I must confess that I actually thought I hated this man and everything he was about until I started experiencing an overload of inaccurate and fictitious information the USG keeps pounding out and calling it the truth … so I decided to try an independent review of what I thought I knew and didn’t really. So I never watched or read anything Moore was involved with but I was more than willing to tell you how screwed up he was. So I rented the movie from Netflix and watched it … and I was amazed.
I have watched it twice now and I cannot find one shred of much information that is not factual or accurate. Beyond some idiosyncrasies in his sense of humor (they are funny); he presents very valid arguments and backs them up with documentation and interviews. He brings to light many of the things I have discovered in my own research into deceit, terrorism and the USG.
When I was a liberal (before I knew better) the only accurate information had to come from another liberal else it was a lie??? Later when I made my second mistake and became a conservative I learned the error of my ways … the truth could only be had from like ilk … so imagine my confusion when I called the neolibs and neocons for what they are and went independent. Suddenly, I have no source of valid information at all now (seemingly hehehe). I have had no success at all trying to walk the moderate tightrope between all the sharks without one side or the other dragging me down, go figure.
As far as Democrats/Republicans are concerned, their only care about the independent majority is how many they can acquire each election. But no matter which side is the best recruiter or who gets most independent votes … matters that concern the moderates will largely be ignored or sidelined and the neo-politicians will go their own course virtually unrestricted and completely unaccountable.
These two quotes kind of made me laugh. In the first one you identify the problem... the powers that be manipulating the perception of what should or should not be taken as truth.
I agree. But then you perpetuate the "propaganda" that wanted the public to believe Bush was an unintelligent puppet.
Bush may not have been the best speaker, or presented himself as an elitist. He certainly didn't make all the folks from the left or even the right happy, but stupid? Hardly, but that gives the left comfort (only a smart person, that we proclaim is smart, can truly be "one of us"). I guess the perception finger can point both ways depending on which it suits.
He was clearly a buffoon which made a great yes man and to much of a chicken shit to be another Kennedy.
You at least have to be bright enough to fool the public into believing that you're the one in charge. Not hard obviously.
I have to agree though, I think Bush and Obama are intellectual equals especially whenever they are not under very strict management. I would love to discuss the New World Order but see no point to it here in JU. I cannot convince the misinformed that Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect examples, so what would the point be? I may write an article concerning it, but not now. If people are refusing to revisit their ‘facts’ with the provable knowledge that we now have and with the relief time offers us to return to saner thinking, well, you can lead a horse to water but...
No, my emphasis here was the location of Osama in June of 2001 and the Richard Clarke comments. I do not think the mentally deficient will bother to even watch the clip being so knowledgeable and all ... not a problem.
Name any one person 'smart enough' to have pulled it off. Hell, name any 400 people collectively smart enough to have pulled it off.
You obviously haven't followed the leader of the current administration, he's not fooling anyone that doesn't wish to be fooled. And that's with a large portion of the media cheering him on. When Bush was president the death count was blasted every night on the evening news, now nothing (one of many blatant examples). But hey! We can always invoke the evil names of Bush and Cheney!!!
BTW you didn't comment on the observation I made in comment #326. You didn't see the irony in that? Or does the mere mention of "Bush" shield one from introspection?
BT- your Bush/Obama observation is at least defensible, in my opinion, but sure to rattle some.
Another great vid BT
@ Nito: The last part of 326 I had to read 3x and still could only barely make out what point you were trying to make. Bush and Obama are the same shit with a different flavor. Chocolate war criminal or vanilla war criminal. Go ahead and eat your fill.
I dont really get why you call that statement irony as you turn my statement into something else. The point is not whether the public perceives the president as dumb or smart, only that the public thinks that they have a say in who is in charge of strangling them.
The Independent, 1996 and 1997 - Bin Laden gave an interview to the Independent newspaper's Robert Fisk on December 6, 1996. This was the first he had ever given to a Western journalist. Fisk again interviewed Bin Laden on March 20, 1997; Bin Laden said of his operations at the time "We are still at the beginning of our military action against the American forces." CNN: 1997 - Peter Arnett of CNN interviewed bin Laden in March 1997. ABC: 1998 - A recorded interview in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, shows bin Laden answering questions posed by some of his followers at a mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller asks further questions. Time: 1999 - Rahimullah Yusufzai, a journalist for Pakistan's The News, TIME, and ABC News, in 1999 secured a four-hour interview with bin Laden in Afghanistan's Helmand province. During Yusufzai's late-night conversation, bin Laden appeared to be in good health, though he admitted to a sore throat and a bad back. He continually sipped water from a cup, and Yusufzai caught him on videotape walking with the aid of a stick. This latter footage was erased by bin Laden's bodyguards. The interview appeared in the January 11, 1999 issue of Time Asia. 2001: Ummat - The Daily Ummat is said to have interviewed Osama bin Laden weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. In the interview bin Laden is said to deny his involvement in the attacks; the interviewer, however, has never been identified, so there is no proof of the interview's authenticity. I think this one was debunked (written questions and answers?)
Of course, this kind of shit also explains a lot too...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-10/01/content_7072875.htm
Haha, you found it. I was looking for that. I wanted to post that where you asked about the relevance of the Queen in Canada. Nobody in the colonies has any idea of the amount of power the queen holds over them.
Scrubbed the audio because Osama is not reading the white house press briefing.
Myfist0, 5 years ago I was a happy-go-lucky neocon who thought things were clear. My first internal investigation was religion and you see where that placed me. I grew a real conscience when I came to the conclusion that there was no right of it and that the world was just a political and economic stage. Next I recapped the European expansionism across America and down through South America and South Africa. Religious and state domination and imperialism went hand in hand. Then I started looking back in American history and everything I had believed came apart. From there I revisited 9/11 by asking questions instead sucking up to the stupid official story. I am permanently disabled with short term memory loss. Not to the extent of “50 First Dates” but similar. What this boils down to for me is that I need to spend a fair amount of research time and come to my conclusions. Most of the research filters away and I am left with my conclusions. This is one reason I have a difficult time when the subject branches way off topic. And since this abrupt change in reasoning, virtually everything I knew was going to have to be readdressed. I knew I was in trouble when I ran across Noam and anthropogenic global warming. Eventually, I will have to address all the main issues … and how daunting that looks to me. So if I drift back out to right (or left) field or fail to verify sources … well, just keep me honest. It is painful for me to revisit some of the stuff I had written in the past … so naturally, I stay clear when possible.
We're Back
OMG Fox joined the 9/11 Truthers
Uploaded by MrSteeper33 on May 20, 2011
In case anyone is not aware, Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch which now has the full weight of the English government on the attack. And people wonder why nobody in power speaks out.
Holy crap the attack has stepped up to war against Rupert Murdoch
Well, here are some things that should be considered that has little to do with conspiracies ... it has to do with empirical data (evidence) and a need to explain the impossible without knowing all the details. There is plenty of time to speculate later.
I'm no engineer, mechanical or otherwise, but I think I understand why she was denied tenure.
Ah the beauty of YouTube, anyone can throw anything on it and claim it as fact. Apparently, this woman has never seen footage of a nuclear detonation. She also seems convinced that the towers were solid structures and there should have been more debris. She should have watched the show on the History Channel that addressed all the conspiracy theories point for point. Hope she leaves this off her resume, otherwise her next job might be an Occupy Wall Street position.
Daiwa, well I am an engineer so maybe you could expound a little more here for our benefit? Maybe you should listen more closely (to an engineer) instead of using the blanket credibility denial ploy you like to use.
Nitro Cruiser, YouTube is what it is ... but maybe you forgot the books she wrote and her academic achievements ... she is no 'Michael Moore' for sure ... but you treat her with just as little respect. This says a lot more about you than it does her. And what show was that where everything controversial was debunked because I must have missed it too??? I don't think she is concerned over her next job ... what a nice gut you are to be concerned for her though, hahaha. Who indeed would allow facts to get in the way of their beliefs?
I watched the whole thing. It was the content that led to my understanding, Boobz. Not that it matters to you.
The whole point of this clip was to provide food for thought to help correct some of the misinformation running amuck. Regardless of what any of us think happened on 911, the airplanes were not enough impetus on their own to cause events to unfold as they did as the government version states. And technically, we do not have the explosive technology to do it either as the worst conspiracy nuts think … so something else had to come into play to get us from pre-911 to post-911 … that’s what needs to be discovered and that is not going to happen until people get off their comfy couches and at least question the governmental status quo. Are any of you guys really comfortable explaining or justifying the events as set forth by the USG (our corrupt ass-wipe government that never lies) as it seems or are you just being contrary?
Daiwa, that was no answer and I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want a response. I asked why she didn’t deserve tenure and you said you watched the clip … so. Honestly though this is typical as we have discussed before. The clip was 48 minutes and I find it difficult to believe that there was nothing of merit therein. It is easier to dismiss everything with the wave of the hand ... than it is to even justify your own comments ... try harder. Were you interested enough to watch part 2?
Food for horses, maybe. She lives in a world of straw men. As do all the 9/11 truthers.
Not to mention 'miracles' - 'What you saw happen with your own eyes could not happen, therefore did not happen.'
Daiwa ... so in your cryptic way you are telling me that you do believe the USG and their storyline ... and you can do this with a straight face I suppose. It is difficult to back up your comments when you don't answer the questions nor do you offer anything at all to the conversation that is meaningful. You mostly just talk about how smart you are.
Daiwa, just as a recap then, what is it exactly that you find so discomforting and fabricated?
1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."
2. They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
3. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
4. The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.
5. The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted.
6. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
7. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
8. The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.
9. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
10. The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
11. One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.
12. No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.
13. Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.
14. In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.
15. Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.
16. Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.
17. Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.
18. Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.
19. The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.
20. Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.
21. Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.
22. Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.
23. Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.
24. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often alongside cars that appeared to be burning.
25. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.
26. All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.
27. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
28. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.
29. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.
30. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.
31. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.
32. For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.
33. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.
34. The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.
35. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
36. Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.
37. There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.
38. Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.
39. Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.
40. Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.
41. Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.
Two words - Fluid. Dynamics.
Ya got it, ya flaunt it.
Humm, I have done extensive work in thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow, nuclear theory and physics and mathematics ... but I can derive little explanatory information about 911 from these experiences. We had janitors working for us too you know... You haven’t flaunted anything yet besides your ego so if that is all you have it’s no wonder that’s all you talk about.
Well, we didn't get very far on this one and I see no reason to expect any real change soon ...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
