for the WTC complex. The official story for the Pentagon makes no sense at all either, from the handling of the plane to the size of the hole to the lack of debris to whatever. We can't just let it slide. The governments are lying. Why? And how did what happened?

Personally, I'm open to the possibility that military weapons unknown to the public may have been used on WTC 1 & 2, although obviously there's no way of proving it. There are only indications that such weapons exist, just as remote-control for airplanes exists, just as CD could bring down buildings like the WTC while fire couldn't. I believe though that it's a very dangerous stand to claim that until there's proof to the contrary, the official story must be true.

Further, although again it's impossible to prove, there's every indication of a mythical / magickal / Masonic undercurrent to all this, as witnessed, for example, by the symbology of the twin towers. There was talk of this context concerning the EgyptAir flight that went down over the Atlantic in the 1990's.

One thing that really bothers me though is this - if it's safe to say that very few people these days believe that Oswald was JFK's lone killer (RFK, MLK) - and that the US government, via the FBI and CIA, seem to be deeply involved, what has this changed? He we all are stuck in Bushland, silently implicated in the murder of millions.

3/09/2007 07:34:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

While I may not see sam hill as an erudite expositor of the need for species consciousness, I do agree that it is more important than CC. CC seems to function in a way that separates the common man from the elite’s, so ...not good. In some future context it may become appropriate, however right now, no, not my bag.

I have experience to back this up. Cosmic experience in the end is only useful to the degree that its intimations can be shaped or understood through a common language.

And yes IC, I am on the same page as Jaap Bax. Thank-you; this may call for an attempt at a 'bridge' paper. Thomistic thinking seems to underpin my approach much more than I was conscious of.

The Big Gav fellow, and other folk on that blog also serve up some excellent food for thought.

3/09/2007 08:09:00 AM  
Blogger Doc Nebula said...

After a night's solid sleep and (I hope) some fairly coherent thought, I believe I owe Jeff an apology. What I seem to have been irked at him over is his stubborn refusal to do my thinking for me.

It fills me with chagrin to admit it, but apparently I've gotten used to coming over here and getting, as that one idiot used to put it all the time, The Rest Of The Story. It's like, yeah, the truth is out there, and I've actually discovered where 'out there' is... it's this blog.

But it isn't, and it's certainly not fair to put that on Jeff. He works hard and probably has more pieces of the various puzzles in one place than the rest of us, but he's not Jesus (or Hermes, or whoever your all knowing theite of choice is). Jeff doesn't know the Truth, either... and that's what this latest blog post is about. He's tired of people coming over here and screaming "The Messiah! The Messiah!" at him...or, conversely, accusing him of being a false Messiah.

I don't think Jeff has ever claimed to be any kind of messiah, or to have any grasp on any kind of final truth... he's just a little further down the rabbit hole, mining away a little more industriously than the rest of us.

So, Jeff -- I apologize for being pissy with you. I thought you'd supplied me with an answer, you advised me that you had none to supply and that you resented the assumption on my part, and that's perfectly valid.

It troubles me deeply that I so utterly, and willingly, and thoughtlessly, allowed you to assume such an authoritative status in my own head. That's no way to run a neuronic railroad. I'll try to be more aware of such intellectual laziness on my part in the future.

3/09/2007 08:24:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

fructedor said:

"One thing that really bothers me though is this - if it's safe to say that very few people these days believe that Oswald was JFK's lone killer (RFK, MLK) - and that the US government, via the FBI and CIA, seem to be deeply involved, what has this changed?"

This is THE issue for me, and it's the one that makes me wonder whether I'm part of the problem or the solution.

Back in this post I wrote "Microanalyzing keeps us busy. Meanwhile, they get away with it, again. 9/11 is a crime, and as I've said, crimes are not in the end How Done Its, they are Who Done Its. And if we are ever to reach the end, which is justice, then we had better get it through our heads that knowing the mechanics of their magic doesn't get us there."

I also quoted the early (like 1964 early) JFK researcher Vincent Salandria, who knows when he's been played:

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: "We are in control and no one not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it." It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message....

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but repression. I suggest to you that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

And Highlander, thanks. I always thought killing the Buddha was good advice. ("Why kill the Buddha? Because the Buddha you meet is not the true Buddha, but an expression of your longing. If this Buddha is not killed he will only stand in your way.")

Even when we take alternate routes, the path to truth and justice is bumper to bumper with Buddhas. We need more road rage out there.

3/09/2007 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

I watched a four hour video that throws open so many doors of deception that I can't jumb into this abyss and hit bottom. That video comes from these docs all "waiting for this moment to arrive".

And the cock crow crime of the century. Better pull it Jeff. The pic of a boy and his goat. Doesn't look to me like it's a lock.

3/09/2007 10:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe a signed up on Blogger....I've accepted the Mark of The Beast....just as Jeff intended it. ;-)

Richard called that shot early on....and they did quickly fill the vacuum Jeff created. Of course, I fully expected Mojo to diss Jeff on this.

What's interesting is that people are assuming that since Jeff doesn't subscribe to CC, he somehow subscribes to the Official Version. I never heard Jeff say that....yet people put those words in his mouth.

I feel pretty much the same way Jeff does on this. I know, instinctually, that the Official Theory is nonsense....but I now also know that the 911 Truth Movement has its own proportional share of nonsense, purposeful, or otherwise.

My stance is that I'm over, and have been over for about two years now, arguing the fine points about 911. Do I think it was an inside job? Hell yeah, I do. Do I think those who perpetrated it will ever come to justice, or that it will ever officially be declared an inside job? Hell no, I don't. We have the JFK Assassination as proof of that.

So, left with that conclusion, what are we to do? We have three choices, as I see it:

1.) Continue to argue about the emperor's birthday suit while the empire continues to crush us beneath its feet like grapes turned into wine in ancient greece.

2.) Violent revolution.

3.) Non-violent revolution...see IC.

Okay, there's a fourth.

4.) Don't argue, but just sit back, pull up a chair and watch the parade of carnage.

Which one do you choose?

3/09/2007 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

I know I'm just a waffle waitress, and my simple thoughts and concerns don't really amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but I have a couple of questions I want to ask all you people, who are obviously far more intelligent and better informed than I could ever be:

I read Mr. Wells say this on May 10, 2005:

My fear for the "9/11 Truth Movement" is that it is making the same missteps the Kennedy assassination researchers made 40 years ago when there was still a chance for something like justice.

1st Question: What exactly is your idea of "justice", Mr. Wells?

Later on in the same post you seem to give a hint of what it might be, when you wrote:

Once I knew the meaning of Kennedy's murder, it no longer mattered to me how many gunmen there were, or from where they pulled their triggers. I knew who paid for the bullets.

Once I knew the meaning of the falling towers, it no longer mattered to me how they fell. I knew who paid for that, too.

I would agree with this dictum of follow the money.

2nd Question: So who do you think paid for 9/11 and the JFK assassination, Mr. Wells?

3rd Question (7 parts): [i] Have you ever written a post on the history of the U.S. Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England?

[ii] Ever written about the Dutch and British East India Companies?

[iii] Ever written about the Renaissance era banking houses of Genoa and Venice?

[iv] Have you ever followed the money along any of these threads into the present day nature of world finance?

[v] Have you ever written about the massive short selling of airline stocks prior to 9/11, and in particular the follow-the-money trail that led to, among others, Buzzy Krongard, just for starters?

[vi] Since you say that "who paid for it" is the essence of knowing the truth, have you ever actually followed the money trail?

[vii] How and by whom do you think fiat money (i.e. the currency of any nation)is created, and then cadged, stolen or appropriated, i.e. made, and how and where and by whom is it moved around the globe, and to what ends?

Rhetorical riposte in advance:

Or is this also too unknowable to be worth your time and effort?

Follow up question to riposte:

If, then, you think it is too big a question to look at, then why are you wasted so many people's time with a fruitless sham inquisition?

If you are unwilling or unable to follow the money trail, which you yourself claim is the high road, nay, the only route to justice, then why are you wasting our time with circular statements that have the effect of tautologically promoting complete agnosticism, i.e. of fostering and sustaining the notion that all is unknowable and thus ultimately futile?

Isn't that nothing other than a plug for helplessness, hopelessness, willing slavery, and the sowing of division among all genuine seekers after truth and justice?

Like I said, I know I'm just a waffle waitress, but even I have these questions.

3/09/2007 11:34:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

So, Jeff,

What's next? I mean, you're right--your job here has been helping us ponder the first step, the who, as opposed to the how--but now that we know, more or less, what those whos are up to, would you consider the next step to be political action (very much their turf) or something else (as, for example, projects going quietly around the barricades and trenches, like the folks I'm working with to dismantle the prison plantations of the American urban landscape and replace them with green interconnected/self-sufficient exurban villages)?

If we can go off the grid, in large and growing numbers, won't that circumvent the closed avenues of change that face us on the conventional path? Bucky Fuller never advocated revolution, but he believed very deeply in taking control of our evolution, as did Maslow and all the other visionaries whom we, as a society, still haven't heeded.

Or, if that kind of project isn't really in your milieu, what about pursuing the old who done/does it routine in the tech-that's-killing-us sector? Edwin Black's history lesson is an ongoing adventure, with all sorts of Paperclip elements that are right up your alley. You know that I've been bludgeoning you with Dave West's Low, Dishonest Decade at least once a month, but no one's really followed through on that stuff, connecting those dots from the '30s to the compass points on today's conspiracy map.

This last area draws all the great elements of the Big Conspiracy into sharp focus & close proximity. Nazis, eugenics, the promised land of George Washington Carver (can't have no black Christs 'round here!)--all these and more. Politics, history, science, and the human condition; there's so much material there, you'd be a very old man before you exhausted all of it. Don't quit--branch out instead. If you're interested, I have forests of links that I don't really much use, not being the investigative type that you are...


Did you catch that "popping the frontal lobes" stuff linked in your link?

3/09/2007 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Waffle Waitress,

Your skirt is slipping--have you just assumed Big Al's persona, or are you just picking up one of your old, more comfortable guises? You're fine as you are--you were starting to look kinda creepy in drag anyway.


Welcome back!! I told you it wouldn't hurt much and they all know who we are anyway. Fuck 'em. Let's move this party into higher gears. (Gnostically/Agnostically speaking, of course.)

3/09/2007 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

Mr. Wells, I just read your very first post on August 15, 2004 - The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11, and I must say I see nothing in there, not a single piece of nouvelle information that you yourself actually reported for the first time or uncovered. Nor have I seen any since.

It is all derivative. A series of links to information long in the public domain, all of which you tie up with a concluding, and a very telling, wink and nod:

"I could go on. And on and on. But I trust you get the point. Which is simply this: there are no secrets, an American government would never accept civilian casualties for geostrategic gain, and conspiracies are for the weak-minded and gullible."

So, is that your conclusion in advance? All responsibility lays at the feet of the American government (sic), whatever one might construe that to be?

Well, then, I guess we can all fold up our tents, round up the livestock and be on our way. What is there left to discuss? Certainly not the How? or the Who Done It?, as you have already told us many times over that the first question is a pointless waste of time.

And the second question of whodunit you have recently derided as trivial to the cause of justice, though in the past you seemed to suggest that the who could be discerned by following the money, again, something which you have rigorously failed to do.

I fail to see how justice may be done without having any identified perpetrators of this, the crime of some century.

But let's just all wink and nod and feel smart or smug and morally superior to those people who might suggest a line of responsbility for these acts. And while we are at it, let's deride them as fundamentalists, no less knowingly and cynically picking up the cudgle of the PTB to wield it against those who would try to uncover the identities of the perpetrators (and I know of no more NECESSARY PRELUDE to any form of justice, than to identify the perpetrators of a given crime), for whom the RI cognoscenti seem to be providing deep cover.

But that is just my opinion. And I am nothing but a gum-snapping waffle waitress.

Noting the re-appearance (did he ever leave?) of the wraith-like spook whose name is anathema to me and so many others, I too must say farewell. This site has ceased to engage my interest, not to mention the poor powers of reasoning ensconsed within my feeble waitress intellect. For I am just a waffle-bearing bimbo. And you are all much brighter, more honest, deeply delving zen masters, more noble creatures all, than I.

Besides, I am retreating to warmer climes. The weather in Podunk has gotten unbearable. Too much snow. And those chemtrails. I moving to the sunbelt. I won't be able to use Big Al's computer any more. And I can't afford one for my self.

So, today I'm going to quit Big Al's, and the blogosphere. I'm not sure which one is a more toxic environment. At least Big Al pays me.

Well, ta ta.

Hey, isn't it about time for a story about UFOs, or some satanic spam?

No offense to Hormel. We serve that stuff at the diner like gangbusters.

3/09/2007 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger John Kirby said...

Jeff, you were right to tune out the Libby trial. But for reasons that go back to a post of yours from '05, where you correctly identified the neo-cons as "patsies".

I have long argued to my friends and colleagues that in an imporaant sense, the entire Bush Adminsitration are non-innocent patsies, the face of a more or less stable military-industrial-intelligence complex. Viewed from this angle, even a "stolen election" only serves to re-affirm our faith in democracy, or at least two-party American democratic "choice". Because if the election is worth "stealing", then there really must be a tussle going on between Republicrats and Demublicans.

I have never read anywhere an analysis of the central irony of the "Plame Affair": that it tells the fable of the admninistration "punishing" a critic by damaging another branch of power; that is, by "outing" a CIA officer.

There are two myths being sold here. The first is that the worst the US establishment will do to you is "discredit" you in an odd and round- about way.

The second is to trick leftists into defending the CIA as martyrs. I am not saying you ever did this, Jeff, in fact I need to look into your previous posts on all this, but the general effect was to make a hero out of Wilson and a martyr out of the glamorous Plame and by extension the world of "pure, non-politicized intelligence". Most importanly, it made a moral crime out of "outing" a CIA officer.

Because I worked as a researcher on three-part series on the CIA for the Discovery Channel (which I know does not automatically confer any bona fides)I did a lot of reading from actual CIA defectors, people like Raplph McGehee and Phil Agee. And Agee, in particular, made it his actually quite heroic mission to "out" CIA officers in the field, in order to thwart ongoing missions in countries all over the world. He and a couple of other folks developed a technique whereby State Department lists could be cross-checked in a particular way to reveal CIA officers using diplomatic cover.

In this way Agee disrupted countless operations overseas, for at least as long as it took the agency to replace the personnel. The murder of the CIA station chief in Greece by the November 17th group was blamed on Agee, who had published his address. Since November 17th has since been widely revealed to be an adjunct of the "Gladio" netork in Greece (the rightist CIA/MI6/NATO controlled 'stay-behind' terrorist groups that were/are active all over western Europe) the charge against Agee doesn't stick.

Fast forward to the Plame affair, and the CIA are the aggreived party once again, except this time it's by a rogue presidential administration, with its own particular crony capitalist desires for war in Iraq, or so we have been told over and over again in these and other words by the establishment (and where it concerns foreign policy especially, state-controlled) press.

We are, of course being led by the nose in a number of respects. There may be infighting at the top-level of the power structure, but previous history tells us that we are not a party too it. And so when we get glimpses courtesy of a CIA organ like the New York Times into name calling at the top, we should be suspicious. If I can toot my horn for a secoind here, I won a number of bets around the time that we interviewed Joesph Wilson for our film "The American Ruling Class" that this story was going to be the poor-man's Watergate of our era, and of course it ain't over yet.

As long as people feel like the "worst" the government does is invariably splashed across the front page in three inch letters, they won't feel so bad about the inevitable corruption of power.

In regards to the CD/Pentagon controversy, I appreciate your position Jeff-- the "why" is much more important than the "how". I will say this though-- the strange collapse of those towers is one of the great windows, once the gestalt switch is made, into percieving the "war for war's sake" agenda of the power structure.. as long as we don't confuse the Republican Party for the whole of that structure (which I know you don't).

In regards to the Pentagon, I shared your disdain for the "no plane" theory for a long time. Why wouldn't they use a plane, after all, even if it had to be controlled from the ground by an experienced pilot? However, an encounter I had with a well known anti-war activist, whom Doug Valentine has revealed to be a fraud, made me reconsider.

When asked his thoughts on 9-11, he expressed the same sort of shoulder-shrugging, "it doesn't matter either way" attitude he did on Kennedy and King. "That no plane in the Pentagon thing... that really discredits the whole thing" he said .

It would be just like the Black Operators to send a lightly disguised Global Hawk into their beloved building, if only to operate a "magic-bullet-theory-in reverse" agenda! I know you of all people will appreciate the deviousness of the intel community when it comes to disinfo of the UFO/Satanism variety.

The most compelling evidence for me is, however, the lack of evidence. Why doesn't the most heavily surveilled building in the world have the crash of that plane from every imaginable angle? Why didn't it's surface to air missles shoot whatever it was down? Why do the four or five frames they do release show a white plume emanating from the behind whatever it is? Airplanes don't do that close to the ground.

So how best to present all this, controversy and all, to those of us, outside the world of Rigorous Intution and 9-11 Truth, who still need convincing that the whole damn thing was an inside job?

Thanks for all your work; it's always a pleasure to read.

3/09/2007 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Dr. Bombay said...

It seems you have been taking
a lot of heat for this post.
But all of us who post comments
here would do well to keep in
mind that Jeff MUST hold himself
to a higher standard of proof
regarding any subjects discussed
on his blog R.I. The way I see
it, Jeff throws us the red meat
and its up to the readers to
decide if they want to devour it.
I for one will never belive that
a 60 ton commercial jetliner
hit the Pentagon and then just
VANISHED. Talk about magic!
Even David Copperfield couldn't
have pulled off that one.
"People dont like to think,
because when you think you
have to reach conclusions,
and those conclusions are
not always pleasent"
Helen Keller

3/09/2007 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger Goodyear said...


Two issues you need to deal with to uphold your version of Silverstein’s statement.

1/ There were NO FIREFIGHTERS IN THE BUILDING; so why would he have wanted to pull them out when they were’nt in there!

2/ Why would the fire chief have asked him, the owner of the building, if they should pull the firefighers out??

Other issues you are failing to confront are:

• why do TPTB (which will soon include you the rate you’re slipping into Fox newspeak going on about all the confusion in the news rooms to explain away the BBC/CNN and now possibly also Fox news announcement of WTC7 collapse before it happened) NEVER MENTION WTC7

• Why did Google systematically pull all videos of the above-mentioned story

• Why has CNN and ABC banned showing the WTC7 demolition?

• Why are you systematically ignoring all the eyewitness accounts of bombs going off in the buildings - very important info as it was how the story would naturally evolved before official line started up.

• Why are you ignoring all other circumstantial evidence such as the shut down in the World Trade Centre prior to 9-11 which involved who teams of labourers entering the building almost certainly to plant devices.

You have in my view erroneously conflated the Pentagon scenario which is a who knows your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine situation with the obvious CD of the three building that collapsed on that day.

They want to talk about the Pentagon; they want us to talk about the Pentagon – endlessly – because they know we’ll look silly talking about it (however silly the official line is from a logistical angle) and they want us to shut up about WTC7 – that says it all !!

3/09/2007 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger sandymac said...

Tom, here's an interesting impressionistic movie about the moon landing starring Stanley Kubrick, Nixon, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, et al. (Thanks to the RI board)

Dark Side of the Moon

I simply remember 1969 and the antiquated technology available at the time. Flawless moon landings until 1972 and then nothing but orbiting space shuttles with pesky heating tiles since?

When people use the 'moon landing' as an example of a great American achievement it just continues the deception. Take a look at the freemasonary involved. Buzz Aldrin, 33 degree mason, C. Fred Kleindenck, head of NASA's apollo program, 33 degree mason. Neil Armstrong's father was a 33 degree mason. Neil, I believe was a 32 degree mason.

Also, where did all the billions of dollars go that were supposedly spent on that project?

3/09/2007 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"1/ There were NO FIREFIGHTERS IN THE BUILDING; so why would he have wanted to pull them out when they were’nt in there!

Look in the comments above, I've addressed that. There was no "manual firefighting," as reported, but there were firefighters. I quoted two of them by name, saying they were pulled out because of worries for their safety.

"2/ Why would the fire chief have asked him, the owner of the building, if they should pull the firefighers out??"

He didn't "ask." He stated that the fires couldn't be contained, and Silverstein stated that he considered the firefighters' safety more important than trying to save the building. The decision to pull the firefighters rested with the chief.

"They want to talk about the Pentagon; they want us to talk about the Pentagon – endlessly – because they know we’ll look silly talking about it (however silly the official line is from a logistical angle) and they want us to shut up about WTC7 – that says it all !!"

No. When I see "9/11 conspiracy" taken on in the corporate media, it's always missile and demolition. What was Popular Mechanics' focus, or Salon or Rolling Stone? Why has the mainstream made "Loose Change" the representative text of 9/11 Truth? Why aren't they talking about Mineta's testimony, or the wargames, or Mahmood Ahmad and Omar Omar Saeed Sheikh, or the insider trading....?

3/09/2007 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

An example:

CNN talks to the "Loose Change Boys", and what's the topic? Three minutes in: "The bottom line is World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 have to be controlled demolitions."

Lots of others. Watch a clip of Hannity talking about 9/11. He's always harping on demolition.

For "suppressed truth" it sure gets airplay.

3/09/2007 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger Dr. Bombay said...

I think that the reason people
like Hannity harp on the demolition
aspect is that they belive (and
rightly so I suspect) that the
general public can not wrap their
collective heads around the idea
that the duly elected government
of these United States would
commit such a dispicable act of
terrorism against it own people.
Now, tell them the government
was negligent or incompetent in
protecting us on 9/11 and they
will belive that in a heart beat.
"Do the orders still stand Mr.
"Have you heard anything to the

3/09/2007 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Whoa... I return from binge drinking to find a mob of angry villagers, err Truthers trying to throw Jeff into a river to see if he floats.

While I find this a bit appalling, it is by no means surprising. I've seen it all before. I remember clearly when pod theory and holographic planes were 'all the rage'. Back then the theory embracers angrily demanded that any doubters be crucified. Interestingly enough, many of those who once believed in those far fetched tales now defend the controlled demolition theories and I have no doubt some of these same will go on to stand firmly behind energy beam theories in the near future, if they havn't switched again already.

Just to be clear where I stand. I have very little doubt the 9/11 was at least partially inside job. At the very least, tacit approval was given to let it go forward and it seems quite likely it may have been 'arranged' in the first place. That said, I find the vast majority of conspiracy theories to be lacking in some pivotal way.

WTC 7 I find to be the most likely candidate for a controlled demolition. The secondary (video) 'evidence' of how it came down, the possibility of it being rigged as standard operating procedure and the possible damning evidence contained therein all make it a good candidate for a cleanup demo job. That is of course just an opinion.

The towers I thought looked quite different (to my non-expert eye)than wtc 7 in their collapse. I also find it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would use both planes AND pre-planted explosives. That just makes no sense, no matter how you cut it. More than that, I can't fathom why anyone would want to rig the entire buildings for a completely controlled demolition when a much easier and safer way would have been to simply blow out the supports at the bottom and let them fall where they may.

Similarly, I can think of no reasonable and plausible explanation as to why they would use a missile on the pentagon, when a plane would work fine.

These theories all share a glaring commonality. They are overcomplicated and packed with unnecessary sub-plots (planes landed, passengers disembarked, planes switched... WTF? Is that a joke?). What this shows is a basic ignorance of how the covert operatives who would have had to be the ones carrying out these plans work. These are people who kill with a memo and by the time the act is done, their hands and that of their agency and country are many times removed from the crime. Simplicity, Deniability and a lack of Loose Ends are the gold standard for such operations. How likely is it that they would toss out standard operating procedure, throw caution to the wind, STILL be able to pull off the crime of the century yet also leave endless clues for any internet jockey to 'uncover', simultaneously being genius and moron?

Besides all that, I can't stamp my foot and shake my fist and demand that everyone whole heartedly and without the slightest doubt embrace any of these theories, because I'm not an expert on demolition, or holograms, and especially not energy beam weapons. Guess what though? With very very few (if any) exceptions, neither are any of you, and neither are the people promoting such theories. Those bearing the title 'Theologian' I find to be as credentialed as the bum down the street known locally as 'doom prophet'. The term 'researcher' is not synonymous with 'googler'. Those without specific expertise on a subject (and even those that do) should have no reasonable expectation that all others must accept their opinion at face value and as sacrosanct, unquestionable Final Truth.

Just to beat a dead horse a little, let's look at where all this theorizing has gotten us. How far along are we on that new, independent investigation? How many politicians are on board? How's that lobbying group going? Yeah. It seems from my perspective, the 'Truth Movement' has evolved into a roadblock to any real action happening.

Certainly there are many causes behind that, I'm not discounting the very likely possibility that there have been 'planted' theories to both throw off the scent as well as discredit by making us look crazy, but there seems to be much more to it than that. What I see are people jumping on the bandwagon for their own purposes. People that crave attention. It's a great opportunity to be a big fish in a small pond. People that make money, and there are plenty cashing in on this. People that had a knee-jerk response and went public with it with a vengeance, gathered a following and now are unable to backtrack and extricate themselves. People that are just plain crazy, constantly looking for conspiracy in everything and willing to twist reality to make it 'fit', often with a 'the more incredulous the better' mentality.

I think it's time we cast off the haze of theories and get back to basics. Ask the simple questions. Who knew what, and when did they know it and how deeply were they involved before during and after?

I think the answers to these question will lead to the closest we can get to any truth. Angrily claiming unlikely actions, motives and perpetrators as absolute fact (be they truth or not!), isn't going to convince anyone. More likely it will turn people away from any such suggestions at all.

For the record, my own belief, which I am not demanding anyone subscribe to without reservation, is that jihadists crashed planes into structures, structures fell down and went boom. Someone paid someone to convince them to fly the planes and someone allowed them to be successful. Many someones benefitted and continue to benefit(none of them jidhadists). There is a money, drug and weapons trail to be followed.

If I had to take a wild guess at the major players, it would include the Bush Crime Syndicate and its equals in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan, this of course includes a subset of the intel communites of each. Overall a relatively small group of primary players each working their own insulated operators. Media complicity is a given, though that doesn't mean they were all 'in on it'. It's a well know fact, thanks to many 'fallen' intelligence agents (like Agee) that the media works for them and simply do what they're told.

To take some of the sting out. I'll admit I just don't know for sure. It could well be that it was all controlled demolition. I'm certainly open to that possibility. I just havn't been convinced of it yet. One thing noteworthy is that the self-styled 'debunkers' (who seem to be growing) that buy into the official story have been considerably less convincing than even some of the wildest theories. I'm unsure why this is, but they're certainly doing a very poor job, if debunking is indeed their intent at all. If that were all I had to go on, I'd throw in with the Truthers every day of the week. In fact, I guess I have in a way. I just wish they would keep in mind that a sheep following a different shepherd is still a sheep.

3/09/2007 03:12:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Oh, and please, don't try to convince me with endless posts of your googled 'evidence'. I'm not new to any of this, and I find that sort of stuff a bit insulting. I keep tabs, daily and dilligently, of any breaks and unless you've got some original and previously unreleased research, chances are good that I have seen it ,probably before you did. My work allows me to monitor that kind of thing nearly constantly.

3/09/2007 03:19:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

I just stopped by Big Al's to pick up my last paycheck on the way to the bus depot, and I see you're still on about nothing that matters.

Mr Wells, or should I say little Jeff, why is it you can answer a little question about two firefighters who claim to have been in a building, but you will not answer my very salient question as to what, exactly is your vaunted idea of justice, which you claim to be about?

And why haven't you followed the money trail, when in your very first RI post ever, you claimed that that was what you were about?

You use the word Justice like a mantra. Just like the Bushies and the neocons use "freedom and democracy." Your mouths should all burn.

Maybe they are.

Maybe that's why you can not answer my question.

No matter. It would have been anyway.

While I may be too much of a lady to say it, I sure know it when I smell it.

And this place smells like the day after in Pamplona.

Hasta mucho mas tardes, pinche mentidoso.

3/09/2007 03:32:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

Hey Tsoldrin,

That brand of b.s. is old and stale. Like Big Al said:

R.N. sold it.

Not to mention a lot of people before him.

BTW, you left out Merrie Olde Englande as one of the prime participants in 9/11, quite possibly the entire plan itself originating with people within the City of London, the golden mile.

Try this metaphor:

B.S. theory flies into tower of facts. Theory bounces off, falls down, goes boom.

Jihadist indeed.

Don't make me laugh.

You mean the cocaine-snorting, hard-drinking, whore-mongering, U.S. Government-trained "jihadists"?

As Curly would have put it:

"Oh. That's what I thought you said. Why soitenly."

Yes, this place is indeed of, by, and for stooges.

3/09/2007 03:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a sheep following a different shepherd is still a sheep.

God...what a great fucking line. I love it....I'm putting it on the fridge right above the Filter (HeHe).

I have a saying I use that's very similar...and the same point, really.

It goes like this...

...a Waffle Waitress after another tip is still a Waffle Waitress.

A great packs a lot of Mojo...and it's unFILTERed.

Can I get a Banana Split on that waffle, please?

3/09/2007 03:54:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Well, I'm all caught up. Tsoldrin, don't take that flat footed critic too seriously. I enjoyed your post. As for you flat foot, all that talk and no mangoes"? I left you a fairly easy trail to forenazize to your heart's content. You and Al will always be the white trash you think you are.

IC..missed the frontal thing. Could you put up a link? of the best posts I've read here..please visit These people really need your help. Pleeeeezzzzzeeeee.

3/09/2007 04:29:00 PM  
Blogger Goodyear said...


You misunderstand me. I was not saying that they were trying to suppress talk of CD. I think they are broadly okay with ambling around that one and are quite happy that their sloppy ideas on the trade towers can look alright with jo public under the cover of the jet hits (fuel melting steel etc etc). The fact that buildings can’t pancake at freefall speed ? - Jo’ll swallow that. The overall theatre of the twin towers (which was part of the main plan – WTC7, in my view, was a hubristic overshoot) lets them sleep soundly in their beds that the obvious will never come out.

No, it’s WTC7 they want out and you do not answer any of my specific points on this – the recent Google pulls (on BBC video clips), the CNN/ABC bans – not to mention the whitewash commission omission.

I think they showed their thinking on this most clearly when Charlie Sheen went public. This threatened them (a bit).

The response?

Release of a tape that “proved a plane hit the pentagon” (according to the inaccurate news reports of the time). The tape shows that something hit it – keep it vague; get those conspiracy nuts wagging …

Sheen had led his coming out on WTC7 – they responded by a/ ignoring WTC7 and b/ trying to focus things on the pentagon.

Exposure/publicity is the one thing that truly threatens them. The Sheen affair did just that (in a very small way admittedly) and their response is therefore highly instructive.

3/09/2007 04:53:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...


Sorry if my own thoughts didn't mesh with your pet theories. I really have no idea if our coke snorting whoring friends even got on any planes, or if they did, that they knew they were going to die or for that matter were even in control of the situation at all. The path of least resistance to me indicates that someone got on the planes, and jihadists are notoriously easy to manipulate, thereby present a pretty good candidate (though perhaps I should have been even more ambiguous). Or were you theorizing that there are no jihadists or suicide bombers in the world at all? I doubt even Alex Jones would buy into that theory. They certainly have good reason.

As for England... I tend to minimalize them outside of being a testbed for surveillance society/police state techniques. I think perhaps nationalistic pride in yesterdays glory by certain parties often overinflates their importance on a global scale. Sorry. Perhaps I'm wrong on that front.

On another note... following the money. One thing that has always puzzled me. When you get to the top, the folks that create money from thin air - why would they bother to manipulate world affairs, engage in nefarious crimes and participate in commerce of the Big Four: Oil, Arms, Drugs and Humans for profit, when all they need to do is print more instead? At a glance, it appears we're looking at different levels of the pyramid here.
Look, I'll say the mantra, "INSIDE JOB, INSIDE JOB!" I'll even believe it. I just don't care to partake of the koolaid.

3/09/2007 04:56:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

You really are a total chickenshit, aren't you, Jeffie?

Or should I say Shrubfish?

You don't even have the cojones to answer the one question, which if you could answer, might indicate you were something other than an inchworm.

So, I'll ask it again, mentidoso:

What in your opinion would consitute Justice with regard to the manifest evil that is embodied in the events of 9/11?

And the much-needed follow-up question:

Why haven't you followed your own original claim to the road to truth and justice, from your very first RI post ever? Why have you failed to follow the money?

Oh my, I just realized it.

You probably did.

Oops, there's the bus across the street now. I'll have to say goodbye to Big Al and you all in the same moment.

What a rush.

3/09/2007 05:02:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


You're asking what justice would be? For which crime--the false flag op that has drawn so many moths to its little flame, or the Bigger Op of which it's but a small part? Why do you make so much of one and not the other? Back when you were the Old Salt, you sat me down and gave me a little talk about how the world really worked, how you opted out of the family biz, etc, etc. Why does this one dirty deal loom so large for you?

Wouldn't tearing down the system that birthed it deliver a more lasting justice than hanging the thugs while new thugs looked on all sanctimoniously? Lastly, what's with all the dramatic departures? I mean, dude--how many times have you played the dramatic exit (and why)?


The page it comes from is called Neil Slade's Amazing Brain Music Adventure, and the link is down the page a ways, under What is "POPPING YOUR FRONTALS" ?

3/09/2007 05:51:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

IC..I guess I did see that page. To tell you the truth, I find these out of body, extra sensory exercises frightening. I never did know how I managed one of the peak experiences but vowed never to revisit. Must .. stay... real...

3/09/2007 07:19:00 PM  
Blogger sandymac said...

I saw an interesting video clip the other day from ABC News, a program called Be Seen Be Heard. They had a ‘valley girl-type’ woman reporting on the Top 5 Searched Hoaxes on the Internet. She said “yeah” a lot and “uh huh” and “you know”, but she managed to get through all five of the so-called hoaxes:

#5 About some girl who was reported missing – a hoax.

#4 Regarding a phone number people thought they could call to stop sales calls to their cell phone – a hoax.

#3 That some people think the moon landing was a hoax – not a hoax (Included some fun dialogue with her co-anchor about those zany conspiracy theorists)

#2 That global warming is a hoax. Confusing conclusion. I think she was saying that global warming is not a hoax.

#1 That 24 tons of steel from the WTC was used to build the USS New
York navy ship. It’s not a hoax, it’s true. The woman said it was a heart-warming story because they would be able to use the ship to fight terrorists.

3/09/2007 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, once again, I will ask the most important question:

Which do you choose?

Some have already answered it by virtue of their responses, i.e. to continue to bicker about the color of the emperor's birthday suit. The only person who seems to have wittingly and explicitly answered it, is IC...and I expected nothing less of him.

You're right, IC, it didn't hurt that bad. I heard you...and I nodded, in case you didn't notice. Afterall, it was only a little pin prick, even if it made me feel a little sick.

3/09/2007 09:49:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

5.) Wait for the rapture. The God that I don't believe in has a sense of humor and raptures up athiests like me while believers good, and bad, get an eternal void.

3/09/2007 09:59:00 PM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

Hola there Shrub.

I really hate to force a bout of envy on you pal but I just came off of a nice two week bout of medically prescribed hydrocodeine usage again.

It was, quite simply, lovely.

So Shrub, are enjoying the fisticuffs or what?

No matter what safe-guards are enacted to keep out the bickering rabble, we.....ahem..... excuse me....they still keep sneaking in.

I am at a bit of a loss as to why Sabrina & her hydra head of posters hasn't surfaced yet.

Someone that long-winded must have 5 or 6 blogs at least.

Here, I'll quote ol' Adolph a couple of times & maybe the Dark Lord & His harem will stop by.

"What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now he [Himmler] wants to start all over again. We might just as well have stayed with the Church. At least it had tradition. To think that I may some day be turned into an SS saint! Can you imagine it? I would turn over in my grave..."
Adolph Hitler

"Why do we have to call the whole world's attention to the fact that we have no past? It isn't enough that the Romans were erecting great buildings when we were still living in mud hutS; now Himmler is digging up these villages...and enthusing over every potsherd and stone axe he finds."
Adolph Hitler

Oh well, the night is young. One can still hope.

3/09/2007 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger barracuda said...

Re: the pentagon, here's another endless post of googled evidence:

Notice how the tireless researchers fire the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle seemingly endlessly into a series of unwitting cadavers until the magic bullet falls, pristine, virginal and unscathed into a waiting stretcher. Medivaced to Walter Reed, the bullet was unfortunately lost on the way, and all forensic analysis has been classified until the Bush Family dynasty abdicates all public office, or the end of the war on terror, whichsoever may come first, God willing.

Angel, I should think, is always next. As W. might have said so succinctly (quoting Craig Breedlove), "For my next trick, I'll set myself on fire." And of course the Windsor's had a hand in the deed - have you ever eaten British cooking? Now that's a cunspersy, moi little pet goatee!

It's interesting what's unspoken here on this thread, and in so many discussions of the violent acts of the shadow government against the citizenry. Between "the smirk" and Cheney's revealing "go fuck yourself", there's always the implicit playground bully slogan - "Yeah, whadda you gonna do 'bout it?" They do their bullshit right out in the open, and dare you to step up.

What people don't want to talk about is civil war. That's beyond the pale, and may actually be forbidden on this blog, although the conservative pundits used to talk all the time about the "new civil war" of red versus blue states. Rabble rousing is prolly agin' the law, anyway, idn't it? But realistically, when you start talking about "justice" in this context, you can only be discussing war (hyothetically), because to accept the premise of 911 as an attack on the U.S. by factions of our own government is to accept the "war on terror" in a new light, one that then becomes both personal and public.

If hard proof of the "inside job" in ANY permutation was found - if Bob fucking Woodward said in a Time magazine cover story that he was there when Big Time told Shrub "it's my way or the highway, Angel,"; if new footage from a seven/eleven across trhe street from the pentagon showed a made-in-the-usa label on the side of a Tomahawk cruise missile; if the grassy knoll could only speak - whadda you gonna do 'bout it? Write yer congressman? Crack a brewskey? Start a blog? Smoke medicinal doobage? Curse a chemtrail? Kick some ass? Read a koan? Practise tai-chi? Stand defiant in front of a chinese tank? Set yourself on fire? Organize a neighborhood watch? Start cleanin' yer MAC-10? Watch American idol? Drive to Washington? Mike another Hot Pocket? Laugh smugly at Gerald Posner? Quiver in your Nikes? YELL AT JEFF WELLS IN ALL CAPS? WHAT?

I don't wanna really saywhat I might say, cuz it's illegal to foment, ya know. Just keepin' it trills.

Me, I'd look over at my cat, Gizmo, and say, "I fuckin' knew it alllllll along, Giz."

3/09/2007 11:02:00 PM  
Blogger barracuda said...

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen."
Wittgenstein, final line of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Since we're quoting German philosophers.

3/09/2007 11:22:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

It's an interesting theory, Jeff, that details don't matter. I don't find it very convincing since details of the emperor's new clothes transparently lead to the tailors--and the truly "big lie" that Bush has been walking around naked in for six years.

It's true that systemic corruption is at such a scale that institutional justice is certainly looking bleak, however the wide awareness of this fact by most of the USA (e.g., only 16% believe Bush's version of 9-11, according to a NYT/CBS poll) is hardly something to underestimate about its long term effects on many things, intra-elite split issues (like George Soros funding 9-11 health care for emergency responders, funds that Bush vetoed!) or base group actions. (Not that George Soros is any better, I'm just saying you can start to see a lot of global elite positioning on this perhaps, as they position to stab each other in the back politically instead of provide a unified front supporting the Bush official conspiracy theory, which is probably quite differently than was intended?)

Contrary to Jeff's statement that no demolitions experts came forward, there are four that I can count.

I mentioned one above, though forgot the name of the other. In just a little searching I found two others in the process.

I thought Paul Thompson's exhausting 9-11 Timeline at (which became the partial basis for the recent film 9-11 Press For Truth) would have this demolition expert's his name--though Paul was missing this, oddly enough.

So the four are:

[1] Besides Danny Jowenko mentioned above, the controlled demolitions expert who got "caught" telling the truth on camera (because he was ironically mistaken when he thought WTC7 fell, weeks later he thought; when corrected by his interviewer that WTC7 which he described as obviously a controlled demolition, was actually on 9-11 as well, after being suitably shocked, he later said he understood why no one in the USA wanted to come forward as it would certainly destroy their demolition career with this level of corruption presumably). Jowenko's opinion certainly seems to match the other one.

[2] Another demolitions expert was interviewed only three days after 9-11 by the Albuquerque Journal. He was actually a demolitions, explosives, and airplane engineering expert Van Romero, which says he was "vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology."

[3] Additionally, engineer Jerry Edwards I just found has commented on WTC controlled demolition.

[4] And Another Engineer Questions WTC Collapses Engineer U.S. engineer William Rice questions the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings.

So because Paul Thompson's timeline seems to miss Van Romero entirely, I quote "WTC 7 Smoke & Mirrors On 9/11," By Jon Carlson,, 5-23-2005, about Van Romero and Jerry Edwards.

The William Rice information is linked separately above.


The article says "Three days after 9/11," The Albuquerque Journal interviewed Demolition Scientist Van Romero. However, since it mentions "Tuesday" it seems that they interviewed Romero the day of 9-11, and only printed this three days later.

Explosives Planted In Towers New Mexico Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. [It was Tuesday, September, 11, 2001] The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

The article continues with commentary and more information:

"Apparently not wanting to be a lightning rod in the 9/11 controversy, later Romero added two quotes, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." and "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

Attorney Phil Berg comments:

"Although he would eventually recant his statements that explosives were used, perhaps there was some prodding by government officials," said Berg in the federal lawsuit, eventually hoping deposition testimony will clear up the confusion behind Dr. Romero's conflicting statements.

"He is still on the record saying that 'the collapse of the towers was too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures.'"

The RENSE article, WTC Cutter Charges Clearly Visible shows screen captures from the videos that Romero probably studied.

The Albuquerque Journal article doesn't mention what happened to WTC7, a 47-story steel-framed, brick masonry building that was located 355 feet from the North Tower.

This photo shows WTC7 viewed from the North Tower.

This photo WTC7 viewed from the South Tower, a distance of about 600 feet.

Since WTC7 was 'only' 355 feet away, some damage occurred when the North Tower 'went down' BUT no fires.

The WTC7 side opposite the NT also showed NO areas of fire.

In these photos areas of fire have miraculously appeared. Arson?

NIST [lies and] reports fires not seen in photos all over the place. (The smoke is primarily from the Towers burning.)


ENGINEER JERRY RUSSELL: Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse. As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble.


Remarkably in only 10 days Controlled Demolition, Inc. submitted a plan to remove the remains of Ground Zero.

HOWEVER, the company makes no claims for the demolition [Guinness Book of World Records kind of] records that would have been established on 9/11.

Their website claims the Detroit Hudson Department Store at 439 feet dropped in October, 1998 is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded.

IN ADDITION, CDI, Inc. is MUCH SLOWER than the NYFD that Silverstein claimed 'pulled' WTC7.

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the (Hudson Store) complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design.

CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

It's interesting that Paul Thompson's website notes that LinkTV of all controlled hangout places (however I may have to reverse my opinion), recently has been showing this 9-11 film, throughout February and March 2007:

2/7/2007 9/11: Press for Truth and Paul Thompson Interview Shown on Link TV Starting Feb. 10.

Today is the last day ironically it is showing on LinkTV, as I just find out about this media coverage. Thompson's website says:

9/11: Press for Truth, the recent documentary partly based on the 9/11 Timeline, [around 90 minutes at that link] will be shown repeatedly on Link TV starting February 10th through March 10th.

Check the link here for show times.

Link TV is available in about 30 million homes on satellite TV and is shown on cable TV in some areas, such as the San Francisco Bay region.

The showing of the film will be interspersed with an approximately 30 minute interview of Paul Thompson, creator of the 9/11 Timeline. Thompson is interviewed by Peter Coyote, an actor in over 90 films and also a political activist ...

Even recently "Al Jazeera takes a look at where the media comes into play. Interviews author Nafeez Ahmed and producer of “911: Press for Truth” Roy O’Connor", says 911blogger.

Even people who have distanced themselves like Cindy Sheehan from calling for 9-11 issues, recently changed her mind. The controlled demolition thing is really gelling out there, and this obvious flaw (particularly around WTC7's demolition without a plane hitting it) could be the straw that breaks the camel's back given these demographics. It's probabaly why there has been so much hostile press lately about controlled demoltion of WTC7, because its a very visceral loophole that they have attempted to disguise by ignoring. The open attack on it from all sort of left gatekeeping quarters is very intriguing to me particularly George Monbiot (who's attack came out of the rabid blue).

Don't underestimate the political effects of a couple of hundred million people understanding WTC7 as a controlled demolition, with the caveat about institutional justice notwithstanding from me and others above.

If you still have any faith in your original motto of your blog, Jeff ("What you don't know can't hurt them"), I wish you a speedy recovery.

3/10/2007 08:22:00 AM  
Blogger xsic bastardx said...

Another Blogger on the net who started out good and got eaten by the system.

Those buildings were brought down by explosives Jeff.

You lost another reader.

3/10/2007 08:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You lost another reader.

Jesus Christ, Jeff, look at what you've gone and done. I think you need to recant now and recite your unwaivering belief in CC and No Plane. You can ill-afford to lose readers and/or subscribers. I know it's difficult to admit you were wrong about being right, but in this case you need to put your ego....and your common sense aside and prostrate yourself before the Alter and High Priests of 911 Truth. As IC won't hurt.

Hey Richard, imagine what a better place the world would be if it was hydrocodeine in those Chemtrails instead of Barium, Aluminum and Red Blood Cells? We would be happy and content in our chemically induced wombs....which is where we all want to be, anyway. Nothing can replace the sheer bliss of the Mother's Womb....what a cruel twist of fate to be vomited into this cold, cruel world after wallowing in Nirvana for nine months.

3/10/2007 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"Besides Danny Jowenko mentioned above, the controlled demolitions expert who got 'caught' telling the truth on camera"

Jowenko also says WTC 1 and 2 were not controlled demolitions. But it's probably unfair of me to mention that.

Civil Engineer William Rice says
"The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated." Gee, I could have sworn I've said similar things. Apologies if my admission of questions re WTC 7's collapse and call for a legitimate investigation did not register as Truthie enough. I see now I should have said I know why it fell. If you must tie me to the Truthie stake to set an example, I ask only that Charlie Sheen set the fire. I enjoyed his work in "All Dogs Go to Heaven 2."

"You lost another reader."

Sounds good. Just a few more and I can go back to surfing the net for, uh, bread pudding recipes.

3/10/2007 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Hey barracuda,

Couldn't we also tweak your Wittgenstein just a bit, in order to reflect the real "messsage" in your message (or at least my take thereon)? Seems to me all y'all oversimplificationists ("accept CD or be complicit; start a civil war or escape into state-sponsored mind vacuums") should really be wearing your Wittgenstein tattoos with one crucial substitution, so it reads:

"Wovon man nicht sprechen will, darüber wird man schweigen."

For those not catching these variations on a theme, the original was "That of which one cannot speak, one must not speak," while my version, based on the fervor of the monotropists here, reads something more like "That of which one does not want to speak, one will not speak."

I've put it out there on this thread 5 times already--that 9/11 ain't shit compared to the big conspiracy of the repression of the way we could be living; a brutal, cynical, unnecessary repression that has killed thousands of times more people than the one black op you're all so stuck on and has taken away real freedom, as opposed to the illusion of freedom, which is all we ever really had before your "world-changing event"--and nobody takes me up on it. Bait too rancid, boys & girls, or what?

Tell you what, barracuda, you tell me how Darth Cheney and the police-state-in-waiting are going to react to armed revolt (can you say "pretext" in German?) and then we'll talk about what the real options are, without "quoting German philosophers." (But thanks for the postcard worldview--I can almost see where I am on it.)

Mr. Shrub,

I think they want to expand the soma program (although, curiously, not with Jah's own "medicinal doobage," as barracuda puts it), but Richard probably has more details on that front. How about it, Richard: aside from your current, temporary prescription, have you heard anyone in the biz talking about our dear, fully sane Führer's plan to have everyone psychologically tested & medicated? I know that part of that plan was just to put even more money in the circus-pants pockets of Pharma, but there was another more sinister element of control involved as well. Or don't the knobs in charge tend to talk policy with you cats in the field doing the actual work?

Speaking of actual work, Mr. Shrub, my little project has finally gotten to the point where some ground is gonna get broken, this Spring, if all goes well. Might even make the "news," if that's any indicator of the reality of anything.

Really good to have you guys back.

Illegitimi non carborundum, Jeff.

(Not that all of you guys climbing on his back for thinking his own thoughts are exactly bastards, mind you.)

3/10/2007 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

WTC6 and WTC7: The Pink Elephant Twins

Jeff writes:

"Civil Engineer William Rice says
"The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated." Gee, I could have sworn I've said similar things...."

No. Actually, you pass right over the main cherry of the article and quote the last paragraph that has nothing to do with the article. Crafty. Crafty. Crafty.

With all those cherries you've been saving from eating, commenting on and passing over, you'll have quite a recipe for a feast when you start eating something besides evidentiary bread and water scarcity you limit yourself to in discussing WTC7.

Er, right at the front of the article, is what I believe I was referring to--and its rather long content--instead of your cherrypicked comment to ignore it.

It says:

U.S. engineer William Rice questions the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. The Vermont Guardian has the goods.

Why the towers fell: Two theories

By William Rice

Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse...


The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken.

The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

[And despite FEMA finding sulfurated steel, and thermate evidence chemistry themselves (see Dr. Stephen Jones work on this), FEMA simply refused to look at it either: they just sort of passed over it with "hey that's kind of strange, who knows though why WTC7 fell." Back to the article:]

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions [in 3,4,5,6*].

*Just an ancillary note to the issue of WTC7, I'd disagree with lumping WTC6 in with 3,4,5 since there is evidence of a huge roof rupturing explosion in WTC6, up through the roof from the basement.

WTC6 seems to have been the first detonation, around 9:03/4 a.m., long before WTC2 was detonated (9:59 a.m.), and pretty much accurately timed for the hit upon WTC2 (9:03/4 a.m.) by whatever hit it and by whomever was timing it and watching over the whole operation.

WTC6 was the Federal Customs House, entirely federal workers, which was quickly evacuated before this roof capping explosion occurs at around 9:04 a.m.

WTC6 and WTC7 are the only WTC buildings with federal workers.

WTC6 and WTC7 were the only buildings completely evacuated.

"Investigators" were blocked from looking at WTC6, by Giuliani appointee Holden, I believe.

This is an image of the damage to WTC6. As I said, this happens at around 9:03 a.m.

If WTC7 is the pink elephant that some refuse to talk about about because it occurs without a plane hit, WTC6 is the pink elephant twin because it occurs in a separate building during a plane hit (on WTC2 at around 9:03 a.m.), which is the best evidence I know of for a singularly computer controlled demolition team from some nearby director's chair capable of watching all buildings at once.

Back to article:

The[se] buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. [Unlike 1,2,7], [3,4,5,6]...created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud) [*once more WTC6 I don't think should be lumped into that, since there was a huge concrete dust cloud erupting up out of it like a volcano, though back to WTC7 issue], and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.”

So, what you did Jeff was ignore the whole article. Then you "quote" its last paragraph unrelated to the point of the article, passing it off stagingly saying 'it said everything you said anyway' based on this cherrypicking, which was untrue.

Dearest Jeff, please snap out of this cherrypicking--that's crafty intuition instead of rigorous intuition. And crafty selective evidentiary intuition is what we are defending ourselves from here. Even David Ray Griffin's latest book on the issue, not even out yet, called "Debunking 9-11 Debunking", is already selling in at #591 at

"More matter, less art."

Let's connect the dots, instead of erase them, pass over them, or pretend they don't exist.

3/10/2007 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

And this is to IC, whom I agree with when he says there are far more important fish to fry, however, I would concur with Griffin's recent 'back at ya, Monbiot' article on this point about 9-11 and many other pressing issues:

Monbiot, regarding the 9/11 truth movement’s conspiracy theory as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. We focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible."

3/10/2007 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is... stoned to death.

3/10/2007 01:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really good to have you guys back.

It's good to be back. I believe you have almost convinced me, IC. Your non-violent revolution, for lack of a better term, appears to be the only viable alternative. Your tenacity and perseverance are admirable.....and I respect you for it....just as I respect Richard's blunt, no-nonsense candor.

This consistent bickering over 911 is exactly what "they" prescribed. It causes those who could provide positive momemtum in IC's non-violent revolution to become plaque on the artery walls of humanity. As the disease that is "them" attacks the remainder of the body's tissues and organs, "they" have managed to deceive you (911 truthers) into blocking the arteries that carry the life-sustaining nutrients of humanity. In otherwords, your stagnation on this one event only serves to hasten our ultimate demise. Your efforts can be better spent IC's non-violent revolution.....but instead you choose to attack Jeff for admitting that he's just not sure on the details.

Jeff, I'm not a big fan of Bread Pudding....but I love Apple Crisp with Haagendas Vanilla Ice Cream, and it just so happens we are having that for dessert tonight as we watch Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. If you'd like the recipe, just let me know...I'll be more than happy to share the love.

3/10/2007 01:28:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

And now for something...somewhat different.

Here's a strange echo of the barracuda's urgent fomentations that I just happened to stumble across in my random, probably illegal reading of old Leon Trotsky, some of whose writing I quite admire, although he never held a candle to Kropotkin, the angelic anarchist who is more reviled by both "sides" of the so-called Left/Right dichotomy than any of their heroes. (Kropotkin spat on all authority--long may he live!)

Most of us here are fully aware of the crock of shit that is the alleged choice between the two wings of the Party in the US--that Hillary fookin' Clinton is no more in your corner than her "sponsors" are. As was painfully revealed in recent threads, however, our understanding of the swindle behind this dichotomy is fragmentary at best. Many of us are quite comfortable with the expose of the neocons as former "Trotskyites," a label with very clear enemy of freedom connotations, especially when joined by similar denunciations of Christopher Hitchens, sometime cheerleader for BushCo & the Imperialists. (There are better denunciations of Hitchens, btw, from the thoughtful & intelligent variety to the circus-y, well, maybe side-show freak-ish variety, although the bloated gas bag's present irrelevance make them rather unnecessary, anyway.)

What is interesting in all this is the use of Trotsky as a black stain on one's integrity, as if he and, oh, I dunno, Stalin were best pals or something. (Clue: one of them had the other exiled and then killed when that didn't shut him up.) Old Leon made some very incisive remarks about the rise of fascism and, in his once-famous Terrorism and Communism pamphlet, on the errors of Balance of Power politics. That is a very complicated story, but for a quick summary, it goes something like this: Metternich was the Kissinger of the 19th century (actually, it was the other way around, but most people have forgotten Metternich, so...) Kissinger did his dissertation on Metternich and patterned his abhorrent brand of "diplomacy" on the machiavellian opportunism that Metternich used to enforce the will of the powerful on the powerless. (For more on this, check out Sankaran Krishna's splendid Looking into America’s Dark Places.)

Anyway, check out the resonances & reverberations bewteen barracuda's call to arms and Leon's in the following passage from Trotsky's The Balance of Power chapter of Terrorism & Communism. (The following is the foreword to the chapter which gives some context & background):

This book was written by Leon Trotsky at the height of the Russian Civil War. While it is a polemical response to German social-democrat Karl Kautsky, it is also represents the Bolshevik defense of the extraordinary means the young workers’ republic had to take in order to defend itself from the almost two dozen armies that were on its soil trying to turn back the revolution.

And now, the concluding paragraph of The Balance of Power:

Such is now the role of Kautsky and his sympathizers. They teach the proletariat not to believe in itself, but to believe its reflection in the crooked mirror of democracy which has been shattered by the jack-boot of militarism into a thousand fragments. The decisive factor in the revolutionary policy of the working class must be, in their view, not the international situation, not the actual collapse of capitalism, not that social collapse which is generated thereby, not that concrete necessity of the supremacy of the working class for which the cry arises from the smoking ruins of capitalist civilization – not all this must determine the policy of the revolutionary party of the proletariat – but that counting of votes which is carried out by the capitalist tellers of parliamentarism.

Only a few years ago, we repeat, Kautsky seemed to understand the real inner meaning of the problem of revolution. “Yes, the proletariat represents the sole revolutionary class of the nation,” wrote Kautsky in his pamphlet, The Path to Power. It follows that every collapse of the capitalist order, whether it he of a moral, financial, or military character, implies the bankruptcy of all the bourgeois parties responsible for it, and signifies that the sole way out of the blind alley is the establishment of the power of the proletariat. And to-day the party of prostration and cowardice, the party of Kautsky, says to the working class: “The question is not whether you to-day are the sole creative force in history; whether you are capable of throwing aside that ruling band of robbers into which the propertied classes have developed; the question is not whether anyone else can accomplish this task on your behalf; the question is not whether history allows you any postponement (for the present condition of bloody chaos threatens to bury you yourself, in the near future, under the last ruins of capitalism). The problem is for the ruling imperialist bandits to succeed – yesterday or today – to deceive, violate, and swindle public opinion, by collecting 51 per cent, of the votes against your 49. Perish the world, but long live the parliamentary majority!"

What were those official results again from the last 'democratic election' in the land of the free?

Sorry, Jeff, for actually quoting Trotsky and for mentioning even more dangerous people, anarchists like Kropotkin, for example.Jeff--if the censors march, it'll be my fault, I realize. Maybe my mea culpa will cover the collective backside of this blog in this, the Age of Ass-Covering.


That is a good point. Now, how to assimilate it into the crowded house of my thought? Also, I still need some economic advice for my housing project and you seem to have a grasp of these matters, which I really do not. Any chance you'd care to add some input?


What can I say but "thanks"? Am I seeing some lessening of your previous pessimism, or has it just got to the point that we might as well try something as continuiong to bemoan our fate? (A stage that I know well myself.) Whatever its origins, I thank ye kindly for it.

It seems strange to be talking about my project with you in the same comment that brought in all those, frankly, extraneous political vibes--none of that crap really matters when you can actually take things into your own hands and build, not destroy.

3/10/2007 02:01:00 PM  
Blogger Captain Marginal said...

"The towers I thought looked quite different (to my non-expert eye)than wtc 7 in their collapse. I also find it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would use both planes AND pre-planted explosives. That just makes no sense, no matter how you cut it. More than that, I can't fathom why anyone would want to rig the entire buildings for a completely controlled demolition when a much easier and safer way would have been to simply blow out the supports at the bottom and let them fall where they may."

I have seen both of these arguments (in various slightly modified form) repeated endlessly on the internet, and I just thought I'd call attention to their stupidity for once rather than just ignoring the mind-wrenching feeling they give me.

Seriously, do I even need to say anything more? Anyone with a good operating concept of what a psy-op is can answer these questions for themselves. I find it amazing that some people are still so blind to the true gravity of the psychological aspects of this situation.

It also bothers me to see the semantical arguments about the term "controlled demolition" in regards to towers 1 and 2. Clearly the buildings did not fall down entirely in their own footprints, and (equally clearly) they did not practically "unpeel" themselves on their own. Girders being shot out and sticking into neighboring buildings does nothing to invalidate this as a man-made act, in fact studies of the energy involved do just the opposite.

I hate to appeal to "the unknown", but: demolitions have always been the territory of the military. We don't even know the real state of science here in 2007, as we are often reminded by great websites such as this and Brainsturbator. The greatest amount of research in the world into any given topic is done privately by governmental agencies, especially on such a topic as demolitions. Nobody really knows exactly how those buildings came down in such a spectacular fashion, there are many unanswered technical questions. What is painfully obvious is that it didn't just happen on it's own.

In any case, I really do understand the intent of this article, and will continue to read this site for all of the thought it has stimulated in me over the past couple of years. I just wish this topic could've ended at the "planes hit, structures fail, fall down go boom" comment. If anyone still didn't get the point of Jeff's comments on this, think a little harder. That's what he's hoping for you to do. Observe your own internal turmoil over CD being questioned, despite it's basic unimportance to the situation. Reread Vincent Salandria's 1964 article conveniently copy-and-pasted for you by our gracious host.

To everyone saying they won't read this site any more: GREAT. Maybe you can devote some time to reading more books, honing your own intuition, and not having to come to someone as intelligent and well-reasoned as this guy.

"Hey, isn't it about time for a story about UFOs, or some satanic spam?"

People's true colors often come out when their sacred beliefs are confronted. As for me, I'll go for some of that satanic spam. It sounds delicious.

3/10/2007 02:19:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

How do you say "Pink elephant in the room" in German?

If you have to wonder why they bother, it's because the you and me soldier has to believe that the cause is justified. Hammering away for decades and centuries will keep all the links in a row. 911 in fact tarnished the links. I think it makes TPTB look bad. It forced their hand. Enemies at the state or is that Enemies of the Gate (keepers) got their man through. Action, reaction. If we surmise for the moment that Jeff is right and the Humpty Dumpty could'nt be put back in the box, then you might see the emperor in all his splendor. You might see (get ready for cliche entrainment 21 b, section 65-66) Jeff's pov.

Maybe just maybe the jig is up. Where's a sports analogy when you need it?

3/10/2007 02:21:00 PM  
Blogger barracuda said...

Mr. Cuttlefish,
Everybody got a good look at the rehearsals for quelling the local populace at Waco, in New Orleans, basically at any public gathering which may be attended by the executive. I have no misconceptions on that, having spent time under the thumb of the government. I got my mind right.

I consider the methods of non-violent revolution and civil disobediance the highest path one can take in the fight against oppression - oppression, of course being a point of view. By all means and any, take the high road, or risk becoming the monster you set out to slay. I'll take Gandhi and Thoreau over George Washington any day. And Wittgenstein. He quit talking about it and became a field medic in The Great War, as I recall. His Proposition 7 is hardly a bumpersticker. For me it represent a precipice at which you've proven to yourself what you needed to believe in order to move from polemic to action in the real world. The Fool of the Tarot, perhaps.

I'm fed up, with the national security apparatus, the complicit media, the senseless killing in my name, the prison of ideas, the twisting of language against itself in the interest of oligarchy. I'm tired of electing millionaires and billionaires to to reflect the will and needs of ordinary people. How is that ever gonna work? I don't want to idly sit by and watch my children distorted by television and state sponsored psychiatric drugs. If that's a postcard view, or sloganneering, so be it. My mind is not that deep, and I have to keep it simple, to understand, for me, what pisses me off about it now. That's why I tell everyone within earshot of the violence and dangers and schemes being hatched. And tell them to investigate, among other sources, RI. See, Jeff's not losing readers. I for one am passing it along. I notice, too, that fewer and fewer people look at me like I'm crazy when I talk. Everybody knows, something's not right. But there needs to be more going on than talk, as gratifying as it is. So, yeah, "That of which one cannot speak, one must not speak." Can we make something happen? Where is Canetti's "crowd kernal" here, the nexis of commotion that begins the riot? Can you have a riot of conscience when each participant is seated before a cathoid ray tube?

I have no illusions about the struggle to come, God willing. If a non-violent one, its's still a fight. The first step of course is conscience then conciousness; the next, fomentation, organization and action or disobediance on any scale that registers, be it personal or public. Fuck yeah, power to the proles!

Here at Jeff's blog I sometimes get clear, and feel like I'm not alone in my madness and wonder.

"there goes the soldier dyin' in the ditch again,

there goes the oyster thinkin' its a fish again.

The shiny mirror fascinates the chimpanzee.

What we need is just a slow overthrow, you see."

3/10/2007 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

This may not be original but it needs to be revisited nonetheless. Some of you may recall that I mentioned to IC a few weeks back that I had a few ideas on how to save the world. Tsoldrin responded and I emailed him the same thoughts.
This not really a utopic vision requires an approach by the neighbourhood. One more layer of interaction in the "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR" motif.

We have to consume less and conserve more. Use your computer and with a software package that would allow for an "intranet" system in your neighbourhood, we could help each other. Food could be produced in the green spaces where it is the most appropriate. Labour could be shared on neighbourhood projects. Books, tapes, tools could be shared. The computer is just one way to communicate your needs or your volunteerism. Credits are given to the consumer and the provider evenly. No money is exchanged. Stop the theft of our most valuable asset which is our labour and all that it entails. While TPTB expend so much of their time and energy dividing and conquering us into our little boxes, we should be countering by looking up and down and street and see the opportunities. In this case it is the same to GIVE AND RECEIVE. As long as no one is in there operating as the middle man.

Well, the idea didn't get too far with IC. It requires alot. You have to be a neighbour.

3/10/2007 08:17:00 PM  
Blogger AJ said...

"By all means and any, take the high road, or risk becoming the monster you set out to slay. "

So Barracuda, if I glean you right, you have embraced the ideas of Quakers? Now, don't get me wrong, I have quite a bit of respect for that,(I graduated from a Canadian Quaker school years back), but what will your position be when they come after your wife or children?
And they will.

I have struggled with the non-violent idea for months since (being born again) 911, and as much as I try, I cannot fathom just rolling over and letting the bastards do what they will without someone loosing a bit of blood.

"You have to be a neighbour. "

Well said Ericswan.

But be careful you do not throw your pearls to swine; you'll just be out of good money and piss off the pig.

3/10/2007 08:40:00 PM  
Blogger alzafar2012 said...

i don't understand, jeff. for as long as you've had RI up, you have largely had a laissez-faire attitude concerning the CD argument--when the truthies went on the attack, you ignored them or just posted on a different subject. you were never ambiguous about your opinion of the matter, of course, but you apperently thought it not worth your time to waste your breath on people's fetishistic fixation on the minutiae of the collapses. and they left, too--the die-harders called you an apologist or a mole or worse, and quit frequenting RI; the rest of us moved on to more fertile conversaations.

out-of-the-blue, however, you seem to have deliberately set out to provoke them with the 2nd half of "A Dot Too Far", taunted 'em when they've taken the bait, and given 'em the finger when they've signed off. this is a different side of you.

my question is: are you looking for a reason to get out of maintaining RI? of course, you can if you want--it's your perogative. but be honest: what gives? why the "here I go again: I'm not on board with demolitions and Pentagon missiles" post if we knew that already?

3/10/2007 11:33:00 PM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

"How about it, Richard: aside from your current, temporary prescription, have you heard anyone in the biz talking about our dear, fully sane Führer's plan to have everyone psychologically tested & medicated? I know that part of that plan was just to put even more money in the circus-pants pockets of Pharma, but there was another more sinister element of control involved as well. Or don't the knobs in charge tend to talk policy with you cats in the field doing the actual work?"

To answer your question(s) Mr Cuttlefish, no they don't talk policy with the grunts. But by being observant you tend to notice things.
Things such as how the psychiatrist is always pushing some new miracle drug. Vociferously insisting that this is the one that will do it. They then strip the client of his current meds, a quite disorienting experience for the client in my opinion, & then place them on "the" cure.
Until the next time a new drug is out & the process repeats itself.
To me & quite a few of my colleagues, it appears that they use the mentally retarded as guinea pigs for their profit pills.

Of course, this could just be my inherent paranoia, but the chunk of the mental health field I'm familiar with appears to be little more than a scam to get tax dollars.

i can remember when i started 15 long years ago, the food was effing horrendous...they'd send barbecue chicken with the greasy skin & gristle, 4 out of 10 times the bread was green, & once they sent up an entire shipment of sour milk. I know it was sour because I was the boob who drank a glass of the chunky goo by accident. They told us it was just cream on top.
Luckily i worked with a gent who had a weekday job fighting government bereaucracy in order to get handicapped folk their due under The Americans With Disabilities Act. He grabbed up a few gallons & told me those motherfuckers are going to give us all new milk or their gonna drink these.
The next day he promptly turned them into the Health Department & they had to shitcan their entire milk supply.
It was quite the hoot!
To demonstrate how far out of the loop a grunt like me is in this field I'll say this,
at one time they sent up something called "bread soaked in slurry" looked exactly like soggy bread covered with a thick layer of something that looked like clear snot.
It was gorge risingly hard to feed to these guys. They hated it.
We were told by our supervisor that the "slurry" was a "special digestive enzyme."
So we asked the kitchen staff & they said it was "Thick-it" & water.
To get the punch-line you'll have to look up "Thick-it" because i just finished a 16 & I got to be back at 6:30 for another 16 so ZZZs are calling.

3/11/2007 12:45:00 AM  
Blogger Kosan said...

Since the lady ** never got the courtesy of an answer, I'll ask the same question:

What exactly is your idea of justice, Jeff?

I have to agree that you used the word so much in your earliest posts that you came across like your very own version of Patrick Fitzgerald.

And just like the "black Fitzmas" you commented on, here and now we see nothing but one more in a long series of deep, dark, empty Wells.

One could get to feeling like Jacob's son Joseph out here in the bleak RI wilderness.

Colder and less giving than a witch's tit.

** "That was no lady, that was my wife."

And let me ask the waitress's follow up question too:

Why did you never follow the money trail, Jeff, as suggested you would in your very first RI post ever?

A few possible answsers:

Honey pot.

Bait and switch.

A hellish haven for trolls.

You never intended to in the first place.

You are precisely like that black Fitzmas you decried:

Purveyor of a spicy, salty, frothy, bubbling, bullshit gruel.

You have found your metier with technopompous idolators of material progress in service of humanity's continued slavery.

You have found your level with the shit-slinging coprolalists and coprophages.

You are at home and at one with the satanist strumpets, trolls and tra la las.

Your natural milieu is the Highway Patrol, the RCMP, Smokey Bear in aviator shades, most aptly a deputized, jack-booted soldier, waving your gloved hand at the traffic to move along.

Nothing to see here.

The shoes and gloves fit.

The uniform is cut exactly so.

The camoflage matches your complexion.

Speaking as an experienced tailor:

It's you, Jeff.


No doubt.





3/11/2007 04:05:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

As I was paying my bill at the local lumberyard, I noticed a flyer on the counter promoting a 'bathroom remodel contest'. The sponsor was a group called Covenant Construction, so I proposed a glib question to the counterfolk; 'So are these guys then, --- holy carpenters?'

One fellow then told me about his interaction with another group called, By Faith Carpentry. They changed their name to Chosen Ones Carpentry. A few guffaws later the counter guy let me know that the company owner had lots o problems getting his projects done.

Of course it was never the company owners fault. Must be nice living a life without doubts.

I am not creative enough to make this shit up. Three days ago, random wisdom blast,

care of-- the counter guy.

3/11/2007 07:44:00 AM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

my question is: are you looking for a reason to get out of maintaining RI?

It hadn't been my intention, but I suppose I have a better reason now.

3/11/2007 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said... is a bit of dialogue from a website ..

The "9/11 SOLVED" Super DVD is currently in production and is probably the most important film ever created concerning this event- bar none. This full production DVD will present new evidence, ground breaking interviews featuring Top Gun Military/Commercial Pilot Field McConnell and Forensic Economist David Hawkins , scale model recreations and detailed evaluation based on all the scientifically analyzed data, with an original music score, audio commentary and more.

It is THE story you have not yet been told, nor heard anywhere else, an historic DVD containing information by the ultimate non-partisan, non-political scientific and aeronautic experts on 9/11.

Your readers have been given this link numerous times. Not you and not me and certainly none of your readers have a "clue" about the content soon to be released. For $15 you too can have the full disclosure you crave. Wallow in it.

3/11/2007 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

I just posted this on the board, and I might as well cross-post here:

I can respect Tom's argument, though I disagree with some of his conclusions. And honestly, it helps a lot that he respectfully disagrees with some of mine.

About the fractious sanctimony of the know-it-all snoids I feel somewhat different.

dbd, you wrote "They dismiss our work with a wave of the hand--as if an 'open mind' is possible any more for any one about 9-11. " Nice inquisition you got there. I guess it's not enough anymore to say that 9/11 was an inside job. If you're not also down with thermite, you're dirty. (Unless we're on to mini-nukes and beam weaponry. And if we are, it's the thermite folks who are gatekeeping.)

Still wondering, btw, whether you still think planes striking the WTC are irrelevant details. Because that's some yawning open mind you have on exhibit.

A few questions:

Molten metal and the sustained high temperatures in the pile are presumed to be prima facie evidence of controlled demolition. Why should it? Has there ever been a controlled demolition to produce such results? I wonder what was going on down there, too. It couldn't have been jet fuel of course, but a thermite reaction would have burned out, too. (Another question: That I say I don't know, does that make me a bad person?)

Thermite cuts, it doesn't explode. What then of the CD "evidence" for explosions, the "boom-boom-boom" ear-witnesses and the "squibs"? Was there thermite and bombs? (But no planes, dbd?)

If the buildings were in "freefall," why did debris reach the ground first?

If the explosions were "controlled" and "fell neatly into their footprint," why did steel beams get thrown 600 feet and nearby buildings get crushed under the collapse?

Has any other building been demolished by blowing it top down, rather than by first knocking out its supports?

3/11/2007 01:13:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


Dude, it did have an effect on me. It wasn't quite clear to me from your email what input you wanted from me on your plan, but it was pretty much along the lines of my I'm trying to do where I am. The one maybe large difference between our projects is that yours seemed to be a sort of village set up, if I remember right, while I'm attempting to it in an urban setting. Sorry if I didn't explain it very well, but as long as we're on the subject, it goes more or less as follows.

As you doubtless know, the northern cities in the US experienced several waves of black migration from the Reconstruction wasteland of Mississippi, Alabama and most of the Deep South. The last and biggest of the waves coincided with the social unrest in the '60s, especially when things started getting hot during the voter registration drives and the subsequent backlash.

The dream of a better life in the industrial North was short-lived, however. Many more came than could find good jobs, and then the manufacturing base started to die. The new black working class had barely had time to set down roots (usually in the older parts of the cities, close to the factories), when millions became unemployed (again) and things started to fall apart. The host cities weren't particularly welcoming to begin with (the white folks in the North were not really much more evolved in their racial tolerance than their cracker cousins), but when the largely (they felt) uninvited Gast Arbeiter suddenly weren't arbeiting anymore, and after property values had fallen so dramatically in the aftermath of white flight to the suburbs, huge sections of Chicago, Detroit, and many of these other "sanctuaries" became the same festering ghettos that you see all over the North.

The housing stock where these transplanted sharecroppers & their descendants still live is in very bad shape. Many buildings are 100 year old woodframe structures that were not built to last that long in the first place. Many of the materials used were toxic and now that the buildings are falling apart, lead poisoning is endemic, among a host of other nasty conditions relating to the decrepit housing stock. The massive vertical ghettos--the projects of the '50s & '60s--were a bad solution to a difficult problem, and many of these have since been dismantled. Not so with the old neighborhood woodframes.

What I'm attempting with this first experiment, ericswan, is to buy up these derelict & unsafe houses, a block at a time, and plant something very different. This first stage is very difficult (not that I'm expecting any of it to get easy anytime soon), because the people living in these houses don't very often own them. Absentee landlordism is very high--sometimes out of state, very often in the suburbs, where you see the standard American black/white economic dynamic still operating, while other houses are owned by other black folks who oftentimes follow the example of their white "colleagues" by charging the poor tenants $600-800 a month to live in vermin-infested deathtraps.

At the moment I'm trying to get funding from churches, private foundations and various community organizations, but what we really need is grant money from the feds (or wealthy philanthropers, if you happen to know any), but we haven't gotten very far with that side of things yet. It wouldn't even take that much money, if we could only force the owners to sell at fair market value (anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000 per house), but lots of the unethical landlords know they're sitting on gold mines of human misery (since they put very little into upkeep and the occasional housing violation citations are nominal at best) and are very unwilling to sell cheap.

Once we get a square block free & clear, we want to form a housing cooperative that will hopefully take on many other community functions as well, but the heart of the operation is the collective ownership of the housing stock. One homelessness project that worked so well it failed was the Dome Village, which made the critical mistake of renting the property instead of owning it.

So, right away there's two semi-distinct functions going on here: the legal & financial business end of the project, and the physical land reclamation, planning & building end of things. Both are very creative operations, and this is the cool thing about the whole project.

Maslow says we're not really alive or fully human until we're creating, actively transcending our own narrow concerns and getting so deeply into the act of creating that we lose ourselves in our creation. I used to know this feeling in the best jobs that I had; sometimes even in the shitty ones there were opportunities to lose myself in what I was doing. I had one gig where I was creating things in virtual space and then translating them into the regular variety through the manufacturing process, which was a great, in many ways sustaining activity. For this project I'm doing some of that stuff, but the architectural software I've got isn't that great and the real architects are (hopefully) going to be doing most of that work anyway. I don't mind, though--it's great just to be involved, even if my part is mostly just talking to people, drumming up support, and begging for funding.

Although many people are suspicious & pessimistic when I first approach them, it seems to me that most folks are just waiting for something to get all fired up about. People want to believe in something, to belong to something greater than themselves.

There are some in my group talking about food & hydrology projects, ericswan, but we've got to be careful about that stuff with so many poisins in the ground. There is some public land we can farm, Schrebergarten-style, but that would involve some commuting, and without tramlines or other such alternatives, it would simply be too far away from the community center. There is this Canadian website that talks about the idea of urban farming in an intelligent fashion, and this one from L.A., Fritz Haeg's EDIBLE ESTATES, a massive urban ecology resource, where I found City Farmer. There's also this article from WorldChanging that talks about and links a lot of other interesting projects.

Another one worth checking out is Toby Hemenway’s Pattern Literacy, which has tons of great permaculture resources. Personally, I kind of like the approach of Anarchitecture, a Z-mag production (for obvious enough reasons) but I haven’t investigated any of them in much detail yet, busy as I am with this other stuff I'm working on. I'm also trying to get something started for a nephew of mine & his friends--young people looking for a chance to do something positive--by forging a collaborative effort between the local community colleges, the architecture schools at the nearby 4-years, and the municipial authorities. The key in all of this is collaboration--you need volunteers. Lawyers, architects, financial wizards, and the optimistic grunts who'll lend their backs to the projects. My only role in all of this is to connect these various people.

I'm very sorry I didn't respond as you'd have liked, ericswan, but it wasn't because I wasn't interested in what you're doing. Feel free to pop off another email if you have any other questions, and I'll see if I can help. I also have yet another project on the furthest-back burner, a sort of terra-forming idea inspired by Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, where you start with a limestone gorge, then you excavate cliff-dwellings, half in the cliff, half cantilevered out of the cliff-face for sunlight, then you pop one of these parabolic shields across the whole span for that terrarium effect and, viola, a tropical village hidden in the flat desert. The Rivendell Gorge Project. That one's a few years off yet.

As you can see, there's a lot of dreaming going on here--my work thus far has only produced some exciting plans and quite a few enthusiastic volunteers, but things are starting to happen, which isn't bad for a disabled guy with no income and a host of fairly serious problems hanging over him. It's a far better road than the endless gazing at dystopian porn than the NWO gazers engage in, if you ask me.

3/11/2007 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Hey, Richard,

Much as I expected. You do know that you're fighting the good fight there, right? I realize that this doesn't help much when you're feeling burnt & crispy from it, but think about something else here. In addition to the good deeds you perform on a daily basis (the karmic wheel might be hidden from our understanding), but the simple, demonstrable fact that someone upfield already pointed out is that if you do good, you are good and vice-versa.

That road to hell is not so much paved with good intentions as it is with clever (and not so clever) rationalizations of wicked deeds. All the holy men have said it: The ends can never justify the means--it's a trap--because you become the means that you employ. This isn't any fancy philosophical argument; it's the plain truth.

Look at the strange "development" of this thread. People who are genuinely motivated by a belief that "proving" 9/11 was an inside job will be the catalyst in a long-overdue overhaul of the system devote all their energy, not to envisioning or working toward that overhaul (it's presumably just going to happen by itself), but to attacking anyone who questions either their methodology or their thinking. They have become the thing they rail against: closed-minded ideologues who can't see beyond their bailiwick and either attack or ignore anything that isn't as narrow as their conception of what's "important." Yeah, that's right--tell Jeff to stop blogging. That's bringing Truth to the world.

The only one of them who even acknowledged that there was a bigger world than the deception of 9/11 was Mark, and even he can't really let go of that bone. Why are these people so blind to the fact that solving the 9/11 spectacle isn't going to fix anything? Will it address the accelerating disparity between rich & poor in the world? Will it stop the balls-out environmental degradation that is so rapidly killing the world while they spend so many hours stroking their theories and banishing the "disinfo artists"?

It's almost as if the black ops psychologists were sitting around the pentagonal table brainstorming new ways of advancing their cause, when suddenly one of the pointy-heads jumped up, shouting "Eureka! I've got it! I know how to keep the sheep so occupied with an infernal, eternal mystery that we can kick the End Times machine into overdrive and they won't even notice! They'll be so busy attacking each other and deceiving themselves that they won't even consider actually getting off their asses and trying to fix the world we're breaking for our own purposes! Best of all, we won't need martial law, mandatory sedation or any of the old tricks!"

I bet that clever Dick got a big raise.

3/11/2007 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

IC and Jeff.. The big picture as I see it is to take land out of production and force free men and women into a labour for food equation. I want the freedom that a door mouse, deer, or skunk has on this planet.

My no where near utopic vision is a backlash to urban wasteland. In the community garden I spend most of my time lies a landfill a couple of feet down. I detoxified it with zeolite and presented the archeological evidence to the community gardeners one piece at a time. This landfill/community garden is a dozen yards from the main drag and a close neighbour to the Mason lodge. A fine place to demonstrate to all that we are wasting the wonderful resource of our place in the sun.

My community intranet network is a city scenario which doubtless will work anywhere. I'm obsessed with recycling. When I discovered that Waste Management Inc was part of the coverup of 911 (major shareholder is George Soros) I put together that information with the fact that ZEOLITE is being suppressed. I can't emphasize this enough. The properties of natural volcanic tuff were only made public in the mid 1980's. Plenty of time for the PTB to implement a "no pollution anywhere ever" application for the vast amounts of zeolite presently being ignored or even quarantined out of production.

You might check out zeoponics for your cliff dwellers.

One of the best community gardening projects that got the ball rolling in the 80's on empty lots in New York City was dismantled by Rudy. I'm not going to forgive him that.

3/11/2007 03:47:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

A WTC Demolitions Timeline, 1976-2001

IC says:

The only one of them who even acknowledged that there was a bigger world than the deception of 9/11 was Mark, and even he can't really let go of that bone.

As I said above:

however, I would concur with Griffin's recent 'back at ya, Monbiot' article on this point about 9-11 and many other pressing issues:

Monbiot, regarding the 9/11 truth movement’s conspiracy theory as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. We focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible."

Additionally, I'll quote a 9-11 family member (from the 9-11 Press for Truth film) about that.

Finding out she said is her healing process, she said, not by mourning, but by pointing fingers at the perpetrators she makes a better world. And collecting all the data, "Paul Thompson-wise," is not a fruitless operation, and even contributes toward that "better world" you see IC--instead of it being a zero sum game (which both you and Jeff conjecture that it takes away energy from other things more important (like making [really excellent] Photoshopped art I guess and wailing like young Werther). There's a bigger world out there, and 9-11 came into it, instead of occluded it. I don't see this as a zero sum game "competition" between 9-11 research and "everything else". It's all counterreinforcing. I don't think you will find anywhere the strawman demographic of "9-11 researchers and nothing else" actually.

Materially speaking IC, even Dr. Stephen Jones, the reputed "monomaniac of 9-11 thermate research, actually did cold fusion technology research in the 1980s--which made the gas majors really mad and they spun into overdrive to discredit it because he announced it at a press conference.

And I'll just add this in, because ericswans's comment I just read right before posting this, synchronously notes something similar about how anti-sustainability and 9-11 networks interrelate.

It seems to me that the real energy wasted here is by attacking 9-11 research, instead of by 9-11 research itself, eh? :-)

Jeff says:

Has any other building been demolished by blowing it top down, rather than by first knocking out its supports?

Not officially of course. :-) And nothing that tall had ever been attempted before, until 9-11. Here's some evidence and a timeline.

Though we do have the WTCs which did collapse down into their footprints (instead of tipping over) and disappear in mid air as it went into dust and human shrapnel pieces, along with a huge "pryoclastic flow" cloud, along with evidence of thermate.

As to Jeff's question, I think it helps to keep in mind from what I quoted above from Controlled Demolition, Inc, itself:

Their website claims the Detroit Hudson Department Store at 439 feet dropped in October, 1998 is the tallest [non black ops] structural steel building ever imploded.

[Other concrete based ones are much easier.]


Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the (Hudson Store) complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design.

So, since "above board" public work of controlled demolition technologies only records a building about 1/3 as tall as the WTCs as the so called "record" (unofficially broken during 9-11 by the detonations of WTCs), I'm sure they dreamed up a combination of exotic factors to get rid of the WTCs by very special demolitions--as well as very special means to hide it was demolitions. The hiding however didn't work.

For instance, you have to remember that a secret study for "legally removing" the WTCs legally was done back as early as 1989 (known from leaks by a team member who talked, as well as by the in house photographer who was accidentally briefed about the whole thing who talked).

It was going to cost billions of dollars to do. The Port Authority balked. They disbanded the team, swore them to secrecy, confiscated everything at their desks during a lunchbreak, and simply showed them the door with a great deal of threats if they talked.

So from the late 1980s, they were officially (if quietly) looking for cheaper methods to remove the WTCs. Moreover, they wanted to do it in a way to disguise that WTCs still standing were already legally past their "insurance half life" (which makes them unlike to have any insurance (particularly for the levels that Silverstein is attempting to collect on I believe). The 1980s studies found that they were already past their insurance half lives by the 1980s.

This was due to suffering from "galvanic corrosion" similar to what happened in the Statue of Liberty in the salt-sea ocean humid air.

Though instead of diving a plane the Statue of Liberty as an alibi for demolishing her, the Lady was fixed up at extreme cost.

The WTCs however, with their galvanic corrosion, were seriously weakening, unlike to ever be "above the board" insured if the word got out, and they knew that.

I'm not a controlled demolitions expert, I just play one on television--and I read the handful of ones unintimidated enough to speak out about it, or who remarked casually in the first few days (like Van Romero did to the Albuquerque Journal). However, combining something like this seems apparent starting from the early 1990s:

- Come February 1993, it was learned the WTCs would not be removed by micronukes in the basement alone. For the basements, in my opinion a micronuke of some sort was in the basement mixing with other less exotic technologies typically used in controlled demolitions). I based this on government demolitions operative Fred Schneider (murdered soon after talking about all this in 1995), who remarked that he was called in to do the main secret report to TriData/FEMA about the WTCs damage. After doing the report for them, he was asked by them "knowing what you know now, would you do this demolition of the WTCs for us RIGHT THIS TIME?" He balked at this state terrorism, attempted to leave his government position, and within two years it seems he was murdered (and definitely his Portland, Oregon, apartment was entirely cleaned out by persons unknown after he was dead.) Fred Schneider said that what he learned from 1993 was that U.S. military demolition tools like "cleaner nukes (of alpha particle micronukes) were utilized as a "front op/back op" in the 1993 terrorism on the WTCs. So in other words, by late 1993, they learned they required a bit more than simply a micronuke in the basement. Regroup.

- 1993: Bush family comes on board to "protect the WTC", rut roh, Marvin Bush (brother of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush) placed on security at the WTCs. He illegally is simultaneously on the board of the insurer of the WTC, having oversight over hiring of security companies, with his bias as representing a particular WTC security company.

- 1995: Murrah may have even bit a little test of what they planned to do to the WTCs on a smaller scale. Murrah was a fiasco, since many of the bombs didn't actually work, and were recovered, according to local TV news. The military intelligence controlled national network news in the USA didn't tell anyone else that though: that there were many internal bombs to the Murrah building explosion. The Alex Jones film "9-11: Road to Tyranny" I think has the Murrah video footage of these local news programs if you want to see it. Regroup after Murrah, perhaps. Phil Schneider still alive here. He says that some "scalar weapon" was likely utilized in his opinion in Murrah. He was dead soon after saying this. Strangely quickly dead rescue dogs they dug up from Murrah to test them for this, showed radioactivity. Murrah site was sealed in concrete... (Sidenote, Murrah happened only a day after a group of flag officers were on their way as a group to arrest and start a big outing around Clinton for some sort of foreign connection/money link/treason bribery link they had discovered. The flag officers all died in a "helicopter accident" in Alabama, then Murrah took front page after that.)


1995: Late of Goldman Sachs, fired over sexual predator behavior on the job, Eisenberg is appointed to Port Authority. His father Shoul Eisenberg, was a Bilderberger who co invested tax free in Israel with the likes of Warburgs and Rothschilds. Son Eisenberg attempts to change security contracts around the WTC immediately after being placed on the board. Has his hands slapped by Governor Whitman of NJ. (Eisenberg is a Bush 2000 Transition Team" member as well. He leaves his Port Authority position only after the successful demolition of the WTCs in 2001. Eisenberg makes the sweetheart deal to Silverstein to purchase the whole thing, despite Silverstein bidding lower than anyone else for the buildings. It was all prearranged to give it to Silverstein somehow by 2001 instead.)

So after 1995, regroup.

Seems they started to look into thermate, adding everything all together. The trick was getting the thermate into the building, and destroying the evidence of it afterwards. They were almost successful there as well, except for samples recovered by Dr. Stephen Jones that prove thermate enhanced demolitions on the steel were utilized to prime the operation.

- So, thermate evidence is there chemically. And thermate is so comparatively easy to slap together that it can be made without typical required tracer chemicals supposedly put in all high explosives to trace them to their users and manufacturers--an interesting point I read from Dr. Jones as well.

It had to be bundled into something else another "front op/back op" sort of operation. Voila, plane terrorism. Some contend that as early as 1976, the WTCs were already being eyed by the criminal elements in the U.S military with state terrorism--though perhaps not demolition, yet:

Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC...McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target.....publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9/11 scenario.

The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even [the story of] plastic box cutters to bypass security [was integrated and concocted into their role playing models as early as 1976.]

To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers.

The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target.

McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976."

So learning from 1993 onward, and mixing in the 1976 thing that certain criminal governmental elements in the USA were "terror drilling" to really hit the WTCs with planes as early as 1976 (Bush Senior's CIA was "sitting in on the terror drill" planning, says the RICO suit), perhaps they quickly realized that with galvanic corrosion they didn't have much time left before the buildings themselves came apart on their own. Perhaps the "1976 plan" had to be quickly shotgun married to a demolition plan due to the undue galvanic corrosion issues.

So that is the origin of all the different strands and technolgies likely utilized in the WTC.

(I don't know about the "scalar weaponry" angle. Not that I discount it. I simply don't know much information about it. There were some police and firemen emergency channel radio reports that "something was being f*ck**g fired at the WTCs from the Woolworth Building!"--another interesting point that went down the memory hole.)

- 1999: some like Eric Hufschmid conjecture that the rooftop WTC7 emergency bunker constructed at huge cost right in front of the WTCs in 1999, was actually meant to be the director's chair for the whole demolions operation--as it was strangely configured to have all sorts of blastproofing. And Guiliani suspiciously (to me) knew to stay clear away from so called "his" emergency bunker in the sky, despite the WTC events. Why?

- So come September 11, 2001, it seems that highly computer controlled demolitions, combing the micronuke in the basement, combined with thermate, (and potentially some scalar thrown in for good measure), were aimed to start demolishing on certain expected floor areas from wherever the planes hit. How did they know where the planes would hit. Well, there is this interesting nugget (and add in Richard Grove's information that they planes were beelined to certain floors in advance) that the planes somehow beelined for only high financial floors of financial computer "safe rooms", destroying these utterly. There are witnesses that both of these areas had some sort of thermate explosion in 9-11, one from a witness working in this area in WTC2 where the plane hit, one from video analysis of the soot in WTC1 on the floor the the plane hit, though where an explosion ruptured out independently.

WTC1 95th floor hit & WTC2 81st floor hit SURGICALLY TAKE OUT only banking computer rooms

FINANCIAL CRIMINALS PLACED THE THERMATE, LINKED TO THERMATE, IN BOTH WTC BUILDINGS: The WTC thermate planters get link to financial crime--in both buildings. --- When a former worker...came forward recently with crucial and verifiable information about what was really on the 81st floor of the South Tower (WTC 2), he broke up a logjam of unanswered questions about the source of molten metal seen falling from the tower before its collapse on 9/11 [and the financial corporate perpetrators of this massive terrorist crime, in both buildings]....Photographic evidence strongly suggests that the secure computer rooms in both towers contained forms of Thermite [non-exclusively there], which had been pre-placed to [doubly sure] destroy evidence and facilitate the collapse.... --- After examining the photographic and physical evidence, Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University has concluded that the yellow and white glowing metal pouring from the east corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower was, most likely, molten iron created by a Thermite reaction....molten iron seen falling from the South Tower's eastern corner before it collapsed must have weighed many tons. One cubic meter of iron weighs about 8.5 tons and it certainly looks like several cubic meters poured from the 81st floor shortly before it collapsed.


WTC1, first hit, 95th floor: a banking computer room, Marsh & McLennan

On the 95th floor of WTC 1, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center," a secure computer room along the north and east sides of the tower. And that's exactly where the plane hit ­ the north wall of the 95th floor.

The plane struck the North Tower right in the middle of the north face. The nose of the plane struck the 130th perimeter column at the 96th floor slab and something, perhaps the nose landing gear, carried on right through the middle of the building and severed three columns on the south side of the tower.

An image caught on video immediately after the plane struck the tower shows a huge fireball engulfing the north face of the building where the plane hit. But from the east side of the tower a suspicious huge white dust cloud is emerging that looks like an exploding bale of cotton

It is pure white and shows no signs of burning jet fuel. This white dust is emerging from the east wall of the tower, from the level and side occupied by the [same] computer room. If Thermate bombs had been pre-placed in the 95th floor computer room, who put them there? Certainly Marsh & McLennan must know or have records of who had access to that room and what was in it.

WTC2, second hit, 81st floor: a banking computer room, Fuji Bank

Fuji Bank was the tenant of floors 79-82, yet for some reason the ***NIST researchers were unable or unwilling to provide any description of the contents of these crucial floors***--four years after 9/11.

A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:

Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.

These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night.

They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said. [Summer 2000 or Summer 2001?]

But were they really batteries or were they Thermate?

"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."

The whole day of 9-11-01 worked relatively well since hardly anyone got the word that WTC6 was detonated long before WTC1 and WTC2 had been detonated.

Moreover, the day went pretty well at the hit of WTC1 since it got hit pretty much dead on on the middle of the March and McClennan floor as expected (killing the whole staff working on the "paperless office" op, as described by Richard Grove--while the actual meeting holder was strangely to conduct the conference outside the building from his NYC apartment). The hit shoots down into the middle of the building. (At the same moment, you see what appears to be unrelated white sooty thermate explosions erupting out of a completely different side, the east side, just where the Marsh and McClellan 'thermate/computer room' was, mentioned above...)

Jumping ahead WTC1's demolition went far better than WTC2's. However, WTC1's detonation floor by floor actually really fell to a stable "plane damaged" floor in WTC1, which instead of collapsing--remained stable stood there! That was the wierd giveaway pause, then, a smoothness starts, and the rest of the floors started to go all the way down (seconds after the seismographic spike from the basement, which occurs seconds before the demolitions in WTC1 and WTC2).

Seconds before these collapses, in WTC1 and WTC2, there are huge seismic record spikes (that seismologists say only come from nuclear explosions, according to AFP interviews). So they had their basement support colums sheared away simultaneously via micronuke enhanced explosions, before the demolitions started coming down from above.

The day started to go wrong with WTC2. There were many problems in 'execution,' in all senses of the word. First of all, hardly anyone was executed. Second of all, the plane almost missed the building.

[1] The plane almost missed the building. There was a huge correction and pull to the left and up to hit it,and even then only at a corner.

[2] There was more giveaway of the operation by detonating WTC2 FIRST merely 55 minutes or so after the plane alibi smacked into it. First hit building WTC1 was still standing.

Why did this happen?

[3] I expect it was because radio communications were getting out that were ruining an expected alibi of "fire collapse": firemen had already reached that damaged floor. No one had expected anyone to get back into the buildings to find the "fire alibi" lie out. This alibi being exploded could only occur because:

[4] due to the unexpected survival of "Mr. fourth key", the janitor Rodriguez. Unlike him, all the official rescue teams seem to have gotten the word and entirely refused to go up in the tower--and they disappeared with their keys. The elevators were all taken out, and the stairwells were all locked floor by floor otherwise. No keys were intented to be available to move up the stairwell or to release people who would be killed. However, Rodriguez messed that all up by risking his life like a hero, and moving up the stairwells releasing people (drastically lowering the numbers of dead) and letting the firemen up (drastically endangering the alibi of "fire collapse" since the firemen radioed out 'no biggie here, everytihng looks sound structurally, we'll take out this fire very shortly." I think they said "just a few small fires, nothing big, will be able to handle it with two lines." Look up the quotes to be sure on exact verbiage.

[5] HOWEVER, only minutes after the fireman started destroying the fire alibi story, with firemen already saying 'nothing to worry about on that floor, there was no danger'--they were murdered to get rid of them as witnesses that would expose the whole lie: the detonations start on the very fireman's floor in WTC2-- killing them.

[6] This is before first hit WTC1 even detonated, despite hit earlier.

[7] And something else seeingly goes wrong with the alibi: the WTC2 building, seemingly weakened by the cantered plane hit, and then with the demolitions, starts to tip as a cube off to one side in the floors above the hit area. Why is this interesting? Because it shuld have then fallen as a group to the street below, demolishing a huge area. However, it never reached the ground! It just vaporizes on the way down. That cube never reached the ground in one piece, and as soon as it was enshrouded in the other floors smoke below it, it started to seriously be detonated behind that smoke cloud because "the cube" of the upper floors was gone and never reached the ground where it was already tipping over and where it should have fallen. (This may indicate tailorable demolition strategies from some nearby area, though it's not that important since the lower floor hit may have been set up to "take out the cube" this way already. Either way the point is that the demolitions are not a fire damage or structural weakening on its own, particularly given the thermate evidence and the seismic evidence of a huge bedrock linked explosion BEFORE instead of during the collapses of the buildings.

Another wierd thing is the strange unexplained "spire evaporation" (that people like the Webfairy talk about), which seems to be corrolary information indicating some sort of steel evaporation via intense radiation. Alpha radiation is very intense, and very short lived. Most Geiger counters don't even register it.

Regardless of this timeline reconstruct, the pink elephants though are WTC6 and WTC7. WTC6 gets detonated first, which messes everything up because no plane hit it.

WTC7, detonated fourth or last, messes everything up because it emerged virtually unscathed after both WTC1 and WTC2 were demolished. No plane, same molten steel in its basement as WTC1 and WTC2.

The fact that only "human shrapnel", "office products shrapnel", and concrete into vapor dust" (instead of mangled crushed bodies, office products, or pancakes of whole concrete floors stacked up) shows explosives as well.

Concrete is a chemically held bond with water. That water seems to have been quickly liberated/evaporated with the extreme exothermic explosions contributing to the huge white dust clouds both all around 'ground zero' and noticeable as each concrete filled floor was "liberated" of solid concrete, and thousands of people were literally being exploded into little pieces.

And if you have something better to do, go do it. Chinese saying says, "One who says it's impossible, get out of the way of the one who is doing it."

3/11/2007 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Christopher said...

Jeff is right that it is pointless to dwell of CD. We should be dwelling on the fact that we don't know what happened but clearly elements of the government were part of the terrorist operation.

Having said that I have seen no solid explanation or evidence for Jeff's contention that the crashes and fires caused the collapse of the building. I read the NIST report and it is not convincing and ignores a lot of evidence. The buildings were built to withstand a plane crash so there would have to have been, as Alex Cockburn claims, massive corruption in the building of the WTC buildings--which is certainly possible but no one has offered much evidence of thought on that--it seems logical that someone would have investigated the reason the buildings fell--NIST is just inadequate. Then there are the problems of the free-fall speed of these building collapses--just doesn't make sense to me--I've heard no credible explanation for that. Really we just don't know and Jeff seems happy to just accept the conventional account because, I believe, he wants to just simplify things and focus on the operation itself. I sympathize with this view.

What I don't like about Jeff lately is that he's hurling around accusations about the motivation of people in the 9/11 movement when he has no way of knowing the reality of those motivations since we are all working with inadequate evidence.

For whatever reason we are fortunate that something like a third of the American people feel the gov't was involved in 9/11 this fact keeps the same gang from putting on another one of these operations I believe--or at least makes them think long and hard about it so no matter the condition of the movement it has done its job.

3/11/2007 04:35:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Separate post.

IC says:


That is a good point. Now, how to assimilate it into the crowded house of my thought? Also, I still need some economic advice for my housing project and you seem to have a grasp of these matters, which I really do not. Any chance you'd care to add some input?

If by "economic advice," you mean materials, I made up some interesting commodity biography lists that I think you would find an interesting cornucopia at

So you'd like to...
Get to Sustainability through Bioregionalism? A Reading List, etc.

Particularly you might like to look up the "Transmaterial" book or some of my picked books at that list on ecohousing strategies, groups, and materials?

Then there my extensive materials biographies at:

So you'd like to...
have a Complete Commodity Biography Reference List? [1/11]
--in eleven parts so far.

I think you would like to read the Gaviotas book as well. The bioregional state is sort of an infrastructure that I think can deal with some of the "scaling" difficulties reported in the failures of the Gaviotas project to seed itself outside of its area.

You've heard of Gaviotas: A Village to Reinvent the Worldright?

"In the early 1970s, a unique community was founded in the los llanos region of Colombia. Located north of the Amazon rain forest, this region is an expansive savannah, sparsely populated and generally considered uninhabitable. Gaviotas originated out of the belief that the current state of urban expansion and poverty and the continued depletion of natural nonrenewable resources could not be sustained and that the future required people to learn how to live in harsh, inhospitable environments and to do so in an ecologically sound and sustainable manner. Journalist Weisman tells the story of a remarkable and diverse group of individuals (engineers, biologists, botanists, agriculturists, sociologists, musicians, artists, doctors, teachers, and students) who helped the village evolve into a very real, socially viable, and self-sufficient community for the future. The people of Gaviotas today produce innovative technologies (solar collectors, irrigation systems, windmills, and hydroponic gardens) that use the environment without depleting or destroying it. While some of their creative endeavors have not succeeded, even the failures tend to spawn ideas for future successes. Weisman does a fine job of detailing Gaviotas's evolution and placing it within the larger global historical context. The story he presents is wonderful testament to human creativity, commitment, and effort toward building a socially viable and environmentally sustainable future.

The quaintest part of the book was that even the emotionally hard paramilitaries on all sides of their ongoing civil wars and foreign interventions, were given orders to protect Gaviotas as a seed for better things.

Quoting what I wrote at Commodity Ecology, Part Three, the bioregional state is sort of addressing the "scaling problems" that Gaviotas had reported:

Moreover, applying the watershed metric layer, and applying this to all commodity choices at once, this means that such user-producer relationships will be occurring across all 54 optimally and simultaneously informing each other, instead of only occurring in isolated parallel user-producer relationships in one area (like building materials above, steel is the example). It will be occurring in a cross-referenced framework, where, similar to ecological modernization, the outputs or “temporary wastes” of one material choice use can be fitted easily into another material choice use.

This is similar to the “Gaviotas”-sense of local interactivity. Gaviotas is a nice example of how user-producer relationships for the goals of sustainability were required as well. They changed and made both technology and material choice issues a form of democratic discussion in their community on how to optimize the material relationships synergistically.

In Gaviotas, it was only when the gruff “technological producer” preoccupied 'professional worker' adults were forced to share the same dinner and lunch tables and talk with the “user children” of their technological handiwork, did a large amount of technological innovation start to accrue. One example was the combining of the see-saw for kids with the water pump, effectively harnessing child play for water pumping, and making it fun as well instead of a drugery, as well as putting children within the contributing world of the community instead of being external to its working life.

The school framework itself was bundled into creating user-producer relationships, by having classes be visiting various workshops in the actual technologcial world. In the process of questions and answers between the tech-adults and the roving class of children, many other user-producer links were discovered and implemented, with the children's school thus benefiting both the adults as well as the children.

These are only two of several examples. There are many more.

Thus, in Gaviotas, the user-producer relationships were additionally child-adult relationships that came full circle as well. Such communication occurs only if all the different user-producer frameworks are regularly made aware of each other through some regular basis.

It would be fine to do this at a dinner table. However, to systematize what is going on here, as well as to note how Gaviotas failed when it attempted to "scale out" its work, the suggestion here is to have specific watershed institutionalizations instead of force one group to do all the work and outsource it to them (which was the part that Gaviotas took upon themselves, and basically failed in doing).

If instead, there are watershed based institutionalizations of these user-producer frameworks and how they are always geograpphically specific in their solutions, then we can have all 54 material choices debated simultaneously though specific to a single watershed's optimalization in the name of its people living there, instead of in the name of an external technological importer.

And, if by "economic advice," you mean funding and contacts, I'm endlessly amazed how hydra-headed governments are that fund the strangest progressive things while bombing other parts of the planet into smithereens.

For instance, perhaps you could team along with a group in your area already working on just such a project?

I don't know if you are in the USA or otherwise, though there is certainly something like this you could find on some unsuspecting website. For instance, utilize something like this database:

--to get a great list of "biophilic contacts" who you could ask around in your neck of the woods about such a "eco-house" project, in your area?:

To encourage stewardship of the nation's water resources, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is leading an "Adopt Your Watershed" campaign. Through this effort, EPA challenges citizens and organizations to join us and others who are working to protect and restore our valuable rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, ground water, and estuaries. By visiting our on-line database, you can learn about opportunities to get involved in activities in your community, such as monitoring, cleanups, and restoration projects. As of December 2006, the database has more than 4,000 groups that you might want to join."

There are lots of other watershed-style contacts globally I have linked up on the right column at my blog under "links" (under the "links: maps" section.

And to ericswan,

Thanks, I responded to your nice comment at my blog.

3/11/2007 04:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, I disagree with you about it not being a zero sum proposition. Most of the people I know who are into 911 Truth are obssessed. They remind me of the Right To Life Crusaders....and the majority of them are men. Their primary motivation is revenge...and as IC mentioned, taking that stance will only hasten Martial Law...or land you in fact, if I was a betting man, I would wager there are intelligence folks looking to goad 911 Truthers in that direction much as they goad disenfranchised, religious Arab men into becoming Jihadists. Do you really think "they" are so stupid as to let 911 Truth progress of its own accord without lifting a finger to control its trajectory? Come on....get real. It's a fuckin rabbit hole at this point...and maybe it always was. It only makes sense to create controllable rabbit holes after major false flag events.

911 Truth is now a hypnotic device that has an ever growing number of testosterone driven patriots entranced with the glowing buzz as new reality after new reality passes before their eyes without ever being processed by their visual cortex.

Jeff, you should turn the tables and ask Mojo and his many manifestations what his idea of Justice is? I bet you it's what I described above. They're trying to goad naive dolts into harboring seditious thoughts. It's rather transparent...don't you think?

3/11/2007 06:39:00 PM  
Blogger Dr. Bombay said...

Hey Mark,
In one of my posts on
this thread I asked if anyone
had seen the picture of the
fire crew standing in front of
a hole in the INSIDE ring of
the Pentagon. Lo and behold,
when I went to the link you
posted - Pentagon Strike/911
there it was. Now, how anybody
can look at that perfect circle,
less than 10 feet high, and tell
me in a rational way how a 60
ton commercial jetliner fit in
that space, than please do so.
I for one do believe that the
HOW is just as important as the
WHY because when you answer the
HOW question it allows you to
see the bigger picture and what
we are truly up against.
So Mark thanks for the link, and
my thanks to all of the posters
for their outstanding comments.
This is the reason I read Jeff's
posts and will continue to do so.
And Shrub...good to see you
peeking out from behind your..ah..
bush again. You are that rarest
of individuals.. a true cynic
who loves life.

3/11/2007 06:39:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Taking into consideration all the masterful obfuscation and spin we've already seen by the government and the media regarding 9/11, let's think for a moment what would happen if the use of explosives to bring down the towers was proven and even acknowledged. I think we'd see some headlines the next day along the lines of...

"9/11 Terrorists more insidious than first thought!"

"Sept 11th hijackers DID have a bomb on board." (might not fit but they'd try it)

"9/11 Terror Cell larger than 19 - some may still be out there!"

"September 11 Terrorists may have had help on the ground - Are homegrown terrorists among us?"

"Jose Padilla admits under 'interrogation' he helped them do it!"

And from the Truth side, without the aid of multi million dollar media aparatus, "We told you so all along!" mostly being drowned out.

Sure, it'd bolster our spirits and morale, strengthen our resolve, maybe even convert some fence sitters... but overall, would there be a huge change? Sure, you might believe that only so-and-so COULD POSSIBLY have engineered such a thing, but really, after the spin cycle... Joe Public won't.

Anyway, that's just a thought.

3/11/2007 06:54:00 PM  
Blogger Dr. Bombay said...

"What the American public doesn't
know makes them the American

Dan Akroyd/Tommy Boy
hmmm..or was it J.D. Rockefeller?

3/11/2007 07:08:00 PM  
Blogger Rasheed said...


So it bothers you too that Jeff has no balls?

By that I mean metaphorically that Jeff has neither the courage of his professed convictions, such as one to Justice, nor apparently, the convictions themselves.

Jeff has revealed himself to be without moral conviction. Just a tongue-clucking rumour monger who cherry picks the rumours he wishes to foment, the salacious stories he wishes to gossip about. Gutless and ball-less. A whisperer.

And, just so you get it clear, Mojo is simply a nom de plume for one person who is himself just one of the many manifestations human conscience in this world.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

Try it.


If may become habit forming.

3/11/2007 08:45:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Christopher said:

"Jeff is right that it is pointless to dwell of CD. We should be dwelling on the fact that we don't know what happened but clearly elements of the government were part of the terrorist operation. ... What I don't like about Jeff lately is that he's hurling around accusations about the motivation of people in the 9/11 movement when he has no way of knowing the reality of those motivations since we are all working with inadequate evidence."

I don't like that about me lately, either. We can't have certainty of another's motivation, but when I see what some have made of the inadequate evidence, and what evidence goes neglected, it makes me nearly physically ill. Well, no: it actually does.

shrub said:

"It's rather transparent...don't you think?"

Yes, I do.

tsoldrin said:

"let's think for a moment what would happen if the use of explosives to bring down the towers was proven and even acknowledged. I think we'd see some headlines the next day along the lines of...'9/11 Terrorists more insidious than first thought!'"

You're absolutely right. I've long thought that trying to expose the mechanics is a step removed from exposing the perpetrators. These are not "hands on" people. If explosives were laid there would be several layers of plausible denial. Exposure wouldn't be game over, it would mean another game. And their games can't be won. You just have to stop playing them.

3/11/2007 09:36:00 PM  
Blogger Dr. Bombay said...

"These are not hands on people"
Whats more hands on than Dick
Cheney sitting in a bunker
directing the entire military
to stand down while the country
is under attack?
"Do the orders still stand
Mr. Vice-President?"
"Have you heard anything to
the contrary?".

3/11/2007 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You just have to stop playing them.

Not only that....we must create our own game that is the antithesis of, and anathema to, their's. So powerful will this new game will render their's powerless and irrelevant.

I don't believe we humans can exist without evil and good....both are necessary components of our existence. And the balance between the two is in a constant state of one diminishes, the other surges...flowing in and out of each other for the entirety of our finite presence in creation.

3/11/2007 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Rasheed said...


Just because the nature of reality entails the existence of both good and evil, it certainly doesn't mean that we are somehow bound to choose a "balance" of both, if that's what you are suggesting.

We can consistently strive to do the good, even though we may more often than not fall woefully short in our attempts.

But the position you have so often articulated, and I use the term loosely, is that to do good is not fun. You'd rather be bad, thumb your nose and flip the bird at the goodie two-shoes whom you imagine you look down upon from down in your hole.

Well, you are quite simply wrong. Flat out, buster.

If you ever tried something on the good side to the contrary of your smug, two bit version of the wannabe badass, you might just be blown away by the force of the experience.

Although I doubt it is in you to try.

God knows better than I.

I pity you.

And Jeff.

And Cut.

Just not very much.

3/11/2007 10:20:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

To Shrub, Dr. Bombay, Tsoldrin,

Well, I guess if I'll talk to a Cuttlefish I'll talk to a Shrub. Hi Shrub. :-) You said, with my numbers in your quote:

"Mark, [1] I disagree with you about it not being a zero sum proposition. Most of the people I know who are into 911 Truth are obsessed. They remind me of the Right To Life Crusaders....and the majority of them are men. [2] Their primary motivation is revenge...and as IC mentioned, taking that stance will only hasten Martial Law...or land you in fact, [3] if I was a betting man, I would wager there are intelligence folks looking to goad 911 Truthers in that direction much as they goad disenfranchised, religious Arab men into becoming Jihadists. Do you really think "they" are so stupid as to let 911 Truth progress of its own accord without lifting a finger to control its trajectory?"

1. True, though as for the highly public intellectual group around it, as I sort of implied above with Jones's cold fusion, Griffin's past religious ecumenicalism, and other's who are media activists elsewhere long before 9-11, like Alex Jones, or MUJCA activists, or Ralph Schoenmann--it's simply been a continuation of their life concerns instead of something novel.

If 9-11 did wake up some you personally know as to what the hell has been going on with federal level state terrorism in the USA for over a decade now, well, better late than never. "And the majority of them (that you know) are men." I don't gonk what you're getting at. I think it has something to do with expectations of male violence? However, most of the really vocal 9-11 Families groups are female activists instead of males, females who learned their sons and husbands were killed whether in 9-11 events or in 9-11 falsely connected events like the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, like Sheehan).

Remember hell has no fury like a woman scorned. When most men get upset they just watch more TV or drink.

It was females--United States Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)--and who challenged the Electoral College vote fraud. It was a female--Cynthia McKinney who tabled a motion for impeachment before she was out of the House of Representatives.

No man stepped forward to do any of this important stuff. Men are the one's sitting around coffeeshops merely talking all the time, or having Hamlet-like debates with themselves over action and inaction animatedly, our friendly blogging here inclusive it seems. Or renaming French fries "Freedom Fries" and patting themselves on the back and calling it a day.

2. So? However, I'm not one to judge other's motivations or say that there are a limited set of proper motivations I approve of or disapprove of, or that hot emotions should be held in check particularly in reference to what was in effect intentional mass murder and state terrorism. A small criminal coterie of US military and high executive elites intentionally immolated and blew to smithereens several thousand people while standing down the loyal chomping-at-the-bit air defenses, merely for international warmongering and oil domination goals.

Then they went and killed hundreds of thousands more in the Middle East. And they want to keep going on and on. The huge majority of American troops polled want to come home from that.

America has already woken up (i.e., that "16% remainder asleep" I mentioned already), and if they're pissed and angry and revengeful at being lied to for two back to back "war crime wars" built on the major lie of 9-11 I am hardly going to "blame them" for that. They should be angry and upset. Everyone should stop waiting for someone's permission to feel something.

3. Yes, of course. That is why I dislike seeing any limitations placed artificially on researching 9-11 to fit a preconceived notion or organized around keeping something taboo.

However, your assumption that 9-11 research truth turns people into a domestic terror cells, that's a rather large slippery slope there. And I think people are only pushed down such a slope with government assistance, which is what you implied. Though we're really getting off into a hypothetical tangent I think. Though on the contrary, I think that researching false flag terrorism makes one a bit more immune to falling for it...

As you said, everyone is pondering how to play their own game now, instead of as a pawn of another. That has been perhaps been one long term social psychological effect of 9-11, the "secondary immune response" sort of thing, that such infiltrations are going on all the time to steer things down certain paths. That is why I suggest paths that are pretty pluralized, and why I get so upset with Jeff's concern with a one proper direction, which I think is misplaced.

Dr. Bombay, you're welcome. The only thing I wish that film had included as well was [1] the video from the helicopter of the FBI "walking the line" with about 30 people, picking up shrapnel of stuff on the Pentalawn to clean it up fast; [2] the quick covering of the Pentalawn with gravel and dirt to bury the rest if they left something, under about what looks like an additional one-to-two foot layer of soil quickly organized to be dumped on the area to literally "bury" the rest; [3] That "blue tarp" thing has come out to be an operations tent or something carried across the highway barrier--from the highway--instead of secretly being carried out of the Pentagon.

Tsoldrin said:

Masterful? What mastery?

"Taking into consideration all the masterful obfuscation and spin we've already seen by the government and the media regarding 9/11, let's think for a moment what would happen if the use of explosives to bring down the towers was proven and even acknowledged. I think we'd see some headlines the next day along the lines of...


..."9-11 Commission Completely Bogus , Says Government now. We Want a Refund!"

..."Whitewash 9-11 Commission officially a whitewash, says Government now, The remaining 16% who believe Bush and 'official story' thoroughly confused that official story no longer official." etc.

Touche? See? As Rove said, "it's all about the base." They are trapped by their grandstanding official unalterably "official" fabulist story already written up by Zelikow, friend of Dr. Rice, and would lose their 'base' to the vanishing point if they admit fibs on that. Admitting their wrongness, would only countersign they were lying. They aren't going to change their official nonsense story. They depend very much on keeping it constant and unquestioned, instead of endlessly adapted.

"Masterful," you say? It's been so shallow as to be embarrassing. NORAD didn't even have an official story. The most intelligent thing said by the guy in command as to what the hell he was doing that day actually contradicted what his organization (NORAD) had already said was what happened. So, they sort of mixed the one that he thought up on the fly, and morphed it into the previous one. Rumsfeld, before he was sent out, as Jeff notes, went occasionally "off message" about what officially happened with his multiple missile attack on the Pentagon quotes--because they know it's not true.

Bush can't even remember not to reveal that he was watching a close circuit TV of the first plane hitting the WTC1, that no one else saw live at all. (It was likely a live feed organized through NASA, actually, according to some NASA personnel who saw such a screen as well live, watching the WTC hit.)

They are all buffoons. Powerful people, though buffoons. 9-11 was really sloppy instead of "masterful." Half of the whole operation seems to have failed (Sears Tower hit; Capitol hit, perhaps other planes).

The only thing that held it together was the lack of people commenting about how silly the official story is, instead of how it hung together "masterfully" as you said.

No one's going to believe massive false flag terrorism of the USA ever again globally and I think that certain criminal elites are sweating over that more than anything.

And even given the difficulty of institutional justice against what are pretty much hereditary criminal class in charge of the USA, And 9-11 will come back to haunt these people for ages as a symbol where they stepped hubristically off a cliff of their own making, and with more "resistance is fertile" sort of actions everywhere.

For instance,

Firefighters' Union Shuns Giuliani

Submitted by simuvac on Fri, 03/09/2007 - 2:51am.

The Firefighters' Union is holding a bipartisan election forum on March 14, 2007. They have invited several presidential candidates, but not Rudy Giuliani. Here is an excerpt of a statement from the firefighters:

"His actions post 9/11 rise to such an offensive and personal attack on our brother and sisterhood — and directly on our union — that the IAFF does not feel Rudy Giuliani deserves an audience of IAFF leaders and members at our own Presidential Forum.

The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families and our New York City IAFF leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten.

In November 2001, our members were continuing the painful, but necessary, task of searching Ground Zero for the remains of our fallen brothers and the thousands of innocent citizens that were killed, because precious few of those who died in the terrorist attacks had been recovered at that point.

Prior to November 2001, 101 bodies or remains of fire fighters had been recovered. And those on the horrible pile at Ground Zero believed they had just found a spot in the rubble where they would find countless more that could be given proper burial.

Nevertheless, Giuliani, with the full support of his Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, decided on November 2, 2001, to sharply reduce the number of those who could search for remains at any one time. There had been as many as 300 fire fighters at a time involved in search and recovery, but Giuliani cut that number to no more than 25 who could be there at once.

In conjunction with the cut in fire fighters allowed to search, Giuliani also made a conscious decision to institute a "scoop-and-dump" operation to expedite the [cover up] clean-up of Ground Zero in lieu of the more time-consuming, but respectful, process of removing debris piece by piece in hope of uncovering more remains.

Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill.

Our Local presidents at the time attempted to meet with the Mayor to stop this despicable treatment of those who perished, but he refused to even see them face-to-face.

The scoop-and-dump continued. And when hundreds of family members of the fallen joined with our affiliate leadership and members to protest Giuliani's decision, he ordered senior officers of the New York Police Department to arrest 15 of our FDNY brothers, including a number of local elected IAFF leaders.

Giuliani modified his policy after the protest because public opinion was so strongly with our members. Ultimately, he was forced to put the fire fighters back on the pile. Our protests were later proven justified as more bodies were ultimately recovered and those families given a chance for some closure and a decent burial.

Giuliani argued that the change was for our own safety, but his argument was empty and without substance. Fire fighters had been on that pile since minutes after the twin towers fell — why all of a sudden, after nearly two months working on the pile, was Giuliani concerned about fire fighter safety?

In our view, he wasn't really concerned. The fact is that the Mayor's switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the final removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment."

3/11/2007 10:42:00 PM  
Blogger Rasheed said...

And a truly final PS to the shrub from one of the many manifestations of Mojo (we haunt your dreams, I'll venture):

You can rant about ham sandwich's and HBO all you want. They're yours to keep.

But please don't pretend to pontificate to me about sex, like you did once before. As if.

Here's a hint: I've been practicing tantra for over 35 years. How does sustaining coitus (a fucking technical term for you) for 16 out of 20 hours sound? But the man and the woman's skeletons have to match if you don't want to sustain some serious bruising.

And only God matches up people's skeletons to fit like a lock and key.

So go ahead, run from it. Run from the divine. It's your loss. Go try and hide behind the trollop Sabrina mask. It's a pathetic joke. A bad hand job in drag makeup (a metaphor for your satan).

If you want the merest sonic hint of what the presence of the truly divine yields in the act of love between a man and a woman surrendered in love to one another and to God, then I suggest you listen to the Staples Singers doing "I'll Take You There," as a metaphor of foreplay and sonic prelude to their song "Let's Do It Again."

Love that Mavis.

So, now proceed with your jokes, your catcalls, your bad boy, badass wannabe thug-satanist personae, followed by the inane tra la la, pretender of a good father and husband, and macho sexual athlete.

You don't fool me.

Knock yourself out.

Somebody should.

3/11/2007 10:54:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Brahma Vishnu Shiva said...

So it bothers you too that Jeff has no balls?


Put your name up on the board...

3/11/2007 11:26:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Here's something I've just posted at DU, after I heard my name came up. Hope it helps clarify my position.

You say, "He argues that people are wasting their time on the controlled demolition, while common sense shows that CD is the 'back and to the left' of 9/11." That's the problem. It is. Just look at what dwelling upon trajectories has done for bringing justice to JFK. And by focusing upon how the buildings fell, the "9/11 Truth Movement" has been making the same missteps assassination researchers made 40 years ago by devoting their energies to how Kennedy died.

Crimes are Who Done Its, not How Done Its. And "9/11 Truth" is stuck in a How loop that is getting further and further away from effectiveness and relevance.

Mark, you write "That is why I suggest paths that are pretty pluralized, and why I get so upset with Jeff's concern with a one proper direction, which I think is misplaced." I can see why you would say that, but it doesn't accurately reflect what I'm about. I wish there were pluralized paths. That would be wonderful. My great objection is that demolition has become a 9/11 loyalty oath. It is now the defining aspect of the Truth Movement, and I think that's a terrible mistake.

3/11/2007 11:52:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

I've only got a minute at this internet cafe' at the bus stop in Boise. I thought I'd just say 'bye on last time, when I caught the last dissembling non sequitur from the little Wells boy. I couldn't resist one final, fond, farewell.


Why don't you take your remaining half a nut and fade away?

You say that to focus on the "how... doesn't accurately reflect what I'm about."

But you've already proven by your deafening silence that you're not about why, or who, or justice, or even following the money either.

You are a complete and utter fraud.

You are about nothing.

Why don't you see if maybe you can develop even a rudimentary conscience?

Until then, like Denis Leary used to say in his 'new form of psychotherapy' bit:

"Shut the fuck up....


3/12/2007 12:28:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Well, that’s one full thread.

Mark, two items: First, thanks for the materials lists. I will check them out, as well as the synergetic relationships you see in the bioregional framework—it all sounds like very good stuff, including the Gaviotas project references. A very sincere thank you on all that.

If you remember a few threads back, when I was talking about the supposed mystery of those “missing formulas” from Ford’s carbohydrate-base plastic car, this has been maddeningly inexplicable, to me at least. The stuff they were making almost 80 years ago was stronger than steel, much lighter, more durable and eco-friendly to produce—even if we buy the complete bullshit excuse ("oh, no records were kept"), how is it possible that we wouldn’t have been able to not only reproduce those materials in the intervening 8 decades, but even make further advances?

There is no logic, no excuse big enough for this one—the only thing that makes sense is that the materials science industry is very tightly controlled and the same interests that shut down the carbohydrate economy during WWII are still determined to keep the lid on it. When you read the obituary for chemurgy in all the official organs, from the American Chemical Society to the general encyclopedias, they all repeat the same patronizing mantra: it was a silly fad that just ran out of steam; no need for that kind of thing now that we have a petro-chemical industry.

Lastly, your argument that 9/11 activism and alternate path R & D are not mutually exclusive is actually fairly convincing, except for one part that makes me nervous. Those who say that outing the building-crushing thugs is a prerequisite for changing the world are making the bridge between this world and the next mighty narrow. I believe that it was the biggest black ops spectacle ever, but I can’t prove it. I can, however, work on this other stuff. Tsoldrin also has a point here—if they pulled such a swindle the first time around (I don’t know what the statistics were, but I know that I felt awfully lonely when I finally got back to the States late in 2001 and expressed my opinion), who’s to say that they wouldn’t pull some even nastier shit if the Truther movement really started getting some momentum, beyond the 1/3rd who always felt the government was capable of such things anyway?

I’m not saying that quiet, tiny projects like mine couldn’t be shut down, sabotaged, or subverted (without anyone even hearing a thing), but I can’t imagine they’d nuke the Sears Tower or implement martial law just because my project “worked,” either. The way I look at it now is that if we could demonstrate that we don’t really need oil (or trickle-down economics based on the rigged casino/”free market” model), then pursuing military hegemony based on resource domination would become a moot point.

At some point there has to be a political solution as well—the money has to be taken out of politics, utterly, along with the repeal of corporate “personhood,” and the entire crazy monopoly structure, maybe especially in media ownership and direction (Mockingbird). Lots of things have to be torn down and/or repudiated: the national security state, banking as we know it (including the Federal Reserve), militarism, imperialism, cannibal capitalism in general, etc., etc., and we’ll probably have to go through some sort of truth & reconciliation work, which will of course require a disclosure process, but all these things are “from above,” if you see what I mean.

If you look at all this shit, this mountain of work that needs to be done before the world is freed along institutional lines, it seems a daunting & damned difficult task. If, on the other hand, you look at it from the perspective of my black friends, who have been alienated and disenfranchised by the system forever, it just makes more sense to work at the same objective from the other route, from the ground up, doing what you can, with your hands, to build a better world and then let the old diseased world see that it isn’t relevant anymore.

In the end, I suppose, all of the above will be needed. The old world can’t really be dismantled until another working model is on display, while the new proto-type can’t go online everywhere until the old one is disconnected. Both paths lead to the same goal, ultimately. Maybe it’s just my temperament that draws me to the building path—I’ve been making things my whole life, in woods, metals, CADCAM, even sound. I don’t mean to criticize the Truthers just for following that road, but I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to follow mine, either.

Which brings me to my last point: why, if we’re all working toward the same ends, is there all this hostility among us? I don’t even mean to get into all that paranoid they-must-be-fomenting-unrest-among-us stuff, because it isn’t even necessary. Sure, I can talk to you, and we can disagree without getting hostile or anything, but can the same be said about all, or even most of the voices here? I don’t believe the psy-ops boys have anything to do with it—I think it’s just such a common trait among most humans that we just can’t stand to be contradicted or even for a moment contemplate something from another’s perspective without lashing out. Defensively,’s all the same, if you ask me.


The zeolite as toxin containment just hit me. Thanks. (It takes a while for things to percolate through dense structures like my head sometimes.)

Old Thing,

Am I just being naïve and spiritually immature, or wouldn’t being able to overcome one’s dislike for someone else, yea, even unto loving one’s “enemies” be just a tad more godly than to boast of one’s tantric feats? As always, just curious.


I sure hope you're taking all these calls for you to shut up as positive endorsements. Really. Would so much invective be aimed at uninspired non-entities? Maybe it's not as comforting as the old stoner "Rock on, Dude!", but it's surely as genuine, whatever that word means in these times. So, rock on, Dude, rock on. (When you don't get anything back, then you can stop.) Thanks, even.

3/12/2007 02:01:00 AM  
Blogger project_falcon said...

To Mike:

who posted "A WTC Demolitions Timeline, 1976-2001", I give you a standing ovation and say, thank you for this excellent comment, one of the best on this 163 plus comment thread.

You raise serious points about how false flag terrorism has been in the planning stage since the days of Poppy Bush. with this latest heist of something like 2.3 trillion dollars from the military, 9/11 and Iraq operations, these criminal and fascist elements have more than enough money to start their own private intelligence and security and black op operations.

god knows what these privatized NSA/intell/security folks are doing to innocent US citizens who have the courage to question stuff like the stolen elections, 9/11, outsourcing of the military, and the slow motion process of the overthrow of the United States of America as a democracy and turn it into a police state run by Halliburton and companies, out of Dubai, no less.

To Waffle Waitress:

your comments on this thread are a big zero. in fact they are a negative 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.

I am sick and tired of your harassing comments to Jeff. You have nothing to do except interrupt and harass others like the proverbial schoolboy (or in this case retired spook with some kind of illgotten trustfund).

Just stop it.

to Jeff,

thanks for tackling really difficult subjects and all your work.

3/12/2007 03:15:00 AM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

For what this is worth, even I'm not sure what it's worth, but I worked with a gent tonight who was in the military during the 911 attacks. He was in military intelligence & he insists that everyone that he knew in intelligence had absolutely no idea where Bushco was getting their info on Iraq. Every time the Bushies would make a pronouncement the fellow & his friends in intel would have no idea what they were talking about.
The only reason he isn't either dead or still in Iraq is immediately after 911 his base was on complete lock down for a long period & he was forced to work long hours. He then had his discharge date altered from 2 months away to the year 2023. After a few months of this he began to shit & vomit blood. Upon examination by the base doctor it was "discovered" he had an intestinal disorder, the name of which escapes me at the moment, but in short, whenever he was under a lot of stress ulcers would form on his digestive tract & colon.

The doctor informed him of this & he said , "Well, no kidding, I've had it since I was 6 years old. It should be in my medical records."
So the doctor pulls his medical records & the recruiter who conned him into signing had blacked out that entire section of his medical records so he would be accepted. It turns out that this medical condition precludes you from military service.
He was eventually given an honorable discharge with full benefits & escaped a meat grinder that chewed up a lot of his friends.

As far as cd goes, proving controlled demolition is going to be nearly impossible. & truthfully, if I came to this late & only knew about the controlled demolition angle, I would have tuned this out long ago. None of it is all that compelling to me. No one has any idea what would happen when a fully fueled airplane of that size traveling at that speed hits a building.
You can say it's impossible till you're blue in the face but they used to think heavier than air flight was impossible & meteors were impossible, etc., etc.
For anyone to assume that they know the extent of what is possible just seems like monumental hubris to me.

But I am sure that there are volumes of testimony like my friends to be had, I just don't think anyone has the slightest interest in impeaching Bush.
I think Rumsfeld was the "juice" for the backroom deal that was most likely cut.
Give us Rumsfeld as a sacrifice , a bit of changeless change, & we'll do our best to keep
right on keeping on.

& they are.

I don't see any Democratic solutions to any of this. What I do see is attention being diverted to 2008.

Will it be Obama?

Will it be Hillary?

More "cult of personality" crapola designed to keep us perpetually looking toward some as yet unrealized future date when everything will be magically made better & all of our national boo-boos will be healed.

Politics as sporting event maybe.

Where winning the "trophy" is way more important than what you do with it while you have it.

In other words, same shit different millenium.

& to IC, while I do appreciate your kind words, quite frankly, I'm not particularly good.
But I am good at what I do.

It is the only thing, other than playing a pretty tasty slide guitar on occasion, that I've ever actually been good at.
I'm actually far from burnt & crispy.
The bureaucracy of it all ceased to interest me long ago.
It's why I grunt instead of manage grunts.
I focus solely on the clients when I'm there.
& while they're a crew of cranky & violent fucks they're also a lot of fun.
I've known most of them for a long time.

This may sound incredibly pathetic but having a guy like John, who can't remember to put shampoo on both hands when washing his hair, he always looks like one of those old dandruff shampoo commercials where half the head has suds & the other half is just wet, can consistently remember me & greet me with a big grin & a big hug means more to me than a lot of things in this effed up world.

as a matter of fact, there was one time in particular, when he saw me across a baseball field, charged across & grabbed me in a big laughing bearhug & then started slapping me on the back & grinning.

My supervisor asked me if i wanted to restrain him.

Imagine that, punish the guy for feeling something.

I said, "Ummmmmmm.....why would I want to do that?"

He looked at me like I had simultaneously belched & farted & then walked away.

Ideally, at least they're idea of ideally anyway, I would only interact with the clients in the context of completing goal plans & all aspects of daily care. I am supposed to be impersonal in my dealings with them otherwise.

I'm successful at what I do because I completely ignore that.

If that didn't work I'd have been shit-canned long ago. They are far from shy about firing people. In fact, I think they prefer a revolving employment door because the longer you stay the more likely you are to see through the charade.

The worst part of it all is that I work at one of the better institutions.

My buddy has a cousin in Virginia & the shit that has been done to that boy is fucking barbaric. Granted, he is extremely violent& extremely strong. As an example he is self abusive & punches himself in the face. A women tried to block one of his head shots & he broke her arm.
But abuse is abuse.

Geez, I've had a grand total of 5 hours sleep since Friday morning & I'm rambling on & on, aren't I?


3/12/2007 03:34:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

IC..I have to respond to your tirade on corporate personhood. Here, let me say this about that..



We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.

Organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha convention to be held July 4, 1892, our men must attend and direct its movement or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When, through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principle men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete actions, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.

Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress sometime between 1907 and 1917.


Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully accomplished.

3/12/2007 06:18:00 AM  
Blogger Kosan said...

Don't follow leaders. Watch your parking meters.

3/12/2007 09:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one's going to believe massive false flag terrorism of the USA ever again globally and I think that certain criminal elites are sweating over that more than anything.

I disagree with you on this....and for the very reasons Tsoldrin stated. People are easily fooled....that's just the nature of the Beast of which we are part.

Don't full yourself into thinking the next false flag will will be quite so obvious. I'm sure "their" psychological science will be put to good measure....and The Masses will once again be blind-sided, awestruck and further desensitized (if that's possible).

One positive outcome of the next false flag on American soil will be that it will put an end to the obssession with 911 and replace it with fresh meat from a newly fallen carcass. Alex Jones and Company will be feasting for years once again.

3/12/2007 10:33:00 AM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Feast on this:

I realize that people may be tired of this subject at this point. But I feel obligated to put up this link to a web site I recently came across, which seems to have not only the most complete set of technical images and data, including NOAA satellite LIDAR imagery, which I haven’t seen anywhere else, not just thermographies, and also extensive data from EPA tritium tests done on sewer water in lower Manhattan post-9/11, as well as on rescue vehicles, with photos of dozens of intact fire engines and ambulances that were DISCARDED because of their nuclear contamination, neither of which I have seen anywhere else. But discount all of the above if you will, and consider only the following, which to me is like the film that Bill Hicks used to say was shown to all incoming presidents, you know, the “other” JFK assassination film that was taken from the grassy knoll, only in this case it is 9/11 footage that you have never seen before.

Personally, I found it very hard to wrap my mind around this film without drawing some difficult conclusions. But that’s just me.

Scroll down this page to see PHOTOS and VIDEO of the late stages of the twin towers collapse from near ground level, from different perspectives than at least I have ever seen anywhere else, nor even heard discussed. It’s kind of like that “other” Zapruder film that Bill Hicks used to say was shown to all incoming presidents, you know, the film that was taken from the grassy knoll.


After looking at all the data, and most of all these photos and film, it is pretty hard to imagine how the take down of the towers occurred without, not just thermate, but a couple of mini-nukes as well. Now, I am not a “true believer” of this theory or any other theory, and personally, I could give a hoot if anyone accepts it or not. I’m not here to debate anything. I am just passing this link along as a solitary kindness.


3/12/2007 10:47:00 AM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Here is a page that discusses at length the 50 year history of the development and use by the U.S. military, and the British military, of tactical mini and micro nukes for the express purpose of building demolition.

Included on the page are links to de-classified U.S. DOE docs discussing the fact of these nukes developed expressly for demolition purposes.

So there it is. Like I said, make up your own mind.

3/12/2007 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger Silverfox said...

"If you don't know where you're going any road will take you there..." - George Harrison

The Truth of 9/11 is quite simply that nearly 3,000 souls were deliberately sacrificed for the express purpose of "enlightening" both us and an unsuspecting world to a "new reality".

Not simply a material blast but clearly a "psychic one" designed and delivered to unbalance, or unhinge and shift our normal perspective and sensibilities to make that new reality both suddenly appear and to appear to be real for us.

At this point we are grappling with what is the more illusory. Our present circumstances or those we lived in beforehand? Were we deluding ourselves then, or are we deluding ourselves now?

Now there is a unmistakable quality of "unreality" to our present circumstances. We know things just don't add up like they once did but we aren't entirely certain if it is ourselves who simply can't add any more or the nature of the propositions and explanations being offered to us.

We are riddled with doubts and uncertain about what to do about them.

Despite whatever sense of doubt and disbelief that may surround even this estimation, there is more than sufficient evidence to bear it out and it is vital for us to understand that this new perspective is solely that of those who were responsible for creating 9/11 and using that event to inflict it upon us.

It is that distorted and alien perspective in our minds that is vying with our more normal and natural one; weakening and undermining our sense of "conscience", indeed making us feel weak and powerless because of that conscience itself and in the process raising doubts and questions about all the ideals and values we normally associate and hold without any question or doubt precisely because they are "matters of conscience".

Now we are in far less peril from those particular individuals than by what they genuinely represent or the pernicious and all pervasive concepts they actually believe in.

It should be plain that those responsible are quite indifferent to any ordinary understanding of truth or falsity, right or wrong, or most particularly life and death.

They are also indifferent to our preoccupation with those "matters of conscience" because that too only works to their advantage, for they not only have none of their own they have worked quite diligently to divest themselves of any shred of it.

We need to be very carefull about about putting "human" faces and names to these "creatures" or seeing them in anything like those kind of terms. They most emphatically are not.

They are motivated only by whatever is the most expedient and effective means to both attain power and use that power to utterly dominate and control those they consider to be their "inferiors".

Their concept of "power" is the only thing they believe in and their will to use it however they see fit. It is a "power", in their minds, that only imposes responsibilities and consequences on those who have none and they are in the process of trying to sort the wolves from the sheep.

I suggest you give this matter some careful thought since all the evidence of history has shown that this kind of mentality has only been recognised well after it has turned the world upside down and we are listing quite badly at the moment.

3/12/2007 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Thanks, "Smile" for the informative links on WTC radiation, and thanks "Project Falcon" for your comment.

Different topic. Way different.

IC said:

"If you remember a few threads back, when I was talking about the supposed mystery of those “missing formulas” from Ford’s carbohydrate-base plastic car, this has been maddeningly inexplicable, to me at least. The stuff they were making almost 80 years ago was stronger than steel, much lighter, more durable and eco-friendly to produce—even if we buy the complete bullshit excuse ("oh, no records were kept"), how is it possible that we wouldn’t have been able to not only reproduce those materials in the intervening 8 decades, but even make further advances?"

Sorry, I'm glad you brought that up. I'm surprised I didn't relate this to you before because it occurred to me.

Ford probably rediscovered or adapted "Leonardo's polymerization" or was using some form of Bakelite/parkesine that worked.

So there were already several well known examples of organic non-petroleum plastics that Ford could have gained experience with, or more romantically he could have stumbled upon mixed materials like Leonardo did.

Ol Leo seems to have beat them all out. Di Vinci famous 'back-written' (right to left cursive mirror image) manuscripts recently analyzed found a recipe. It was tested. They found out he created some sort of artificial "chemurgy" plastic back in the 1400s by repeated layerings, perhaps they say drawn from his observations of linseed oil preservation coatings on his paintings.

Pass that by your chemist friend: tell him to get the "Leonardo's recipe".

Da Vinci invented plastics too
Rossella Lorenzi
Discovery News

Thursday, 5 February 2004

Leonardo da Vinci not only anticipated the aeroplane, the life jacket, the intercom and the robot, he created the first natural plastic, according to an Italian scholar.

Professor Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale in the Tuscan town of Vinci where the artist was born, found Leonardo's recipe for artificial materials in several pages of drawings and notes.

Vezzosi studied notes in the da Vinci's Arundel Codex (housed in the British Library in London), Forster Codex (in London at the Victoria and Albert Museum), the Atlantic Codex (kept in the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan, Italy) and in manuscripts in France.

By reading da Vinci's characteristic "mirror image" handwriting, which runs from right to left, Vezzosi learned of Leonardo's plastic mixture.

"He combined colours with animal or vegetable glues, sometimes adding organic fibres," Vezzosi said.

The Renaissance master obtained effects similar to plastic and unbreakable glass by "clothing with colours" the leaves of cabbage, lettuce, paper and ox tripe.

The materials he coated ranged from "the back of the stomach of a heifer or a ox", "the leaves of wrinkle lettuce", "papers and little canes used as goose pens" and a "large Milanese wrinkled leaf of cabbage, which should be collected in December or January".

Vezzosi followed Leonardo's instructions and applied colours mixed with vegetable or animal glues. He then painted the materials described by Leonardo with many layers. As the first material dried, he removed it and obtained a material similar to bakelite, a plastic from the early 1900s.

[Bakelite is a brand named material based on the thermosetting phenol formaldehyde resin, polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride developed in 1907–1909 by Dr. Leo Baekeland. Formed by the reaction under heat and pressure of phenol and formaldehyde, generally with a wood flour filler, it was the first plastic made from synthetic components. It was used for its electrically nonconductive and heat-resistant properties in radio and telephone casings and electrical insulators, and was also used in such diverse products as kitchenware, jewellery, pipe stems, and childrens toys. In 1993 Bakelite was designated a ACS National Historical Chemical Landmark in recognition of its significance as the world's first synthetic plastic.[1].......Parkesine is the trademark for the first man-made plastic. It was invented by Alexander Parkes in 1862. In 1866 Parkes formed the Parkesine Company to mass produce the material. The company, however, failed due to poor product quality as Parkes tried to reduce costs. Parkesine's successor was xylonite, produced by Daniel Spill (an associate of Parkes). Parkesine was made from cellulose treated with nitric acid and a solvent. The generic name of Parkesine is pyroxlin, or celluloid . Parkesine is often synthetic ivory. The Parkesine company ceased trading in 1868. Examples of Parkesine are held by the Plastics Historical Society of London.]

"You have to be patient and wait until each layer of colour dries completely. We used pigments similar to those applied by Leonardo. They ranged from traditional oil paint to any kind of organic materials," Vezzosi said.

The successful reproduction of Leonardo's natural polychrome plastic proved that the Florentine genius created the first man-made plastic long before Alexander Parkes invented parkesine (an organic material derived from cellulose) in 1862 and Leo Hendrik Baekeland's bakelite in 1909.

"Leonardo created a material somewhere between natural and chemical plastic. Indeed, he had already synthesised a chemical very similar to acetone. But in his experiments he always used non-toxic, organic substances," Vezzosi said.

Leonardo's polychrome mixtures were so similar to phenolic resin that they could be used to create knife handles, salt cellars, containers and necklaces. His monochrome mixtures could be used to create cups or vases that "once thrown on the floor don't break".

[Remember those pictures of Ford kicking his plastic car? No dents?]

Professor Alessandro Bagno, from the University of Padova's department of organic chemistry, said it was interesting that da Vinci used layers to create unbreakable objects.

"In the case of oil painting, for example, linseed oil is the binding agent. This oil polymerises slowly on contact with the air, forming a resistant, waterproof polymer similar to linoleum.

"This shows once again Leonardo's great innovative input, although obviously it doesn't add anything to our knowledge nowadays."

So while De Vinci was hiding Gnostic Christian heretic "Johnnite" and Jesus/Mary marriage symbolism in his paintings (like in his Last Supper), he was inventing plastics as well.

On the topic of plastics, one of my favorite little antiques is a 1930s bakelite dark blue clock. Looks great and keeps excellent time--though is perhaps so electro-toxic I keep it isolated. This little old clock of all things leaks extra low frequency (ELF) electricity more than anything else I have, according to a meter I have. It generates a four or five foot sphere from 2 gauss on the outside to more than 50 gauss or more right next to it!

And keeping high weirdness in mind, you supposedly could 'monitor ghosts' according to some selling points for these meters. I thought that might be worth a mention on RI: so a good RF/ELF meter has a double good usage. :-) I haven't found any ghosts. Though I did find my favorite clock was perhaps electro-poisoning me.

3/12/2007 12:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So there it is. Like I said, make up your own mind.

Okay....let's roll (pun intended) with this thought. Suppose I make up my mind from the material you and Mark have presented that it was CD and No Plane at The Pentagon. What then?

It's the most important question in this debate. Regardless of the how...ultimately you must arrive at What To Do About It.

So, Smile, Mark and Mojo....what do we do with this? All of us would like to know what you propose is the next step...or the ultimate strategy in regards to all this painstaking research and endless debating over the minutai?

3/12/2007 01:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Formed by the reaction under heat and pressure of phenol and formaldehyde

Ummm...formaldehyde? Last time I checked, it was considered a hazardous carcinogen..despite its widespread use (see FEMA Trailers).

3/12/2007 04:30:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Hey Shrub... Let me take a poke at that rhetorical bullshit. What would you do?

Dumb silence.. I expected as much.

The answer my friend.. is fight division and join the battle. Once you have your i's opened, you then must act. I posted this answer for you many times. Be a neighbour. Let's put it another way. TPTB love to create friction using media or mercenaries. You, my friend must create LOVE. This is not a political statement. This is the path.

3/12/2007 04:38:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Hey Mark,

Great post! That da Vinci link is most inspiring, and, at the same time, illuminating. At the very end of the article you linked, we find this:

"This shows once again Leonardo's great innovative input, although obviously it doesn't add anything to our knowledge nowadays."

How is it that stronger, better plastics that do not use petro-chemicals or contribute to the rape of the planet do not "add anything to our knowledge nowadays"?! Been there, done that--we prefer things the way they are, or...? Amazing. At the Ford Museum they tell us these factoids about the plastic (some say hemp) car:

Lowell E. Overly, claims it was “…soybean fiber in a phenolic resin with formaldehyde used in the impregnation”

And, under Who helped make/design it? we "learn":

Henry Ford first put E.T. (Bob) Gregorie of the Styling Department in charge, but was not satisfied. He then transferred the project to the Soybean Laboratory in Greenfield Village and to the care of Lowell E. Overly, whose formal training was in tool and die design. His supervisor, Robert A. Boyer, a chemist, aided him.

And, under Where is the car today?

According to Overly, the car was destroyed by E.T. Gregorie.

So, the car was destroyed by the first guy who worked on it, this E.T. Gregorie person (from the Styling Department(?), who was removed from the project because Ford was "unhappy" with his work, and why...? The Ford people give this bit of fluff in the Why weren't more 'soybean' cars built? section:

The outbreak of World War II suspended all auto production, and therefore the plastic car experiment. A second unit was in production at the time the war broke out, but the project was abandoned. By the end of the war the idea of a plastic car had fallen through the cracks due to energy being directed towards war recovery efforts.

Rubbish, of course, but interestingly misleading rubbish all the same. What a weird, half-baked story! I suspect that this part of it, the supposed origin of the formula--that it was developed by Lowell E. Overly, whose formal training was in tool and die design (although he was apparently "assisted" by his boss, an actual chemist named Robert A. Boyer), was concocted to satisfy the old Nazi's deep antipathy to black folks (George Washington Carver's work paved the way for the Bakelite plastics, in addition to many other (mostly ignored) applications.

Even stranger is the rationale offered for why it was discontinued. They're trying to tell us that at the same time that the government, no less, is encouraging hemp farmers to contribute to the war effort (Hemp for Victory!), and severe metals rationing is occurring (scrap drives, etc.) they would have discontinued the production of a material in many ways superior to steel? At the same time that on the "other side" German chemists were developing thousands of carbohydrate-based replacements for critical war materials (including, coincidentally, hemp celluloid products?

This story is clearly as layered with with bullshit as da Vinci's fibers were with linseed oil. The only way it makes sense is when viewed through that account I keep linking from Dave West and the one into which Jeff occasionally dips, R. William Davis' Elkhorn Manifesto: SHADOW OF THE SWASTIKA, which is the foundation of most of our postwar conspiracy theories and a ripping good yarn, to boot.

The very strangest thing about all of this stuff is that those who are now talking about "green chemistry" (or greenwashing, as the more cynically inclined describe it) can't seem to find out any more than I know, sitting at a computer screen with no chemistry degree, about where this stuff came from and where it went. Forget the conspiracy connotations for a moment, as delicious as they are with Nazis, corporations, the Bush clan, the Wars On Us (yeah, "Drugs" and "Terror;" it's still US) and all things evil under the sun--this is supposed to be science, the impartial discovery of the workings of nature and the unbiased accumulation of knowledge!!

The truly staggering and unavoidable conclusion with which we're left is that science & industry are so tightly and completely controlled that the scientists themselves honestly believe they operate in an open system, some sort of democracy of ideas, when, in fact, it's just the opposite. And of course, should you attempt to point this out, no matter how careful your documentation (and it is copious), you're the crack-pot and they're the ethical men of science!

How can scientists have no curiosity?

When they look back at us 500 years from now, will they view us with the same patronizing historicism with which we tend to look at "primitive" cultures, or will they find even nastier explanations for our stupidity & culpability?


Apparently, from what little I understand, the formaldehyde used in these sorts of processes doesn't "leak out" into its surroundings (in addition to which, we don't really need the formaldehyde anyway, as seen in the da Vinci plastic.)


Right you are, Lad. It's one thing, however, to love a bunch of knuckleheads with whom you exchange ideas in some anonymous, ethereal format (which we don't manage to do very often), or more importantly, to love your actual neighbors (regardless of their ideation), but does that mandate also include those Nazi bastards we love to hate?

3/12/2007 05:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dumb silence.. I expected as much.

Hardly, Eric. I'm surprised you missed it...I'm doing what I would do...trying to pull people out of the 911 Quagmire so they become mobile and lucid again. If that's not LOVE...then I'm not sure what LOVE is besides another word of convenience.

Let's ask another question, Eric, if that's alright with you. Why are so many offended over Jeff's most recnet statements in regards to 911 Truth...or Untruth? Why is it so important that Jeff agree with them on this issue? Why is this issue any more important than the host of other issues currently confronting us, or that have occurred in the past? As IC mentioned, 911 is just another in a long line...and it won't be the why not figure a way to not only not play their game, but create a new game that renders their's irrelevant?

And finally, Eric, why have you been so pissy lately? You jumped IC's bones the other day...and now you're taking aim on me. It seems out of character for you. If that's the way you want to be, that's your prerogative...I will handle the new Eric as he currently expresses himself, but I am curious as to the change.

3/12/2007 05:46:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

"The person who takes the banal and ordinary and illuminates it in a new way can terrify. We do not want our ideas changed. We feel threatened by such demands. "I already know the important things!" we say. Then Changer comes and throws our old ideas away." - The Zensufi Master (Frank Herbert)

Truthers, I don't want to argue with you guys anymore (not here anyway). While pointing out weaknesses in theories may help to make for a stronger case, it equally serves to give amunition to the bad guy debunkers.

Beyond that, if you're going to crucify Jeff for being agnostic on CD, I think for hypocricy's sake, you should nail up Alex Jones along side, for being agnostic on the pentagon strike.

Anyhow, all this should at the very least be moved somewhere else... the forum perhaps.

Mark, the masterfulness of the 9/11 propaganda is in the outcome. None of the real criminals have been arrested, indicted or even investigated. It worked. I don't think they were going for the pulitzer, just results.

The offshoot topic... I need more coffee (or beer) to address this! ;)
For now, I'll just say I'm not a fan of unarmed rebellion. I think armed rebellion will be thrust upon us at one point... or an alternative of just curling up to die. Our greatest weapon in that is words. How is that armed? When they convert the soldiers of the other side. More on this later...

Plastics and sustainable energy. While this doesn't fit exactly, the two have come together in some stuff I was reading recently. Look into PLASTIC MAGNETS - they have an interesting property in that they gain or lose strength when exposed to different light spectrums. Make the leap? Magnets in motion produce electricity. Light actually requires fairly little energy to produce, and none to simply harness from the sun. It's easily split into spectrums (prisms). I was too busy being a cool kid in school to absorb much science, but isn't this a free or nearly free energy device in the making? If anyone makes billions off this idea, please kick me back a few million so I can escape to wilderness bliss.

3/12/2007 07:19:00 PM  
Blogger spooked said...


Stop being such a baby about the physical evidence. Take the time to look into it. You've been posting on 9/11 for a while now, and you should put up or shut up. The evidence for demolition is overwhelming, and much more convincing than the stuff you write about UFOs.

3/12/2007 08:17:00 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

If one took the same degree of skepticism that Jeff has about demolition and the pentagon, and looked into Jeff's "Coincidence Theorists' Guide to 9/11", you really would not have much left at all.

In fact, the phyiscal evidence is MUCH MORE conclusive than the circumstantial evidence.

3/12/2007 08:32:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

And here's another related tidbit that I never absorbed enough science in school to really understand: the cyrstallization process is not purely chemical. Apparently, light affects the process in some rather mysterious ways. (In my defense, I'll have to plead significant ignorance, having dropped out of school at 16, which admission mat not cover all my short-comings but they don't make big enough band-aids for that sort of thing.)

There's some sort of connection between this phenomenon and energy conversion as well, as hinted at in the following 35 year-old study (which still isn't free [to read] apparently):

RAPID REVERSIBLE LIGHT-INDUCED CRYSTALLIZATION OF AMORPHOUS SEMICONDUCTORS, by J. Feinleib, J. deNeufville, S. C. Moss, and S. R. Ovshinsky (Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.),Troy, Michigan 48084

(Received 11 November 1970)

Rapid crystallization and equally rapid revitrification of amorphous chalcogenide films exposed to short laser pulses has been observed. A model is developed in which both the speed of crystallization and the reversibility are attributed to the large enhancement of crystallization rate under the influence of the photon flux. ©1971 The American Institute of Physics

As all truly interesting things do, this notion also connects with many others, as in this book that Amazon is selling: Baron Karl Von Reichenbach's 1849 edition of Researches on Magnetism, Electricity, Heat, Light, Crystallization and Chemical Attraction in Relation to the Vital Force. This was just before Darwin & Maxwell (or Maxwell's "editor," the sinister Mr. Heaviside) killed Vitalism & Aether Theory, both of which are now making a comeback of sorts.


Save me some research here--what is the connection betweeen light, crystallization, & energy conversion? I gather there's an official story and an emerging picture that are at odds. The latter is something that Jaap Bax was talking about in his view of morphogenesis in the mineral world (The Crystallization Process and the Implicate Order) and which that other guy I've been mentioning, Hjalmar Hegge, the zany Norwegian biologist/philosopher/geneticist approaches in his somewhat more accessible Transcending Darwinism in the Spirit of Goethe's Science: A Philosophical Perspective on the Works of Adolf Portmann.

Fascinating stuff, especially in the relationships between all these seemingly disparate fields & ideas.

Btw, one and all, I finally got my hands on Black's Internal Combustion and let me spare no hyperbole: it is monumental! If this one doesn't rip the lid on all the suppressed science and the whole stupid, wasteful way of life that characterizes the past century, then nothing will. It is just enormous. In this one massively researched book we have both the proofs of the conspiracy and the way to recover the squelched, hidden & systematically squashed other words, the way forward.

Really. Storm your libraries or bookshops if you can afford them--this book will arm you to your eyeteeth and reaffirm all that's good in us and our poor, ravaged world.


I think ericswan was just pissed at me because I seemed to brush him off when he wrote to me, which I really didn't intend to do, but I don't blame him for thinking that. We're okay; he's still talking to me and entertaining my ignorant questions.

You, on the other hand, are displaying a most laudable restraint & sense of higher purpose. I am most impressed--even old what's his multiple personality didn't even get your goat. Well done, Shrub, well done.

As I post this comment, I can't help but notice the opening line from this one:

Spooked said...

Stop being such a baby about the physical evidence...

Now there's some ideation! Spooked, is anyone who doesn't wrap their loving arms around a theory that you like "a baby," or are there mitigating circumstances for those of us who just aren't smart, or hip, or I dunno...good-looking enough to get it?

3/12/2007 08:40:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

IC...I not going to claim to know the physics of the universe but if you will allow a short speculation it is the same answer I gave Shrub. To look at the physics of light, scalar, nuclear, magnetic or electical including gravity, time and inertia, there is only one unifying and universal theory that works for me. It is LOVE. If it is manifest, it is love. I suppose you would prefer an equation.


Quoting Ark Jadczyk

"Dimensions are interwoven layers of scalar waves that serve to direct the flow of consciousness/energy into multiple patterns of refraction through which the hologram of matter density, linear time and manifest objectification of reality can be experienced. Dimensions exist in precise relationship to each other creating a 90-degree difference in Angular Rotation of Particle Spin between dimensional bands. Scalar Waves are points of Standing Waves, composed of quantities of consciousness, that emanate out of fixed points of vibration which form ultra-micro-particle units called Partiki, Partika and Particum. Scalar Waves exist within a fixed Scalar Field that forms the Universal Unified Field of consciousness/energy. Fixed scalar waves appear to move due to a perpetual action of internal fission and fusion, through which series of scalar standing wave points 'flash on and off' creating perpetual rhythms of motion called 'flash-line sequences' through which continual manifestation and de-manifestation of matter occurs."

3/12/2007 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Shrub..I think discussing anything 911 makes me "pissy". The problem is that the more we learn about it, the harder it is to put up with it. I pointed to a website that goes so far as to say that the perpetrators of 911 actually made money off the deaths of the first responders. Cold.

3/12/2007 10:17:00 PM  
Blogger Los Alamos 9/11 Truth said...

"Physical" evidence ?
Aren't the videos "physical" enough ?

Probably only "physically" real enough to be understood by anyone with eyes that still see and a functioning brain.

The buildings were OBVIOUSLY blown to Kingdom come.

The only question is: How ?

Looks a bit too unconventional to me, to even pass as ordinary thermite.
Probably some cutting-edge weaponry used on 9/11 ..... face it and deal with it..

Get your head out of your ass.
Just look.... LOOK !!!!

3/12/2007 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Spooked said...


Stop being such a baby about the physical evidence..."

Remind me again of the "physical" part of your belief that there were no planes at the WTC?

Just kidding - please don't.

3/12/2007 11:39:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Explosive. Edwin Black [author of Internal Combustion] has produced an explosive, eye-opening exposé of the corporate forces that have for more than a century sabotaged the creation of alternative energies and vehicles in order to keep us dependent on oil. There is enough truth in this book to revolutionize our way of life.
Max Wallace, author
American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich

View the intense 3 minute trailer--play loud

Part 1: Edwin Black Launches Internal Combustion At NSU

Part 2: Edwin Black Launches Internal Combustion At NSU

Thanks to the guy who filmed this and posted it.

3/12/2007 11:41:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Breidenbach said...


I certainly agree that CD should not become part of any "loyalty oath" for 9/11 Truth, especially as critical voices not disposed to consideration of the "physical evidence" have shunned the issue (this includes Nafeez Ahmed). A multi-pronged assault on the citadels of secrecy hardly disadvantages those in search of the truth, with each of us operating from our own biases as well as talents and strengths. The problem is recriminations between the physical evidence school and that represented by Hopsicker, Hicks and Ahmed, when we should be working together in a spirit of mutual respect, however boisterous and dynamic our intramural exchanges.

It strikes me that we’re dealing here largely with a clash of differing temperaments—perhaps (very) roughly analogous to the empiricists and rationalists—that have clashed historically and which, in the face of what we all sense was pulled on 9/11, are in the awkward position of learning to respect and cooperate with one another. We might do do well to remember that in the history of philosophy each of those schools has had it’s day, and this to the detriment of the other and to the cause of truth as best mere mortals may discern it. A sense of balance seems in order, and this seems what you would be reminding some of the angrier participants in this discussion of. There’s certainly more to be said on this, but for now, considering the stakes, it’s better to watch each others’ backs than to carve at them.

Also, I’m not sure what the molten metal, probably steel, means. The suggestions put forward by Jones and Jeff King, etc., seem reasonable: that is, that another source of energy other than jet fuel and gravity would be necessary to produce such an effect. Also, I haven’t seen any explanation for the phenomenon from official quarters, only, much belatedly, denial of its ever existing. It seems reasonable to think we should know what melted that metal. That it's a real issue deserving of real debate, and not one to be swept under the rug, for the reasons I and others enumerate above. “What you don’t know can’t hurt them.” It also appears to strike a raw nerve with NIST, which, forensically speaking, is telling.

Also, in my long post above I indicate that molten metal was found throughout the WTC rubble pile. That’s misleading (sorry), as it was found beneath Towers One, Two and Seven. (Silly me.)

sandymac: point well taken. In the essay from which I drew the passage to which you object I do note the doubts, which I regard as significant, concerning whether people ever went to the moon. And I’ve seen that "mocumentary." A real head-trip. Thanks for linking to it here, as it seems to demonstrate what’s been mentioned throughout these posts: at least someone’s having fun.

3/12/2007 11:50:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Tom Breidenbach said:

"Also, in my long post above I indicate that molten metal was found throughout the WTC rubble pile. That’s misleading (sorry), as it was found beneath Towers One, Two and Seven. (Silly me.)"

Point of fact, LIDAR does shows molten steel under WTC6 as well. WTC6 molten steel is only airbrushed out in "government reports" of LIDAR pictures, while existing in all other LIDAR pictures, according to that Ward article. And as I said they kept the "investigators" out of WTC6 area.

Additionally there is the difficulty of WTC6 being the only collapse without a debris pile.

The Persistent Hot spots:

Another LIDAR map shows the central portion depth of WTC 6 in the range of -35 to -55 feet.


WTC 1 - 110 stories tall - debris pile [merely] 6 stories [tall] with a 30 feet crater [lower] surrounding it.

WTC 2 - 110 stories tall - debris pile [merely] 6 stories high with a 30 feet crater surrounding it.

WTC 3 (Marriott) - 22 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories.

WTC 4 - 9 stories tall - debris pile 3 stories (the only building that is even close to its correct debris height).

WTC 6 - 8 stories tall - debris pile MINUS 3 stories.

WTC 7 - 47 stories tall - debris pile 7 stories.

The New York times has a crude interactive map placing the crater depth [of WTC6] at -30 feet. According to the official story, beams from WTC 1 collapsed the building. However, the collapse did not make a debris pile [like all other buildings did]. [WTC6's collapse]...made a debris hole.


Thermal images from September 16, 2001 show hot spots in the WTC 6 crater which persisted until at least September 18, 2001 as referenced by the composite illustration (below).

Somehow, this WTC 6 hotspot did not show up on some [governmental publication] sites [linked here] despite being taken on September 16, 2001 [!! Explain that one for us.]

More than one month later, October 18, 2001, there are still hot spots [only] at WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. Is WTC 6 cool or merely being reported as such [falsely] again?

3/13/2007 12:24:00 AM  
Blogger tazmic said...

It must be extremely probable that without the State our 'societies' would degrade quickly into gang warfare - the major preventative measure now being that governments have the monopoly on violence. The reason any anarchist program(?) would fail today, is because the majority of people are not anarchist, in neither thought nor deed. Consequently, any Anarchist vision has to be a psycho-spiritual one - in so far as that makes sense.

As much as I would like to know the truth behind 911, the important questions for me, are not those such as - What happened, How it happened, and, Who did it?

The important matter is that people are able to commit such atrocities.

That a professor can receive death threats for going against the established Global Warming paradigm.

That truth-seeking bloggers can stir up such vitriol and be so divisive.

Surely without some understanding of these behaviours the complete exposure of the 911 truth would be nothing more than a mighty big band-aid?

3/13/2007 12:33:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Breidenbach said...


Thanks for the valuable clarification!


On the subject of what the molten metal beneath the WTC might mean, I thought I’d add this elaboration on some points made in my long post above. The clip to which I refer can be seen on 9/11 Blogger. On it, John Gross, one of the lead engineers on the NIST Report, himself seems to suggest pretty clearly what the molten metal would mean for the official story:

NIST appears to understand that the presence of molten metal (most probably steel) is the Achilles heal of the official “collapse” narrative. Which is why John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report on the Towers’ “collapse”, appears at a University of Texas at Austin presentation to simply deny that molten metal ever existed under the rubble pile at Ground Zero. Claiming to a questioner who states that he’s curious about the molten metal found at the WTC, Gross counters with pointed sarcasm, “I am too. Please tell me about it. Have you seen it?” Speaking over the questioner’s responses, Gross continues, “I know of absolutely no way, of no eyewitnesses who’ve said so, nobody’s who’s produced it.” (Rather an odd challenge to skeptics at this point.) “I was on the site, I was on the steel yard, so I don’t know that that’s so.” (Notice his denial is never overt, as if he’s avoiding self-incrimination.) Then, appearing to admit that the presence of molten steel would create a seemingly fatal problem for the official NIST account of the Towers’ destruction, Gross states, “Steel melts at around 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit so I think it’s probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperatures in a fire.”

In visually recorded testimony at Ground Zero that is clearly damning to the implied denial of molten metal at Ground Zero by one of the NIST Report’s lead engineers, a fire official, referred to as “chief” by another firefighter, states on camera, clearly referring to the molten metal underneath the WTC rubble, “This is how it’s been since day one. Oh, it’s unbelievable. And this is six weeks later, almost six weeks later. And as we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter. It’s probably 1500 degrees. We’ve had some small windows into what we thought was the core at some point, and it looked like an oven, you know, it was just roaring inside. It’s just a bright, bright reddish-orange color.” In another shot this same official, referring to the operator of a piece of heavy machinery being used (as the montage shows) to pull glowing chunks of the molten metal from the pit, instructs another fireman, “See that stuff he’s pulling out?” “What was that Chief?” asks the firefighter, having trouble hearing his boss. “We’re gonna hold off on the water. See that stuff he’s pulling out?” reiterates the official. “Yeah?” “It’s red hot. If we hit it, too much steam. He won’t be able to see what he’s doing.”

Here the fire official (whose name may be known to some researchers?) clearly implies that the molten metal is steel, since he and other firefighters believed it was the core of one of the Towers they were looking into. In the clip on 9/11 Blogger we see two other firefighters (names anyone?), one referring to “molten steel running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry…” “Like a volcano,” the other interjects, to which the first adds, glancing at the camera, “like lava.”

3/13/2007 02:32:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

And from the mainstream newswire, this quote:

"I am a 'If they break the law, arrest them' person," Bush said. "I think we ought to find these people and bring them to justice. And it's tough because the richer they become, the more lethal they become, and the more dangerous they are to democracies. And that's why there needs to be a collaborative effort."

The Leader speaking, not of the elites which have pushed the earth and her many tribes to the brink of extinction through a ruthless, wasteful, poisonous energy monopoly and the supporting war economy of the petro-political empire (his base), but of the narco-traffickers (his other base).

And the concluding paragraph of the mainstream article?

Before returning by helicopter to Guatemala City, the Bushes also took in Mayan ruins in the village of Iximche…Mayan priests decided to purify the sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after Bush's visit, according to Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan non-governmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders.

Do they recognize irony in the Oval Orifice?


This thing is explosive, an expose far more extensive & damning than The Pentagon Papers, the Paperclip Admissions or any other bits of incriminating paperwork ever to have surfaced in the past. And, it’s not conjecture, speculation, or even the Holy Intuition—it’s meticulously, massively documented. If the New Energy Movement has been able to submit energy policy drafts to congress (Energy Innovation Act of 2007 [draft]), then Black’s indictment surely warrants full-blown Senate hearings and townhall meetings in every hamlet & broken shard of this alleged democracy.

Unless they just ignore it, of course.


Very trippy stuff, and while it resonates with me, I wonder if a more hands-on, "doable" version might be existent. It brings me back, yet again, to the crazy idea of growing crystal ships (or what-have-you). There’s something just at our fingertips here in the techniques of directed crystallization. Here’s a thought: If light affects crystallization (accelerating it or slowing it down), then why not sound? When the fat lady sings, it’s supposed to break the crystal glass, right? What if the Harmonics of Love were applied? Pythagoras and Dan Winter can't both be wrong, can they? And what about Tesla's famously forgotten demolition-by-tuned-vibration demonstration?

Maybe that's how they brought those buildings down!

So, logically enough, if things can be made to disintegrate through vibration, they should also be made to coalesce and/or grow through a different, maybe "opposite" the golden vibe.

3/13/2007 03:53:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

IC ..Tesla's earlier work at Colorado Springs did cause a few problems and blew out the electrical grid in that town at the same time. What he was doing??? according to a few of his associates that have been quoted in Tesla's complete and totally redacted FBI files part 1 and 2, was forcing the collision of ELF with SW. This created the ball lightning which jumped off the examination table and rolled around on the floor. He then used the earth's crust to "point" these experiments into the ground and to cause these waves to build up when they returned or bounced back and hit them with more energy thus bouncing the waves once more and with more energy. He did this until he blew things up or caused earthquakes. Then he left town.

This ties in with Ford and Edison in that these Colorado experiments took place in 1899-1901 or there abouts.Given the climate that Black talks about, Tesla in fact, developed a car in the 30's?? that had an antenna on it that collected ZPE from the ether. There are tons of links to Tesla's car and all of these know the story better than I do.

Fast tracking to WW2 and we find Tesla plugging away in his downtown highrise apartment. He's poor. He's discredited. But he is still Nikola Tesla. This part gets weird but then again, it makes perfect sense if you could see read it in the 23 century.

Early in January 1943, Tesla calls DOD and tells them he has a weapon that will destroy any incoming aircraft with a beam and that if one of these beam weapons is installed every 250 miles along the coast of America, it will destroy any incoming bombs, aircraft or what have you. The call is taken by an OSS telephone operator by the name of George H.W. Bush. An appointment to look at the beam weapon is set for January 7, 1943. On January 6 Tesla is murdered and the weapon disappears along with numerous other inventions including anti-grav etc. Gehlen and Skorzeny are fingered as the hitmen.

Bush leaves OSS and joins the Navy.

Tesla's research papers are disappeared for a while and then released to a near relative from Serbia. There are trunks of documents that leave the U.S. for Serbia The docs are all copied but no one in the FBI sees a threat in any of Tesla's work so it is released.

If you were wondering why it is George H.W. Bush would turn secret weapons tech over to the Nazis you would have to ask Prescott.

3/13/2007 07:05:00 AM  
Blogger plectic said...

This is the mathematical formula for Septembergate.


3/13/2007 09:13:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

tasmic said;

"As much as I would like to know the truth behind 911, the important questions for me, are not those such as - What happened, How it happened, and, Who did it?

The important matter is that people are able to commit such atrocities."

'Bad' seems able to masquerade as being 'good'.

Therefor our esthetical judgements seem flawed. I think that as Tom Breidenbach has implied, current aesthetics often pits rationalists against empiricists.

O to find an aesthetic that will satisfy the predisposition’s of both.

tasmic, my writing, not much changed by IXXI, reflects an attitude similar to yours.
I would like it if you were to read and/or comment over at my blogspot.

IC, Baron Von Reichenbach was of a rare breed indeed. A rich man that found the life of the mind more attractive than his opulent surroundings.

Silverfox, thanks for the reminder of the role that attempts at undermining of conscience may play.

3/13/2007 10:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Were we deluding ourselves then, or are we deluding ourselves now?

I would say both, Silverfox. We were delusional then....and we are delusional now. We delude ourselves to avoid facing the insane reality of the system we are part of and complicit in, but in doing so we perpetuate, in sanely, the very system that propagates the insanity. It's called Feeding the Beast That Starves Us...and we all do it very well...everyday.

La La Poop Allah

3/13/2007 11:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you havem't noticed, they (911 Zealots, for lack of a better term)have managed to drag you into the mosh pit of 911 Details Debate. Consequently, you have been remiss to put up a new post. Ahhh...the pure genious of these Bastards (those who created the Rabbit Hole). Maybe I should join least they understand what I'm trying to convey...if for no other reason than they crafted it.

Folks, 911 is dead. The only purpose arguing the details will serve, at this point, are their purposes. We don't have it in us to do anything about it. There is no political solution to will be just more of the same. If it makes you feel better to harp on about it until the day you take your last breath, then more power to you, but don't claim it doesn 't serve the same purpose as religion.

3/13/2007 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

I called Jeff a big baby because he keeps complaining about the "physical evidence" issue without ever seeming to do any serious research into it.

As I said, the circumstantial evidence, such as is in Jeff's "Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11" can be ripped apart very easily by any skeptic.

In my view, the physical evidence is far more compelling than the circumstantial evidence-- and is in fatc meaningful in terms of understanding WHO DID 9/11-- kind of an important fact.

Who here really believes an actual mechanical plane made primarily of aluminum slices into a concrete and steel tower like a hot knife into butter?

Further, there is the fact that most of the 2nd hit videos don't show a real Boeing 767-200.

Just a silly detail I suppose.

Who here really believes this just shows a "collapse":

Another silly detail, I guess-- knowing that they blew up the WTC and knowing how they did it.

3/13/2007 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Here's the last image again, since the link was cut off.

3/13/2007 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Shrub..Jeff's purpose here may have been as a foil. I think that's one of his better moves. His blogs usually go way beyond whatever anyone of us can discover but in this case, he drew out more information and better arguments than any "one" of us could have done. In short, we have an archive from which new information and possibly less dogmatic cohesion in the blogging community has been achieved.

I tend to agree that nothing can be accomplished by these blogfuscations but we aren't all at the same level of inquiry and experience. By fleshing these issues out, a concensus of the unconsious is achieved. There are more readers than writers, more followers than leaders etc. and that is benefit of prolly the longest number of posts on one subject I've seen on Jeff's RI. I'm hoping that a few of you will "save" these comments for some future reference. You may not get it now, but things and people evolve.

That last pic posted by Spooked is the first time I have seen it. Thanx. Nothing to fear here.

3/13/2007 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger Silverfox said...

Well Sounder...

What role might anyone play to have everything and anything they desire?

With no limitations or restrictions beyond an imagination that is itself unfettered by any other concerns than to dream them up and weave them into an endlessly variable and unspeakably sumptuous feasting of the senses in every and any concievable way?

And were I myself an example of such an extraordinary existence dangling before your very eyes the bright and shiny key that will unlock it all for you as well, what will or won't you you give me in exchange for it?

Now I am a man of obvious wealth, and perhaps more to the point, unquestionable power, that can be clearly seen to answer to no other who is offering this to and can readily show you how I can make small unreachable fantasy you presently harbor come true by way of a small demonstration. That you have only to name...hmmm?

Now you may look for my horns and tail but as you can see I am just a man like any other but unlike most of them I do exactly what I please whenever it pleases me.

Those you see all about me are those that I find most pleasing and are no less pleased themselves simply to be with me as you yourself may shortly find.

Now before you ask, I will simply tell you that I'm already pleased by what I see in you. Certain possibilities, shall we say, that if properly explored can also increase and add greatly to my own just as I am now willing to add mine to yours.

Do I need to continue...

3/13/2007 02:54:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home