Is 'Unthinkable' -2010 the most offensive hollywood movie ever made?
Well, It gets my vote.
WARNING -the following contains spoilers!
Michael Sheen (done great work impersonating young Tony Blair before " Hi I'm Tony")
is an ex CIA newly converted Islamic Terrorist with 3 nuclear bombs due to go off in 6 days in 3 different US Cities, gets tortured by Samuel L Jackson ( The world's best torturer), and despite , all his fingernails ripped off, being regularly waterboarded, electrocuted, and Marathon manned (Amateur dentistry)he still wont give up the location of the bombs.
In fact he is so "hard " he gave himself up deliberately to be tortured to prove his moral high ground.
Anyway FBI woman who is the 'conscience of the nation', an eternal force for good -clearly, raises objections against the torture Porn etc until last minute with no other leverage over the terrorist ( after Sam L slit wife's throat in front of said terrorist still to no avail) agrees to do the ' unthinkable' and let the kids be tortured too in front of Dad. Well, dad promptly spills the beans about the 3 nukes thanks to all the good work, but Sam L still not satisfied wants to go on and torture the kids anyway because he believes there might be another 4th nuke- not mentioned before.
Saintly FBI woman finally pulls the plug on the Kids Torture drawing a 'moral line' but is promptly proved to be wrong as the 4th Nuke goes off.
Will pre emptive 'Apocalypse' be normalised next ?
WTF America !!!!!? How low can you go ?
The "It " In Lihop
Dennis,
sorry to cross post,but to be quite honest I was a bit annoyed at you on that Lihop Engame thread.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3107
You asked a valid question about why Lihop was such a problem, but then after people took the time to explain what the problem was, you just seemed to brush off the replies with semantics about what "It" was.
Well with respect to you , this is what "It" is to me !
really?. . .
. . .thought i answered each post addressed to me fully. no brush-off or semantic dismissal was intended. we had gotten to the definition of the "it" in lihop (to some, = oct or equivalent), and that was key to my understanding. in reply to your post in that thread, i wrote as pasted under my signature, below. if there's an issue or post in that thread that you'd like me to expand on, you can post a reply there. i should see that you've done so in the "recent comments" column on the left (correct?), and will take another look.
--d
thanks for your take. . .
Submitted by Dennis on Wed, 2011-02-23 16:32.
. . .much appreciated. i do think that we have a different perspective on what lihop actually is.
from my perspective, i don’t see lihop as necessarily mutually exclusive with CD. specifically, tho i don’t think lihop is what happened, lihop could include an awareness that CD would be involved, no?
re: “All the cover up and infiltration stratagies are aimed at one purpose- to put people off 911 truth, and demotivate them to be concerned or to seek justice for it.”
i don’t see that lihop demotivates people from seeking justice. i speak from experience when i say it did not demotivate me. quite the opposite. then when i got into the research and it became, “whoa! it’s even worse than i thought [read mihop].”
re: “The second reason that Lihop matters is the empirical observation that the people promoting Lihop are the same people who are trying to neutralise the movement, by promoting endless disagreement over CIT, by casting aspersions about the conclusiveness of CD without ever debating it, by now attacking leaders like DRG. When you realise (as you appear to have) that these people have been running the so called most influential 911 news site,(Blogger) then you begin to see that their entire ouput is designed to put people off , demotivate them cause them to give up, or divide into factions, and censor/ cast aspersions on anyone whose approach to 911truth is more effective.”
imo, it is not the sunsteins’ focus on lihop that matters most. it is more that they are trying (as you say) “to neutralize the movement, by promoting endless disagreement, by casting aspersions about the conclusiveness of CD without ever debating it, by now attacking leaders like DRG.” if they were doing all this and NOT stressing lihop, would that make what they were doing ok? of course not. if they were doing all this and insisting that “there is no God,” would that make it wrong per se to be an atheist? i submit not. which is why i see the lihop issue as not determinative of a person’s status as a “Truther.” it may be a tipoff as to where a person is coming from, especially if they’ve been around a while, but then again it might not. so we’d need to look further, in my view. thus, bottom line, i would allow for the possibility that not all lihoppers are disinfo.
Dennis, I would like to
Dennis, I would like to continue this discussion, but it would make sense for me to understand first what your position is. I find these statements that you made on the Lihop thread to be contradictory.
“from my perspective, i don’t see lihop as necessarily mutually exclusive with CD. specifically, tho i don’t think lihop is what happened, lihop could include an awareness that CD would be involved, no?”
“i would agree also that “If there is controlled demolition, they didn't let it happen they made it happen. If they picked the area of the Pentagon to strike they didn't let it happen they made it happen.” but what i don’t agree with is the automatic dismissal of someone as a Truther if they don’t go that far in their thinking. maybe they’re still stuck on “american exceptionalism” and blinded to the facts no matter how persuasive the evidence.”
“maybe then, it’s a matter of definition. i was defining lihop as “[insert all likely suspects] knew what was going to happen (including CD), and let it happen, so they could advance their perpetual wars, trash the constitution, etc. etc. to me, their participation in lihop makes them nothing short of traitors and mass murderers who need to be brought to justice.”
“in our discussion on your site, you referred to the "LIHOP push" at 911blogger. actually i'd lable it more an "OCT push," and/or a "destroy DRG and the real Truth movement" push, which to me is exponentially worse. but again, it's a definitional thing--specifically, how to define the "It" in LIHOP. i think that's the key to our differences here.”
---------------------------
So my first question to you is how is CD not mutually exclusive with Lihop?
If someone prepped the buildings for CD (and presumably that wasn’t the alleged hijackers or is that your suggestion?) then how can you take the position that the US government just let muslim Hijackers carry out their plot on 911(LIHOP) and did not make it happen (MIHOP)?
Secondly what are your possible definitions of IT in LIHOP/MIHOP which change the difference between Let happen and Made Happen?
Thirdly It is was clear from the thread title “Loose Nuke (Erik Larson) and Rest of True Faction Clique Launch LIHOP Endgame”, and, if you have any appreciation of the context here in which this discussion took place, then it would be absurd to suggest anyone was attacking newbies to 911 truth for being Lihop.
See this blogger thread where the Lihop argument raged there with many of the players involved taking part. It might also help you to understand the concept of Lihop and what it generally means in discussions here. I was permanently censored from blogger following my comments .
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-11-05/chomsky-confronted-911-admits-liho...
Lastly, and overwhelmingly most important to me, is the implied complicity of Muslim terrorists in 911 promoted by LIHOP (By definition)
Myself and Willyloman tried to explain this to you, but the point seemed not to have registered with you at all in your replies.
You said “Does anyone KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt (besides the actual perps)? And even if you do “know,” you haven’t proven it in a legal forum and the perps are still running free. So where does that leave us?”
Well, where that leaves us is in a situation whereby without any proof in legal form,
Muslim terrorists are guilty until proven innocent, Daily on Fox news and the BBC and all number of programs and commentaries we hear about the ‘Terrorist attacks’ on 911.Detainees are held indefinitely without any evidence of guilt Torture is normalised (Moussaoui waterboarded 3 times a day for a month!)
Based on this cultural predisposition, propaganda and subsequent prejudice of Muslims ALONE, we have authorised two wars and several million Muslim deaths.
I was watching USA in the football world cup last year in a bar, they had a player with a turban on, and a 10 year old shouted out with no shame “ Look he’s a terrorist!”.
We know that something is wrong with the official account of 911 right? Therefore all information from official sources regarding 911 must be called into question.
Do you agree that there is a well used phrase ‘Fog of War’?
If you concede this point alone, then you also concede that certain people can justify everything we have done since 911 on the grounds that Muslim terrorists attacked us.
You said
“Because in my book, if some 9/11 perps are proven to have LIHOP, that’s still treason and mass murder as “accessories before the fact,” and should carry the same punishment as if the perps were MIHOP.
That may well be true in your book, however laws and Law enforcement are not the same thing. If there is LIHOP , through fog of war logic and cultural predjudice, nothing is ever going to happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Followers in the anti-war movement do not realize that by accepting the [government’s] 9/11 explanation they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. [Anti-war activists] do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.” - Paul Craig
Roberts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis – this has turned into a bit of a loose rant because I am trying to get this replied to before going out soon, I am still so pissed about ‘Unthinkable’ so please don’t take it as a personal attack or unfriendly.
BTW I really appreciate the ‘building what’ campaign and think it is one of the best actions anyone in the movement has orchestrated to date.
i am a bit rushed but. . .
. . . think i have replied to your key points. if anything is unclear, pls advise and i will revisit.
re: “I find these statements that you made on the Lihop thread to be contradictory.”
i was coming from the (undereducated) position that the “it” in lihop could have been the actual “it” that occurred (whatever that happens to be, obviously controlled demolition by someone). but if the “it” is the oct/arabs with boxcutters etc., then i agreed (as i think i posted to willyloman) that lihop is poison per se.
re: “So my first question to you is how is CD not mutually exclusive with Lihop?”
if the “it” is the oct, then cd IS mutually exclusive with lihop.
re: “If someone prepped the buildings for CD (and presumably that wasn’t the alleged hijackers or is that your suggestion?) then how can you take the position that the US government just let muslim Hijackers carry out their plot on 911(LIHOP) and did not make it happen (MIHOP)?”
again it gets back to the definition of what the “it” is...this is not mere semantics. my understanding was that the “it” could have been the actual “it” but it seems the consensus is that “it” = oct. thus my reasoning at this (quoted) juncture was based on a different (alternate? wrong?) definition of lihop. for the record, i do NOT “take the position that the US government just let muslim Hijackers carry out their plot on 911(LIHOP).” if muslims were involved (and i don’t know that they were), they were patsies.
re: “Secondly what are your possible definitions of IT in LIHOP/MIHOP which change the difference between Let happen and Made Happen?”
i have to come over to lihop = the oct with knowledge by government. this is apparently the accepted definition. i think the key here is that newcomers (like i was/am) often see lihop as credible and will support an investigation into that. i was at that point once, then investigated and became convinced of mihop. the point i was trying to make was that, ESPECIALLY FOR NEWBIES OR THE UNDEREDUCATED, if lihop is where you are it, it does not necessarily make you a fake 9/11 truther. and i will go out on a limb here and say if the choice is between a valid investigation into lihop or no investigation at all, i would go with the investigation into lihop, because i feel that if anyone of conscience participates in an investigation into lihop with an open mind, they will undoubtedly come to see mihop, and we might actually get to the bottom of this.
i will check out that blogger link you sent.
re: “Lastly, and overwhelmingly most important to me, is the implied complicity of Muslim terrorists in 911 promoted by LIHOP (By definition) Myself and Willyloman tried to explain this to you, but the point seemed not to have registered with you at all in your replies.”
well...i thought it did register and thought i expressed that, along with my appreciation of yours and willy’s takes. but if you didn’t read it that way, i’ll take the hit for not having expressed things clearly. it did take me a while to get to understand yours, willy’s, gretavo’s reaction to lihop, which required me to get up to speed on the definition. “slow on the uptake, at times,” you might say. i hope the above clarifies, but if not, let me know.
re: “Do you agree that there is a well used phrase ‘Fog of War’?”
yes.
re: “If you concede this point alone, then you also concede that certain people can justify everything we have done since 911 on the grounds that Muslim terrorists attacked us.” “justify?” NO. “attempt to justify” would be more accurate. (again, this is not semantics.) there is NO JUSTIFICATION for using 9/11 fto demonize muslims. it’s all a monstrous scam, in my view.
glad you like the ‘building what?’ campaign. david ray griffin suggested it, and he got the idea for the title as a result of my eliciting that “building what?” response from judge lehner in open court. see point “ 2. Widespread Ignorance about WTC 7” here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25569.htm
I didnt know DRG gave the
I didnt know DRG gave the idea for the building what campaign. If he did, this could be another reason the lihop brigade want to demonize him lately, among others.
One thing i find usual among lihop crew is to try to focus away from the buildings and controlled demolition (CD). I surmise that they want to do this because investigating the buildings and CD focus the discussion on how could the buildings possibly have been wired for demolition, in which case attention naturally falls on Silvertein being the owner. I mean three of his buildings were demolished on 9-11. It is impossible for building security and management not to know. They must have known and were in on it. Link all this with Jon Gold's and friends' reluctance to point fingers at Silverstein then a pattern emerges. Why create a lihop campaign? To keep the blame on the patsies, and if an investigation ever comes about, to give the perps a way out. It is for this reason that Kevin Ryan is I think an out and out shill by introducing the theory that Saudi agents blew up WTC. Why would such a preposterous theory be put forward? Because pretending that Al Quaeda which is allegedly based in Afghanistan certainly does not have the building demolition experience to bring down the towers the way they did. WTC 7 in particular was almost textbook perfect if there were a textbook in the CD industry. Saudi agents could, in theory at least be well funded sorts rather than the ragtag impression that we get of Al Quaeda. But this Saudi angle was introduced late and is just a diversion again just to point the public once again at Arab culprits and away from the building owner and his likely accomplices.
you see, this is the problem Dennis...
"i think the key here is that newcomers (like i was/am) often see lihop as credible and will support an investigation into that... if the choice is between a valid investigation into lihop or no investigation at all, i would go with the investigation into lihop..."
No. That's not how it works.
The previous "investigation" found out that yes indeed, a financial institution placed most of the put option bets on American and United, but because they didn't have any connection to Al Qaeda, it must have just been "luck".
The investigators don't have an open mind. They won't stumble onto the truth, they had their shot. In fact, there have been several shots. all with the same outcome.
I'm also not willing to dumb-down the history of the unofficial investigation like so many LIHOPers just happen to want to see happen. We know what we know at this point and catering to some new members who "feel better" not looking at the established facts is not the most honest direction we can move in.
Because ultimately what it comes down to is this... like AA is trying to tell you, people, Muslim people, are dying and being held accountable for something they did not do. Hatred is spreading rapidly... hatred and fear.
If they were to put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and all the rest into prison for the rest of their lives for "foreknowledge", what difference does that really make if we are still engaging in a war on an entire people for the same lie we have been exposing for years and years?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
i hear you, willy, but...
. . . the question becomes, how do we proceed? what is the goal? and how do we achieve that goal? you say, "We know what we know at this point." ageed, we do. but is that enough? or do we want more?
specifically, and realisitically speaking, can there be, will there ever be, any kind of truthful "mainstream" investigation into 9/11, ever? if yes, by whom? if there is a possibility, how do we bring that about?
i'm involved in buildingwhat? as you know. if we can persuade the nyc council to investigate the very basic question of "how did bldg 7 come down?" is that not worth something? is it not a start? might it not gain us some traction? i don't pretend to have the answer, but i proceed in the hope, and a hunch, that this will help the cause. at a minimum, more people are being enlightened, and that should also help.
how else to proceed? recording what most probably is truth here and on your excellent truthsite and elsewhere, is invaluable, to be sure. i'd be lost without such contributions. but this still begs the question, is that enough? or do you/we want more? if yes, what do we want, and how do we go about achieving that? congress is irretrievalby corrupt, so where do we go?
in short, what can we DO about it? the previous "investigation" was a sham, no doubt. so how can we get a real investigation started, if that's what we want? if that's not what we want, what do we want?
Of course that is worth something...
You are investigating a controlled demolition not whether or not someone might have known something about Muslims flying planes into buildings. Apparently, from what you said, Building What? is about getting a real investigation into the collapse of Building 7, correct? Well, that is a hard scientific investigation. Not circumstantial, not hearsay... it's science.
Here's an idea... get the Building What? people to test Ground Zero dust for traces of high explosive residue. Once you find that, and it is there, then you get a new investigation, by law.
Of course you get traction from that, it's hard physical evidence, the kind of stuff that the OCT/LIHOP crowd at Blogger want us to stop talking about.
But here is the trick... pay attention... run the tests yourselves... pay for them, send them out, hire CSI type technicians, do the tests in order to get the new investigations otherwise, if you just apply political pressure, that is what you will get, a political "investigation" the kind we have seen before. Get the evidence, real evidence, not thermite/thermate/superthermite/nanothermite bullshit, real evidence, and go public. That will force a new CRIMINAL investigation, and if it doesn't send it to a country who lost a citizen on 9/11 and get them to do it. theres an idea.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
thanks, yes, BuildingWhat? is about. . .
. . .getting a real investigation into the collapse of Building 7.
re: "Here's an idea... get the Building What? people to test Ground Zero dust for traces of high explosive residue. Once you find that, and it is there, then you get a new investigation, by law."
as far as i know, no one associated with buildingwhat? has dust samples. further, i don't see that testing for high explosive residue by whoever has dust now would necessarily trigger "a new investigation, by law," as you say. there would be a serious chain-of-custody problem with any "unofficial" dust samples, given how the evidence was made to disappear. assuming you can verify that any extant dust is wtc 9/11 dust, is there a way to verify that the dust is building 7 dust? not sure, just raising the issue. i doubt it.
as i see it, given the government's admitted freefall of the top of building 7, a rebuttable presumption--that some type of explosives must have been used to destroy building 7--should be established by the investigating body (assuming we can get an investigation into the destruction of building 7). once that presumption is made, the burden would shift to whoever would come out of the woodwork to argue no CD, and the chain-of-custody and testing of disappeared evidence issues would become their problem.
actually, you are wrong... sorry
If there is an official investigation into the collapse or otherwise destruction of a building concludes said building came down via fire or gravitational collapse (structural failure, poor design, ect.) and later debris is tested to find explosive residue, if deaths occurred or insurance was paid out, then by law there must be a new criminal investigation. That is the law.
Odd that you would start talking about chain of custody questions.
The point is to gather as much evidence as we can in order to find out what really happened to Building 7 and the rest of the WTC complex.
Why don't we think about taking the matter to the Building What? people and worry about clean chain of custody samples after making progress rather than dismissing the idea before even trying? That would make more sense wouldn't it?
I remember someone else poo-pooing the idea before it even had a chance some years ago. His name was Gregg Roberts. He promotes "nanothermite" and the OCT on all other matters. Don't know him, do you?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
can you cite which law you mean?
I think it would help everyone understand your point better. I have to agree with Dennis though--chain of custody is huge in this case. that's one of the reasons I don't put much stock in the nanothermite findings--I have no idea where those samples actually came from or have been since 9/11. The tests will only make sense if the following conditions are all satisified:
1) there exist uncontaminated samples whose chain of custody can be reliably established
2) the tesing is done in a context that will lead to evidence acceptable in a court, which means...
3) the testing will have to be done once the falsity of the OCT is already strongly enough established in the public mind and in that of those whose honesty we will depend on to get accurate, genuine tests done.
In other words, chemical analyses (as opposed to physical analyses) are not going to help us much at this point.
what?
The curious thing about science is that it doesn't really matter what the "public mind" thinks.
If you are suggesting that obviously needed tests for explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust can't be done til we "prove" to the public that something is wrong with the official conspiracy theory, then I have certainly over estimated the purpose of this site. Don't forget that I have been accused of many things here, by many people that you yourself have now banned and for saying things that you yourself now seem to agree with. But I have also been accused outright of things... by you for saying those very same things. Now, you seem to say that testing for this evidence will only be relevant IF the general population is already convinced of malfeasance in the OCT?
Evidence is evidence. Hard scientific fact is the point of any investigation, before during and after the public is made aware of it.
"In other words, chemical analyses (as opposed to physical analyses) are not going to help us much at this point."
are you kidding? the reason that the chemical analysis of "nanothermite" did us no good is because it was bullshit, and you damn well know it. Statements like this are scarily familiar to Gregg Roberts' claim that "knowing the exact method of demolition is of no good to us". If this is the kind of logic that WTCdemolition has stood for all these years, I was clearly mistaken to recommend this place to others.
"3) the testing will have to be done once the falsity of the OCT is already strongly enough established in the public mind and in that of those whose honesty we will depend on to get accurate, genuine tests done."
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
how could you...
...possibly trust any analysis of a dust sample at this point? The only way I can see it being done in a trustworthy manner is for so many people, including those in the government who have custody of dust samples, along with enough other private citizens who may have some, to be *genuinely interested* in learning the truth about that dust, and able to compare enough samples to be able to rule out spiking. For the time being I don't see that happening. What I do see happening is people doing analyses that for their potential for being sabotaged could easily be traps. if this is different from what I've said in the past it just reflects the fact that my understanding of the fake truth movement and its methods has evolved.
and you know what Willy? Your attempts at "shaming" me or this site by claiming to be disappointed in us or whatever are pretty silly.
The RJ Lee Group sample would be clean
and I am sure that you could find others. Yes, the possibility exists that altered samples (see comment below please) could be submitted.
But remember, to do so and be caught doing so, would put people at risk of being charged with numerous crimes, not the least of which is accessory after the fact. That's probably why no one has done it as of yet.
I'm not suggesting running some half-assed tests ourselves. The process would be to get the cleanest, most reputable samples possible, have RJ Lee Group test them to make sure they are from Ground Zero, test them to make sure they are from the correct time frame, test them to make sure they have not been "cleaned' of nitrates and other high explosive markers, then test them in a location and send them to undisclosed independent forensic testing facilities to either support or contradict earlier results.
As far as my "sillyness" is concerned... I had a little to drink last night. Silly me.
But I still have to disagree with your contention that developing this kind of hard scientific evidence would do us no good till we get the majority of the people on our side. Fact is, we are probably already at that point for one thing, and the other is, again, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks when it comes to hard evidence.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
hey silly willy. . .
. . . re: "As far as my 'sillyness' is concerned... I had a little to drink last night. Silly me."
is that why you implied that i was a sunsteinshit? or do you really think that of me?
Uh, that comment was about 12 hours later...
I typically don't drink for 12 hour long binges... not typically anyway.
I don't remember calling you "sunsteinshit", for the record. I also noticed you didn't say whether or not you know Gregg Roberts. Is that what you mean by "sunsteinshit"?
I just get annoyed when people start right into "you can't get good samples" right off the bat. That's obviously not true... there are still clean samples out there, it just takes work to find them, and as I mentioned in other comments, one has to handle them and their owners in a way that keeps them viable as court record.
But perhaps you and I are looking for something different. If the Building What? campaign is about getting another congressional investigation that is good but I would rather see a criminal one. In order to get that, we need new evidence... not just more public opinion in our favor.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
actually, i answered "no" to the question whether. . .
. . . i knew roberts, as per this:
"re: 'I remember someone else poo-pooing the idea before it even had a chance some years ago. His name was Gregg Roberts. He promotes 'nanothermite' and the OCT on all other matters. Don't know him, do you?”
no, but i take it he is someone you (a) disrespect, (b) hold in contempt, (c) see as a sunstein stooge and/or (d) would probably not date..."
in short, no, i don't know gregg roberts, or what he is about either.
re: "I just get annoyed when people start right into 'you can't get good samples' right off the bat."
well actually, i never said that. what i said was: "further, i don't see that testing for high explosive residue by whoever has dust now would necessarily trigger 'a new investigation, by law,' [what law?] as you say. there would be a serious chain-of-custody problem with any 'unofficial' dust samples, given how the evidence was made to disappear. assuming you can verify that any extant dust is wtc 9/11 dust, is there a way to verify that the dust is building 7 dust? not sure, just raising the issue. i doubt it."
re: "But perhaps you and I are looking for something different. If the Building What? campaign is about getting another congressional investigation that is good but I would rather see a criminal one. In order to get that, we need new evidence... "
buildingwhat? is about trying to expand public awareness and getting the nyc council to look into the destruction of building7. also the manhattan d.a., tho there is little hope seen there--he never answered our letters.
you and i disagree on the need for new evidence. i think the old evidence is pretty damn strong, esp re bldg 7, and good enough to open an investigation. yes, i would love to have evidence of cd explosives, and if we can get that great. but i don't see the presence of that evidence as determinative, and i do see difficulties in gathering trustworthy samples, as discussed in this thread. however, i am not up on the RJ Lee Group study/connection you mention, so will acknowledge for now at least that maybe you have something there.
As far as the fake truth movement is concerned, you are right
Not only would they do their best to undermine the validity of the process prior to it's completion, but it is my opinion that they would almost certainly try to get someone inside the process who could destroy it from within.
There are steps that could be taken of course. Keep the number of people to a minimum, screen the background of everyone involved including full background IRS checks so forth, and of course, make sure that no one submits their samples to us directly. Rather, once the initial testing facility is set-up, sample owners come in, hand their samples directly to technicians, and all tests are run right there and then, video taped or broadcast live on the web so that no fake truthers can lie about results. We will not disclose names of those submitting samples and will keep records and contact info on an off-line computer.
that's as far as I have gotten in the planning stages for dealing with the Fake Truther infiltration prevention process. Any other suggestions?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
different evidence for different goals
the evidence we need to disprove the official story is already public, and that is the impossible physics of the OCT. more information such as on the type of explosives used is less important for proving a crime was committed - more important for identifying the specific culprit. I've always seen our best role as truthers to be disproving the official story, not establishing ourselves what actually happened. If the perps think that the public is getting close to discovering the falsity of the OCT and demanding a real investigation they may try to preempt that with some "evidence" pointing to a culprit other than them.
speaking of fake "Truthers", Dimitri Khalezov has come back...
... to my article I wrote about him and his "no planes/underground nukes" bullshit. Looks like his PR guy was trying to polish up his image on my blog and as soon as I called him out on that, along comes Dimitri, by chance of course, to spread more of his BS.
Apparently now he wants to torture people who saw planes hit the towers in New York until they confess there were no planes.
He is about to be banned, but if you want to have some fun with a high-profile fake "Truther", stop on by...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/presenting-the-next-cit-snipe...
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
hi Willy, Are you aware of
hi Willy,
Are you aware of any dust sample that you trust? i used to think the Jones/Harrit dust sample needed to be tested for explosives as you suggested and was perplexed that they did not. But now that I consider Dr. Jones and nanothermite to be very possible disinfo, there is no reason to trust his samples anymore. I do not know of any sample that I could trust hence. Dust samples would be quite easy to fake, don't you think?
The RJ Lee Group would have to have kept their samples...
... as would the USGS study. These samples are clearly viable and could be tested at any time.
Dust samples would have to conform to the "fingerprint" established by the RJ Lee Group study and could be tested by them to ensure authenticity. It would be very difficult I think to recreate something that matches that dust in so much as the paint, wall board, carpeting, ect. are all from the 70s, but I guess it could be done. But what could not be done is to create something that could stand up to something like carbon dating of the material. You can determine the age of the dust I believe, but I am certainly not qualified to do it myself.
The biggest fear that I would have is that someone would get a sample and submit it after cleaning the nitrates (explosive residue) out of it. It could be "washed" out I suppose, but the problem there is that the wash itself would leave tracer markers that could be detected and would be unique to the that sample.
of course, anyone could doing that would face a charge of accessory after the fact, so I doubt it would be something they would try haphazzardly.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
me? wrong? oh come now.
but seriously, i am not not poo-poo’ing your idea. that is my take.
consider: what do we have in this regard re building7? we have witness testimony to hearing explosions, and we have experts testifying that building7 came down via cd in a manner totally consistent with explosives being used. plus the video evidence of cd. to me this is all very powerful. now combine these elements with the disappearance of the evidence and the lost opportunity to test for residue on-site (or from evidence taken on-site with a proper chain of custody established). in these circumstances, clearly, the presumption can and should be made that explosives were involved. this would lead the court or investigative body to find that there was cd. would affirmatively proving that traditional cd explosives were used be additioinal evidence? no question. but can we get that now? i don't think so. can we prove our case without that evidence? yes. thus, i'd rather switch the “burden of persuasion” to anti-cd advocates to prove that there were no explosives.
re: “Odd that you would start talking about chain of custody questions.” not sure what’s odd, except your implication. do you know "Mr. Daniel Miller, an FBI agent and the author of the book 'Mother was a Red'?" he's mentioned here http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/take-the-money-and-run-scri...
seriously again, chain-of-custody is what you’d have to show in court, and likely to any investigative body, or else the evidence can’t be introduced. that's basic evidence law.
re: “The point is to gather as much evidence as we can in order to find out what really happened to Building 7 and the rest of the WTC complex.”
gather for whom? and what is their protocol for accepting lab evidence? very fine by me if someone has the dust and wants to test for cd explosives. that should have been done with all the samples to begin with, as you have dutifully noted elsewhere. i’m just not sure how much mileage you’d get from that now, and if the test results would ever be accepted into evidence (if we ever actually get a forum) given the VERY REAL chain-of-custody problem.
re “Why don't we think about taking the matter to the Building What? people...”
i am among them and have already broached the subject, and plan to do so again. i am not dismissing the idea that testing for explosives is warranted. from a practical standpoint, however, i don't see how it could be done to produce the objective you seek. for example, do you know of someone you trust who has wtc 9/11 dust samples that would withstand a chain-of-custody objection? and could those samples be tied to building7--the collapse of which is the focus of buildingwhat?
re: “I remember someone else poo-pooing the idea before it even had a chance some years ago. His name was Gregg Roberts. He promotes "nanothermite" and the OCT on all other matters. Don't know him, do you?”
no, but i take it he is someone you (a) disrespect, (b) hold in contempt, (c) see as a sunstein stooge and/or (d) would probably not date. do you know anna? she’s featured in the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv3tadz5Q3o which might be a good addition to your “Lighten Up Francis” page.
What do we want? My list...
1.Continue- never stop promoting the evidence.
Though it may seem unlikely that 911 truth will change the regime, and the regime may need to be changed before 911 truth is exposed, the more people that know, the better our chances of succeeding are. People may say 911 truth is the new JFK and is fading into the past, that is what the perps want, but never before have the people had this much conclusive evidence against the oligarchy, or an independent communication network to spread it .
2.Amplify the best evidence.
If you are interested in more detail on this idea I wrote about it here:
Could website functionality improve the effectiveness of, and divisions within 911truth?
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2583
But the upshot is that there is an evolutionary model equation for change called the Lewontin Campbell Heuristic.It states that;
Effective Change=Diversity x Advantageous Selection x Amplification
This works not only for evolution but any form of change including political economic and cultural. The problem in terms of politics is that change is in the hands of western pseudo democracy which does not represent the concerns of the people and with monopolistic controlled media to boot acts as a block for change.
On that thread I got good feedback which mainly highlighted the problem of selection, as no website could be trusted to fairly hold a census to make democratic selections (With 911 blogger as the case in point) With the Sunstein relevation and the new news about the airforce’s 50 multiple identities software to control online opposition. I cant seem to find any solution to this problem, but if we take the most trustworthy opinion in the movement for selection purposes then it should not stop us from amplifying that. I would suggest that any 911 website should have front and centre links to the 10 best pieces of evidence for 911 truth, so that anyone browsing or curious newbie sees that best evidence first rather than get drawn into movement naval gazing and divisiveness which is absolutely necessary but completely distinct from the first priority which should be to Amplify the best evidence.
3. Any mainstream 911 truth site (& I don’t think Gretavo ever intended this to be one)should also have a reception/ introduction discussion thread where newbies are encouraged to ask any questions or voice their doubts to truthers who could give or link to answers, point them in the right directions, and encourage them without patronising or bullying them.
At the moment 911 blogger for example would send them to the moon & back before they ever got to read the best evidence.
4.Outreach. Whether on the streets or in any online discussion , truthers should be encouraged to get stuck in and represent the movement publicly. Elsewhere there could be advise on tactics and a notice board where current representation would be useful online. The Zionist lobby have used this strategy very effectively, so should we.
5. I always thought it would be very useful to the movement to select an instantly recognisable symbol for 911 truth like the CND symbol. Sold on any merchandise, Which could become a trendy fashion statement promoting the cause without having to stand up and lecture etc, deferring that service to elsewhere. People would come to ask what the symbol means, and hopefully recognise it in high profile places.
All of these things are within our control, and that is my personal what to do list for the movement. Your building what campaign is certainly aligned to my ideas, and I think Willy’s explosives idea is well worth trying.Along with any other well thought out and well executed contribution to the cause and its promotion (Grass roots Participation)
What is out of our control is the fact that in 10 years we have not had a proper investigation, and there is no political will from any politician or media body that suggests such an investigation is possible, nor any cause to believe that a further investigation will be any less compromised that the 3 we have had already.
It might be the case that we will need regime change before we can ever have a proper investigation. If this is the case and I believe it to be so, then the only path to success includes the triumph of the people over the regime . This will be more likely to occur at some time in the future if :
a. There was a popular third party loose coalition promising to represent the people’s interests Regime change / economy/ healthcare/ renewable energy/ anti corruption/ anti corporate/ breaking media monopoly & state propaganda./ and why not 911 reinvestigation also.
b. People’s organisations like Unions , churches local community organisations, local government electees chose, or were persuaded by members self organisingto promote 911 truth./ people power or regime change.
Ultimately I don’t think 911 truth can do this on its own and would have to form a coalition with many other anti establishment forces, and there will be many deliberate internal divisions created in any such alliance in order to stop this from occurring.
Alternatively you could wait for the regime to collapse through corruption and bankruptsy mass dissent and possibly revolution, but if that were to occur, again
Our chances would be best served if we already had footing in people’s organisations, and the more people who knew the evidence the more assured the transition to something better would be.
mostly agree...
what is the CND symbol?
I think the key as you say is grassroots action. These lies have clearly been imposed from the top down, and therefore must be countered beginning at the "bottom" and working our way up. The people who don't "belong" to the elite but on whose loyalty and service the elite depend are our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends, cousins, etc. As long as they are unaware they will do nothing--in fact they will do worse than nothing--they will be duped into opposing us. There just aren't that many people who knowing the truth would choose the lie. Those who would are who we are up against. Their reasons for choosing the lie may range from self-interest due to guilt or profit, or ideological motives. It doesn't really matter--what matters, and what our focus should be, is getting as many honest people up to speed and on our side as possible because once that critical mass is reached the perps support will crumble away and they will come hurtling in free fall to justice.
CND Symbol, Campaign for
CND Symbol, Campaign for Nuclear disarmament, Upside down Y in circle (White on Black) as worn by private joker in Full metal jacket etc. I am assuming it was a worldwide symbol, (Maybe just the CND Anachronism threw you) but it was certainly endemic in the UK in the 70's early 80's
Oops.. for anachronism read
Oops.. for anachronism read acronym.
In the words of Dean Friedman and Denise Marsa from 1978..
" We can thank our lucky stars that we're not as smart as we'd like to think we are"
admirable
breakdown and list on the state of the present and possible future path for the
911 truth "union"...thanks for being here!
(note from a former med editor: actually CND is an "initialism" as an acronym can be pronounced as a word, thus MRI scan as opposed to CAT scan)
Thanks for your reply
Thanks for your reply Dennis, now I understand where you are coming from a lot better, tho I have to reiterate what I said earlier, that I don’t think anyone is attacking newbies to the truth movement and they weren’t here.
What I mean by the LIHOP cancer in the movement is specifically a group of players including Jon Gold, Loose Nuke and their regular accomplices who have sought to control, influence and redirect the truth movement. There are certain observable traits which they seem to have in common:.
They complain about an over emphasis on CD in the movement.
They bully , patronise and arrogantly attack people who contradict them.
They are vehemently opposed to any evidence or suggestion that Zionist influence was heavily implicated with the 911 events.
They consistently promote evidence that Muslim Terrorists were involved in 911.(All of them refer to History Commons constantly which as far as I am concerned is predominately a textbook for all the unsubstantiated OT evidence of Muslim terrorism.
They own or moderate 3 major 911 truth sites and use block voting, multiple identities and censorship to distort and misrepresent the major concerns of the movement.
They promote divisiveness in 911 truth by staging protracted arguments about peripheral interests of the movement.
They refuse to canvass the movement and select and amplify what its major concerns are, instead choosing to promote and control their own minority concerns instead, which are generally heavily aligned with the OT.
The thread from blogger I linked to is a classic illustration of these traits.
This was where Jon Gold took the credit for DRG’s success for having promoted him??? (but also heavily attacked him consistently)???
This exchange was followed by another round of exclusions from the site myself included.(- Only one of several mass exclusion events most notably the one previously that excluded all readers /participants of this site en masse).
However compare the vitality and diversity of opinion then, compared to the domination of their agenda there currently.
Unless they are using a high profile to try to influence the movement, I doubt that any newbie trying to investigate 911 could be confused with this cancerous LIHOP core which I would suggest has been consistently detrimental to the effectiveness of the movement over a long time.
Your comments also raise some other interesting questions/ dilemmas, which I will get to later when I have more time to write.
ok, cool. . .
re: "I don’t think anyone is attacking newbies to the truth movement and they weren’t here."
i never thought that, but certainly got defensive about it, having been in that newbie "pro-lihop" position, when my definition of lihop was at variance with the accepted definition here (and elsewhere, e.g., barry zwicker's "towers of deception" which i have just started to read).
The other thing I wanted to
The other thing I wanted to ask you Dennis is about your suggestion that Lihop was a necessary step to 911 truth for you.
For a start, I suppose it depends on what sort of enquiry it was that first interested you that you classify as Lihop. If for example it was the fact that the failures in the defence against terrorism & Norad responses from the OT story are unbelievable, then that does not imply Lihop (The complicity of Muslim Terrorists), it just proves the government are lying which is valid evidence to list.
But what I find interesting is your suggestion that if you did not have a Lihop route you would never have addressed 911 truth.Is that because you could not believe the big lie initially (The lie/conspiracy so big that no one would believe it was possible)and had to be gently led til enough evidence accumulated that you had to accept the big lie ?
So in that case, when you were a complete novice are you suggesting that if you were told of AE911truth's 1500 professionals who say it was CD, then you would not have been prepared to listen to their presentation?
What I am trying to get at is whether there is a genuine argument that newbies have to be led slowly from the OT or they will flit, or whether actually the reverse is true in that newbies to the movement are swamped with thousands of differing pieces of info - a lot to do with terrorists and Lihop, (for example if they arrived at 911 blogger they would be told to read history commons, the 911 commission report and Jon's big list of Lihop crap before they ever got to the best evidence?) and they get to reinforce their Lihop acceptance primarily. Then in a secondary phase, If
a, they are still around reading stuff after that first month of misdirection,
b, They are morally sophisticated enough to forgo the cultural normalisation of Fog of war mentality and prejudice to still want accountability for lihoppers?
-they might then read on and find info that proves the big lie?
It seems to me that you might have lost a few punters along the way there, (By allowing this Lihop route to fester in the name of 911 truth) and the quicker more direct route of presenting the best evidence to them initially in the best way possible (Using varied approaches and various lines of the best evidence)might have been more successful on 100 punters say ! ( Tho maybe not for you from your testimony- granted)
What is more, although the whole truth is a very sobering , troubling and life changing event. When you get there are you more likely to act to overthrow the offending oligarchy than a lihopper who is just prepared to sign a petition for a new investigation to find out if anything untoward happened after all?
The question is, if you believe in the need for change, how many investigation petitioners would you swap for someone who has seen enough to know that things must change and that they are prepared to act at some point given the right opportunity to do so?
PS,
I realise that you are involved in a high profile campaign that is calling for reinvestigation, and I dont expect you to say anything to diminish that objective, or support any grandiose schemes for 'over throwing the oligarchy 'that would colour your campaign. I also think that calling for reinvestigation in your campaign is a valid objective and focus for your efforts, and that in itself raises the profile of the cause.
However you seem to be able to realistically contemplate the issues at stake, and without endorsing my comments I think you could them on board and discuss the usefulness of Lihop from your experience?.
letting it all hang out
re: “The other thing I wanted to ask you Dennis is about your suggestion that Lihop was a necessary step to 911 truth for you.”
not really a “necessary step” for me, it was just kinda the way it happened. but there is much more to the story. in sum, 9/11 truth has been for me more of a spiritual awakening. you can read about it here: http://journeyintothemystic-dennis.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html which made for great fun at the JREF jerkoff site when i was in the spotlight during the nyccan petition litigation (brought into that by “accident,” if you believe in accidents). the extremely diligent JREF jerkoffs vetted me and determined that “not only is he a twoofer, but a woo-woo too.” which was pretty hysterical, i thought.
seeds had been sown on this 9/11 path for me previously when my girlfriend turned me onto “the zeitgeist movie,” which didn’t inspire, for some reason. and there was the time before that when i saw a guy walking around midtown manhattan with a shirt that said, “9/11 was an inside job.” at the time i thought, “wow, he’s got balls!” but kinda dismissed the substance of his t-shirt claim and forgot about it. however, once i was awakened to 9/11, i quickly came across the lihop theory (tho not identified as such, i don’t think). i thought, “yeah, that makes sense.” but the deeper i looked, the more obvious it became that mihop was what was happening (again, that terminology was not used, if i am recalling correctly). that turnaround from lihop to mihop took like maybe a couple of hours, again if i am remembering correctly. so it was a very fast turnaround. back in college during watergate, which i was very into, i came across a ramparts magazine article “from dallas to watergate, the longest coverup” which got me into the whole jfk thing, and how the gov’t and media, especially cbs and the ny times, at a minimum helped cover up the assassination of jfk and thus became accessories after the fact to murder and treason. thus, the idea that mihop was in play for 9/11 was not much of a leap for me intellectually. i had an idea what the government was capable of.
re: “But what I find interesting is your suggestion that if you did not have a Lihop route you would never have addressed 911 truth.”
if i suggested that, i should not have. it’s not accurate. it’s just the way it happened. and again, it was a quick turnaround to mihop. i would argue that this MAY be A way to bring some members of the public at large on board to 9/11 truth, and so should be considered as a possible avenue to explore, but not at the price of disavowing mihop, more as an intro. so no, i did not have to be “gently led til enough evidence accumulated that you had to accept the big lie.” it came pretty quickly.
re: “are you suggesting that if you were told of AE911truth's 1500 professionals who say it was CD, then you would not have been prepared to listen to their presentation?”
no, not suggesting that at all. to me the A&Es expertise and their putting themselves on the line like that are most impressive. however, others who “can’t imagine that our [exceptional] government would do such a thing as being involved in 9/11” may not be prepared to listen to the A&Es.
re: “What I am trying to get at is whether there is a genuine argument that newbies have to be led slowly from the OT or they will flit...”
i would say that all depends who the newbie is and what his/her mindset is. in my own experience, the majority of people i've broached the subject of 9/11 with simply can’t believe that their “god blessed america” could be guilty or complicit in such a heinous atrocity. and i live in NYC! what i do when i come across people who are new to 9/11 and the subject comes up (i no longer raise it), is go by feel. if they believe in “american exceptionalism” there is little hope at persuading them, i have found. so i don’t get deeply into it. if they are new york times readers and believe in that rag, forget it! they are pretty much a lost cause.
re: “The question is, if you believe in the need for change, how many investigation petitioners would you swap for someone who has seen enough to know that things must change and that they are prepared to act at some point given the right opportunity to do so?”
not sure how to answer that. the bottom line for me is that i’m looking for a way to expose the truth on a city, state, national and international scale, bring the perps to justice, and reverse all the insane policies built on 9/11 (perpetual war, patriot act, etc.). i’d be open to considering all NONVIOLENT suggestions on how to bring about this result. websites like this one and willyloman's help a lot. in terms of activism, the buildingwhat? campaign is most appealing to me.
Are you fucking kidding me
Are you fucking kidding me Dennis? Sorry, but the link to your 911 spirits site is some of the worst "Psycho babble" I have ever seen associated with 911 truth !
It is on par with David Ike , and it can do the movement no good to be associated with this stuff.
Instead of promoting the evidence you discovered re 911 truth, you chose instead to promote your own shamenistic signals showing your spiritual path to 911 truth?
I suspected that your obstinate refusal to see that lihop damages the effectiveness of 911 truth was disingenuous, and for the record in conclusion, I dont think the continuation of demonisation of Muslims in western Culture is worth the chance that you might persuade a few diehard neocons to sign a reinvestigation petition.
Goood Luck to you in your chosen path, however I dont believe you have anything to offer the effectiveness of 911 truth, and can only harm it by associating it with this sort of material.
hey, that's the same response i got over at jref in 2009. . .
. . . but even they didn't compare me to david icke. ouch!
for the record, shamanism has been around for 35,000+ years acc to the archeological rock art. it was the prevalent spiritual practice in the americas (north and south) before "western man" and superior weaponry came along, and it is still in existence all around the world.
think of me what you may, but if you want to open your mind a bit, consider the similar experiences had by some 9/11 family members, as described here http://www.amazon.com/Messages-Signs-Visits-Premonitions-Loved/dp/006197...
Dennis , I have no problem
Dennis , I have no problem with shamanism or any other thing that anyone believes in or derives strength from.
What I have a problem with is people with high profiles in the truth movement who dont realise (To put it kindly)
that credibility for truthers is EVERYTHING, and by flaunting minority beliefs in tandem with 911 truth (That had nothing to do with each other)they can only discredit the integrity of the movement in the eyes of the masses who need to be won over to effect change.
not flaunting but. . .
. . .you have a point, i should not have brought it up.
Dennis , If only you’d
Dennis ,
If only you’d said Paul McCartney was guiding you to parking spaces I might have seen it all differently! -I know he’s not dead yet, and so not sure if (because of that) he has any shamanistic path to you yet?, but I just happen to think he wrote the better songs….
Anyway , I kind of feel like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof now (My second favourite musical after West Side Story) singing Chavaleh (Little Bird).
I am standing in a puff of mist and separated from my peers by a telephoto lens saying .. on the one hand ….. but on the other hand…….
( I know Fiddler on the roof is probably Zionist propaganda, but the songs are so good!....)
So, On the one hand,
What if Gerraldo or O Reilly do a follow up on ‘building what’ highlighting your beliefs, that is just going to fuel the nutjob perception of truthers.
However on the other hand ,your contributions have achieved much more than anything I have done, so how can I criticise you, especially as you say , if you declared your beliefs before you collaborated on NYCCAN.
So If my peers here are prepared to forgo their usual standards for credibility in the movement , then I must have been bigoted here and I apologise for my comments.
One thing’s for sure , no one could accuse you of being an agent with your profile !
In fact, I am not so closed minded as I appeared to be. In my past life (that is before 911 truth, not reincarnation or anything) I was a committed postmodernist highlighting the fallibility and elusiveness of truth to the human mind. My solo album was ‘Love Not Truth’ for example, but I decided that in the wake of 911, this was not the time for existential discussions on the nature of truth, and tried to focus on the best method to achieve change instead. I still believe change is more desirable than ‘truth’ though.
Gretavo,
In the light of this apparent softening of hard line logic and integrity here, I have to ask again though, why was Keenan banned for posting disinfo in an article titled what do you think of this? Doing research here and encountering all the work he has contributed it seems unfair that his avatar indicates persona non grata now. I accept that we are all guests here at your leisure Gretavo, and would accept it if you told me there was more to this than the face value that you don’t want to air. Otherwise it is also feeling a bit like the Wizard of Oz., sorry.
maybe "Who is your favorite Beatle?". . .
. . . should be a poll question here.
Re: “If only you’d said Paul McCartney was guiding you to parking spaces I might have seen it all differently! -I know he’s not dead yet...”
paul’s not dead? you sure? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GreatHoax.jpg
re: “I just happen to think [that Paul] wrote the better songs…Fiddler on the Roof [is] My second favourite musical...”
well those two concepts fit neatly, no offense.
so, given your predisposition toward musicals [gag], i’m assuming then that you are either female or a homosexual male (not that there’s anything wrong with either, especially the former). but, pls do note: Lennon wrote “Give Peace A Chance” and was an anti-war activist. McCartney wrote “Silly Love Songs” and says we should give Obama a chance, see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/paul-mccartney-obama-is-...
Re: “What if Gerraldo or O Reilly do a follow up on ‘building what’ highlighting your beliefs, that is just going to fuel the nutjob perception of truthers.”
i sometimes worry about that but actually i’m in the background, and am not a spokesperson, so i don’t think they’d zoom in on me. if they do, i’d ask them why they were judging me on my subjective religious/anti-violence beliefs, as opposed to analyzing the objective evidence. i’d also ask if they would be so concerned with my religious beliefs if I were a believer in the “God” of the Old Testament (an imposter spirit, in my view, if he does exist), whose alleged cruelty and thirst for blood is documented here http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
re: “So If my peers here are prepared to forgo their usual standards for credibility in the movement [by letting you in], then I must have been bigoted here and I apologise for my comments.”
LOL! ok! thanks! apology accepted.
re: “One thing’s for sure , no one could accuse you of being an agent with your profile!”
i will relay the message to my handlers and let them know how well their plan is working. frankly, i had my doubts.
re: “In fact, I am not so closed minded as I appeared to be.”
obviously not!
re: “In my past life. . . I was a committed postmodernist”
have you read DRG’s pre-9/11 book “Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration,” discussed here on amazon? http://www.amazon.com/Parapsychology-Philosophy-Spirituality-Exploration...
LOL re: “Gretavo, In the light of this apparent softening of hard line logic and integrity here [via your tacit decision to not ban that illogical, irrational, and integrity-less Dennis...]”
“I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member.” groucho
quoted at the 20 second mark, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrxlfvI17oY
I was talking about
I was talking about songwriting, not banal nursery rhymes with obious lyrics! Still at least Lennon stood up and I admire him for that.
Just when we made up lets not fall out again over taste?
BTW not a friend of Dorothy in that sense! LOL
I couldn't resist
In my defense I can only
In my defense I can only suggest live and let die,
but I wont link.
That lyric kind of gets me back to the origional point of this thread.
hard line logic and integrity
Sorry Dennis!
God is a concept,
By which we measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Yoko and me,
that's reality.
The dream is over,
What can I say?
The dream is over,
Yesterday,
I was the dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn,
I was the walrus,
But now I am John,
And so dear friends,
You'll just have to carry on,
The dream is over.
Dennis...
I might have read something wrong on your site, but, did you mean to say that you made contact with spirits of 9/11 victims and that prompted you to do research into 9/11 Truth?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
not a correct reading. . .
. . . but i'm not going into it.
Oh wait... it was 9/11 victims... and John lennon...
yeah... John Lennon wants you to write protest songs and the victims of 9/11 want you to do some research... got it.
"Sunday morning’s happenings I was not ready for. While I was in the shower (where I’ve experienced spontaneous mystical events before), a group of 9/11 spirits seeming a bit restless came to me and telepathically asked that I—in addition to allowing spirit energy to flow thru me while I was around Ground Zero—do a little more. Specifically I was to research what really happened on 9/11 and spread the word wherever I thought the word might be well received. I agreed. Suddenly a famous dead person who had visited me before (it seemed) appeared in the vision. It’s embarrassing to admit (more on this in a later blog) but it was none other than John Lennon, the one-time Beatle and famous peace and love activist, appearing in his bespectacled/short-haired “People For Peace” persona (see photo here https://www.changingworld.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=5_63&produc... ). John humbly suggested that to get people to consider the 9/11 truth movement evidence, I could write additional updated protest songs (as I had done a few years ago with Bob Dylan's Masters of War) and perform them with a subgroup of the rock band I am a member of (but within the confines of which I have been permitted to publicly perform Masters of War, Revisited only once, due to the song’s controversial nature). I respectfully took note of John’s suggestion and the vision in the shower ended."
The victims of 9/11 wanted you to research their tragic end, and John Lennon wanted you to write music? and they all talked this over with you... in the shower...
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
thanks willy. . .
. . . for your understanding.
wait, no... wait... this is my favorite part...
"I jumped on the computer and in just two short hours understood what the 9/11 truth movement was all about."
in two "short" hours, you understood what the truth movement was "all about"? Two hours, huh? Two whole hours huh? Didn't take a nap or anything did you? Two hours, let me see... what else lasts two hours that makes people think they understand the entire truth movement? hmmm... you didn't like watch a MOVIE or something did you? You say you started off as LIHOP? Well it couldn't have been Loose Change if LIHOP is what you came away with... hmmm... let's see... ahh... Press for Truth, perhaps? did you watch Press for Truth?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
thanks again. . .
. . . i love you too. you remind me of the folks at jref. very clever and entertaining.
Dennis...
How do you think most people would react to the material on your blog? Do you want them to react in the same way to the material you present about 9/11? If so, no problem (for you).
(I personally have no problem believing that John Lennon supports the 9/11 Truth Movement from wherever he is, but that he helps you find parking spaces....??!?!??!)
good question
my hope is that the site and stories and my book help people realize that we are spiritual beings having a human experience, and that our spiritual selves are the main part of us. i write mainly for those interested in the subject, and especially those in the closet about their own experiences. i don't much care what nonspiritual people think or how they react.
my blog was up before i got into 9/11 truth. i wasn't and am not going to take it down because of 9/11 truth. i am more about spirit than anything else. if that detracts from my 9/11 truth persona, so be it. you don't want me on the team, just let me know and i'll pack my bags and go.
i thought my calling was to bring 9/11 truth to the spirituality community to whom the site is directed. and that's what i was doing when i kinda got guided into representing nyccan when they needed a ny lawyer and no one was stepping up. so i stepped up pro bono, revealing my own spiritual past along the way as no one had vetted me. i asked to be judged on the work i did, not on my spiritual beliefs and experiences, which were already out there for some time for all to see. the nyccan people accepted me on those terms and we got along fine, doing the best we could with a petition that was doomed before we ever arrived on the scene (we learned belatedly). we fought the good fight, as they say, and lost. but...buidlingwhat? grew out of that, and is making headway, so good things resulted and hopefully will continue.
about those ridiculous parking spaces...i have no doubt that i was being guided to those, in lennon's old hood. some people would call it a hunch or intuition or the like, but i see deeper into what's behind all that. was it lennon? i don't know, but allow for the possibility that it was he as that was how the energy presented itself. i also allow for the possibility that it was an imposter spirit--plenty of those throughout history. i also allow for the possibility that i was and am completly out of my fucking mind. but..."the proof is in the pudding," as they say. and back in those days i followed the hunch, or the hallucination, or whatever you want to label it, and landed parking spots galore in the west village--for years! not an easy thing to do! maybe it was just luck, but it struck me as something else entirely and i wrote about my perceptions for anyone who might be interested. i have this feeling that i am supposed to do that. i trust the feeling.
what we are
Hey Dennis, you were saying "my hope is that the site and stories and my book help people realize that we are spiritual beings.."
But then you said "..i don't much care what nonspiritual people think.."
Did you mean "..i don't much care what *people who mistakenly believe they're* nonspiritual think.."?
hmmm, interesting edit. . .
. . . i see your point. but in this context i was viewing "spirituality" as a type of belief system, and behavior in accord with that belief system, whether or not we actually do have souls. thus, in this context, people who are nonspiritual in their beliefs/behavior would be nonspiritual by definition.
it probably would be better to go back to casseia's question to which the phrase at issue was a response, and do a complete re-write. casseia asked, "How do you think most people would react to the material on your blog?" the direct answer would be, "the intended audience of the blog is the spirituality community, and those at least open to spirituality. most of them i think would be in sync. most nonspiritual people would be dismissive at best."
casseia also asked, "Do you want them to react in the same way to the material you present about 9/11?" here a better answer would be: "no. 9/11 is a matter of objective evidence. spirituality is more subjective."
People come to this understanding in many different ways...
Personally, I had a close friend tell me about her teacher giving her some information years ago. I told her her teacher was crazy and berated her for some time. Lost that friend. But the experience made me want to know more about these crazy truth people, I wanted to prove to them they were wrong so I started doing research between projects. I researched it for 9 months straight. Read all the debunking sites, read the 9/11 Commission report. Read the RJ Lee report. Took me 9 months of steady work to come to the conclusion I had been wrong, and a jackass to boot. That was 5 years ago or so. been researching ever since. I still hope I am wrong. She is wrong. But she isn't and wasn't, and I was.
It doesn't matter how you get here. I don't care if a flaming Elvis spelled it out to you while the aliens were probing you... it just doesn't matter. Just like the rest of us... you're here now.
I'm just giving you a hard time. The difference between me and the JREFers is they mean it. You gotta have thicker skin than that.. hell, you're a Truther and a Mystic... you should be like an armadillo by now. :)
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
thanks, actually i thought you did mean it. . .
. . . didn't seem like you were kidding. i just didn't want to be in the closet about this, you know?
"i yam what i yam and that's all what i yam." popeye
Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is...
... the craziest notion about 9/11 is that somehow 19 coke and hooker loving Muslims were able to beat the most advanced security apparatus in the world 4 out of 4 times armed with nothing more than break-away bladed box-cutters and the Twin Towers pulverized themselves with the crush down crush up theory while Building 7 just gave up and fell over, for the first time in history because of thermal expansion. Oh yeah, and BushCo lied about everything OTHER than 9/11, which they were completely honest about.
Now, THAT'S fucking crazy. and what's embarrassing to me is that so many Americans believe that shit. Honestly, the official story of 9/11 makes visions in the shower look tame by comparison. Think about it.
We actually sit around and worry about what makes the movement "look bad"... has it ever occurred to any of us that maybe we should just start letting the "normals" out there know how f*cking insane the official story really is? Because frankly, with all that we know now and all that they keep blowing off as one coincidence after the other, you have to be completely stupid or just bat-shit crazy to believe that story. I'm sorry, but it's true.
There is a large cross section of people in the Truth movement with a great diversity of beliefs. does it really hurt the integrity of our research if someone comes at this from a mystical perspective? I don't think so. As long as you don't start saying that John Lennon confessed that he knocked down the towers, it doesn't bother me. He didn't did he?
hang in there popeye.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
some good quotes
in this thread :)
probability
"... but even they didn't compare me to david icke. ouch!"
I'd say lizards running the show is far more likely than spirits from the beyond the grave. But credibility isn't an absolute concept, and belief in the even less likely Christian narrative is pretty much a requirement for office in America. People seem very forgiving when you claim to believe in almost impossible things, as opposed to just extremely unlikely things.
that's a tough call...
I mean,if I understand Icke correctly, didn't the shape-shifting lizard people come from the center of the earth where they constantly ran around hooking up hoses to drill-bits when Exxon drilled a new well and pump oil up to them?
"extremely unlikely"? kind of an understatement if you ask me.
though I do like the idea of some poor slob of a lizard person being tasked with running around under the ground constantly on the watch for a new drill head poking through the earth's crust. that had to be a shitty job. lotta neck problems I imagine, especially for a fisheyed lizard person.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
by the way, along the same lines... I just banned Dimitri...
... what's his face for advocating that we need to torture 9/11 witnesses till they confess that they are all part of the plot and Freemasons as well.
Seems like our lizard people stories are making a comeback.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
no torture...
...they'll just tell us what we WANT to hear... :)
now for something really different...
...an on topic comment!
Reel Bad Arabs
How Hollywood villifies Arabs and Muslims