Of Course the Government Is Lying About 9-11.

Print Friendly

Gary North
GaryNorth.com
March 17, 2014

This month, a campaign in Canada is challenging the government’s 9-11 story. I am in favor of this, both as a professionally trained historian and as a believer in a general policy of examining official government positions.

Here is a short video on the campaign.

It is a professional looking video. It may work. Lots of people may get involved. But fewer than 4,000 people have seen it.

The group wants to get the word out. I am all in favor of getting the word out on 9-11. This could be a hook for getting the word out on other issues. People who finally figure out that they have been manipulated by the spin masters in the U.S. government are probably more prepared to accept the message that there is a long-term pattern of deception here.

The video focuses on Canada. This may work. There is a higher percentage of Canadians who think the U.S. government is willing to lie, than there is of Americans who think this. Anyway, that is my guess.

But the question occurs to me: “Who is putting up the money for this campaign?” Then this question occurs to me: “Why?”

I am a great believer in searching for historical truth. I am also a great believer in the fact that hardly anyone is committed to such a search, and of those who are, most of them don’t have much money.

When dealing with the government’s version of history, always ask this question: “Who is covering up?” But don’t forget this question: “Who is paying for this round of uncovering?” And this question: “Why?”

GETTING THE WORD OUT

Fact: it does no good to get the word out unless you have a very explicit, tightly focused program to mobilize people after you get the word out. The marketing campaign must be an extension of the mobilization plan. It must reinforce this plan. It must ignore everything that is not an aspect of this plan.

We have limited resources. It is very easy to waste resources. This is why a marketing campaign is necessary: to conserve resources. There must be a specific, measurable goal for the expenditures. There must be success indicators. There must be rapid reporting on the results of the expenditures. There must be a way of generating money from the campaign, so that there can be another follow-up campaign.

Until all this is in place, and tested on a limited, statistically representative scale, the money will disappear into the void.

Direct-response marketers understand all this. They live with it. Yet very few people understand this, and fewer still discipline themselves to follow this procedure.

People get on board a project “to get the word out” for many reasons. There is no universal pattern for joining a cause. It is too expensive to devise a separate recruiting campaign for each of these motivations. The budget is too small. The markets are too diversified. The personal motivations are too different.

Those who promote the official version also have multiple motivations. But they have a huge advantage: government money, government power, and the mainstream media, which fear government power and want in on government money.

Most people do not have time to re-think every government position. Even with the big positions, people do not have time to re-think them in detail. They sense the personal cost of such investigations. If they ever figured out that they have been lied to deliberately, they might lose faith in the government. This is like abandoning the religion of your youth. The costs are high. The older you are, the more emotional capital is invested in this “market.” To abandon faith in the official line means admitting that you had previously fallen for a grand deception. You were played the sucker. You were, in Lee Harvey Oswald’s now-famous term, a “patsy.”

There is an old line: “You cannot change just one thing.” When you abandon faith in the broad outline of the government’s official explanation, you then feel as though you must offer a better one. This opens up a huge can of worms. This may take you down rabbit trails. Then this may take you down rabbit holes. You may be like Alice. You may enter Wonderland. You may never re-emerge.

LOSS OF FAITH

My loss of faith in the federal government’s version of American history began in the fall of 1958. I wrote a high school term paper on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I reached a conclusion: President Roosevelt not only knew that an attack was imminent in the first week of December 1941, he had for a year authorized policies that he believed would provoke such an attack. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson spoke for Roosevelt when he made this entry in his diary on November 25, 1941: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot. . . .”

I did not know in 1958 that he had been Secretary of War under Taft, Secretary of State under Hoover, and was later known as “the chairman of the American Establishment.” I was young and naïve in 1958. I am no longer young. I trust that I am not naïve . . . not about the U.S. government, anyway.

This week, I read yet another book that purports to explain why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: Operation Snow (2012). It blames Stalin and Harry Dexter White. It does not come close to proving its case. The author explicitly says that President Roosevelt knew nothing of what was about to happen at Pearl Harbor, that he in no way goaded the Japanese into attacking the fleet. Therefore, he says, Harry Elmer Barnes was wrong (p. xx). This book was published by the Henry Regnery Company, whose founder published the most detailed account of Roosevelt’s behind-the-scenes manipulation of these events, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 (1952), by Charles C. Tansill, who in 1952 was one of the two or three most distinguished American historians on American foreign policy. It does not appear in the bibliography of Operation Snow. Neither does Charles Beard’s President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (Yale University Press, 1948). Operation Snow has not one footnote. Yet Regnery published it.

This is what happens to every movement devoted to rejecting the official government position. Unskilled amateurs get an outlet for their half-baked theories. So do outright crackpots. Then the skeptics must spend more time and money trying to keep the movement on track.

Problem: there is no single track. The government has a single track. The skeptics do not.

This is why there are more books on Kennedy’s assassination than on any other single event in modern history: too many tracks. The government has a single track: the Warren Commission Report.

At the core of every historical revisionist movement there must be a core assumption: “The government’s versions of turning-point domestic historical events are guilty until proven innocent.”

The revisionist history movement is in fact a resistance movement. In the minds of most citizens, it has the greater burden of proof. It must therefore begin the process of recruitment with overwhelming evidence regarding a single central and representative fact in the government’s account of the event. This presentation must prove that whatever the government and the dutiful mainstream media have promoted could not possibly have taken place. This creates the initial seeds of doubt. Plant these seeds. Water them. Nurture them. Then look for more seeds.

Problem: as soon as a prominent skeptic in the camp of the revisionists offers a theory of what did happen, the can of worms gets opened. This will begin almost immediately. It may even launch the revisionist movement.

When you identify what could not have happened, you call the government’s version into question. You also put a “Detour” sign on a rabbit trail.

In the case of 9-11, the skeptics should begin at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. There was no debris. Conclusion: it was not a crash site. Whatever happened to the plane, it did not end up at the official crash site.

The on-ramp to the highway of skepticism should begin wherever there can be no counter-argument — preferably an argument based on physics or engineering. Begin where the official report offers zero evidence. Begin where there is self-imposed silence, coupled with ridicule of conspiracy theories.

That will be enough to raise serious doubts.

As soon as the Shanksville investigators get this story out and defend it in multiple media outlets — videos, articles, books — they can go on to Building 7.

Meanwhile, the Building 7 specialists are building their case. “Why does this look like a controlled demolition?”

Pentagon crash skeptics are doing their work, too. “What really hit the Pentagon?”

All of them should keep asking this: “Why have we never been told what was on the ‘black boxes’ — which are in fact orange — that record the flight data that precede a crash?” The government is zero for four.

“It’s just four of those things, four of those crazy things.”

If the goal is to raise serious doubts about the government’s version, this approach will be successful. On the other hand, if the goal is to explain the four plane incidents by means of a coherent narrative, it will take a lifetime of many investigators, and there will be no agreement. The noise will overwhelm the narrative. The irreducible complexity of history will thwart a common story that has sufficient footnotes to sufficiently reliable sources.

For those in search of a theory of why 9-11 happened, here is a good place to start: http://www.garynorth.com/public/12227.cfm

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of Gödel’s theorem also applies to historiography. It is impossible for human beings to come up with a single narrative of any event that is both consistent and complete, relying on nothing outside of its limited evidence. The more information we have, the less consistency our narrative will have.

This applies to the official version, too. So, let us concentrate our limited resources on persuading intelligent people that the government is not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Then let us take the next step: “The government is lying.”

Then let us follow the confession, follow the money, and follow the organizations involved in the government’s official version. Let us ask this economic question: “Who wins? Who loses?” Then let us ask this political question: “Who? Whom?” That was Lenin’s question, a master of who/whom.

Then let us ask the question that Lenin also asked, stealing it from Cherneshevsky: “What is to be done?”

You cannot come to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The government can’t, either. But you can make a pretty good case that the government will not even make the attempt. Show why and how the government is lying. Show that lying is part of the government’s underlying — with the accent on “lying” — agenda. That should be good enough for anyone.

It will surely be good enough for me.

Share Button

  54 comments for “Of Course the Government Is Lying About 9-11.

  1. MamaLiberty
    March 17, 2014 at 10:01 am

    Save a lot of time and effort. Simply realize that anyone who wants to own and control you, is willing and able to kill you for any reason – or no reason – is also not telling the truth. About anything. Ever.

    And then realize that it wouldn’t really matter in the long run even if they did once in a while.

  2. guest
    March 17, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    There’s plenty of reason to doubt the intentions of America’s government when it comes to foreign policy. But the arguments focusing on attempting to prove that the lives killed and property damaged on that day was orchestrated by our government are not those arguments.

    9/11 Case Study: United 93
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjaN8NqN8CE#t=1m57s

    [Video text]:
    “CONSPIRACY THEORY:

    “Of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, probably the most bizarre is that United 93 actually landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport”

    “Not surprisingly, this is also based on the least amount of evidence:

    “(1.) Shanksville’s Mayor stating there was no plane.

    “(2.) A report stating United 93 landed in Cleveland.”

    “The quote conspiracy theorists most often refer to is:

    “”My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there. They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here – and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.”

    “-Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville”

    “What conspiracy theorists conveniently leave off is the rest of the quote …”

    “… But there was no plane. They just found the two turbines, because, of course, they’re heavier and more massive than anything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane’s outside shell behind his barn that must’ve been about 8 by 10 or 8 by 12 feet.”

    There’s more:

    9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debunking Video Collection
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFC6E87582AB59A6

    Yes, America’s foreign policy is responsible for 9/11, but the terrorists acted of their own accord.

    Use these to make your broader point, instead:

    Ron Paul Predicted 9/11 a Decade Ago!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup?

    Ron Paul – Israel Created Hamas, Just Like We Create Al Qaeda – January 9, 2008

    • MamaLiberty
      March 17, 2014 at 5:07 pm

      The real problem is, Mr. Guest, that none of that really matters anymore. The reality of the “conspiracy” is manifest in the insane “Obamacare,” the crashing economy, the ongoing invasion and murder in various parts of the world… and plans for ever more. The problem is the current actions of the CIA, EPA, DES, and on and on ad nausea.

      We have plenty of US government contrived, engineered, planned and executed disasters, large and small. The problem isn’t really the “conspiracy” at all, but the almost universal superstition of the population that, in spite of all the problems, the “government” and it’s minions have some kind of legitimate “authority” to do anything at all. Until that changes, the disasters will continue to roll out until the whole thing collapses into absolute chaos.

      And then… though it will be horrible beyond belief, maybe we can start to get somewhere when that “authority” is exposed for the monstrous lie it has always been.

    • Phillip the Bruce
      March 17, 2014 at 5:27 pm

      The “Conspiracy” is not what happened to Flight 93 – or the Pentagon, or Bldg 7. The conspiracy is that it did NOT happen the way the 9-11 Commission reported it.

    • Bevin
      March 17, 2014 at 6:40 pm

      Dear guest,

      I used to assume it was “LIHOP.” Let it happen on purpose.

      But United 93 is not the only piece of the puzzle. There is far more conclusive evidence. WTC 7 is utterly irrefutable.

      No. 9/11 was “MIHOP.” Make it happen on purpose.

      http://thechinadesk.blogspot.tw/2011/09/911-controlled-demolitions.html

      • guest
        March 17, 2014 at 9:20 pm

        Be careful when considering the WTC 7 evidence, as I’ve seen some “free fall proof” videos begin AFTER a portion of the building has already collapsed.

        Here is one of those videos:

        WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

        But here is WTC 7 before that point:

        9/11 WTC 7 Demolition – Westside Highway CBS Camera Angle
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Vsv0eve_U#t=7m23s

        The following video explains that this portion was the “east penthouse”:

        9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8#t=2m41s

        “Exposed to the fires for 7 hours and critically weakened, Truss 1 (in the northeast corner) finally failed at 5:20.”

        “The initial collapse progressed vertically all the way to the roof, as evidenced by the collapse of the east penthouse.”

        • BrentP
          March 18, 2014 at 12:58 am

          The government fire story for WTC7 is BS. The best demonstration of that? Look at WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6. Nobody really looks at them. They took more debris damage from the towers and more fire and at the end of the day they were still standing. Damaged beyond repair but still standing.

          The damage they took is many factors of ten greater than what WTC7 took. But WTC just falls down? Then look into WTC7’s structure. WTC7 was a tank of a building. It was designed to have interior floors removed any time someone want to remodel the insides and make an atrium type space. It was cantilevered over an electrical substation. What does that mean? That means a random structural fault in the building that could bring it down would cause it to fall over, not in its own footprint. For it to come down in its own footprint requires planing and precision. Cantilevered structures naturally tip over. The weight load pulls the building in direction of the overhang when the structure fails. US Federal government expects the public to believe it defied nature without human intervention.

          Look at all the ‘stars align’ things we are supposed to believe that happened that day. Maybe I can believe one. But after that, it’s just bullshit.

        • guest
          March 18, 2014 at 11:54 am

          Turns out there is a correction in the description of the video I posted:

          “PLEASE NOTE: This video was made in September 2007. The official investigation into the collapse of WTC7 at this time was still ongoing and did its final report was not released until more than a year later, in December 2008. Therefore, everything in this video was based on their working hypotheses at the time, and it should come as no surprise that when the investigation concluded, some of their findings varied from their early hypotheses (as in any investigation). Namely, the claim in this video that the fires were “likely fed by a series of diesel generators” turned out not to be the case, and the hypothesis that the collapse started with Truss 1 was also incorrect. The collapse actually started in the same vicinity only a few floors up, with the collapse of Column 79. However, neither of these two greatly alter the overall conclusions for the mechanism of the collapse. I would go in and make these changes in the video itself, but all the video’s data was on an old computer that I got rid of literally years ago.”

      • Bevin
        March 17, 2014 at 10:16 pm

        Dear guest,

        I’m now retired, but I used to be an architect.

        As I pointed out in my article, and as thousands of my fellow architects, as well as structural engineers have pointed out, a modern steel framed office tower cannot collapse at that speed as the result of “building fire weakened structural members.”

        Modern steel high-rise buildings engulfed in flames may twist and bend out of shape. But they never spontaneously and miraculously disintegrate into thousands of fragments. They never fall straight down at free fall velocity inside their own footprints.

        A modern steel high-rise building will disintegrate into thousands of fragments and fall straight down at free fall velocity inside its own footprint, only if it has been subjected to controlled demolition. Only if thousands of cutting charges have been strategically placed and precisely detonated in close succession.

        This is hard and fast scientific and engineering fact. There is simply no room for “ambiguity.”

        • guest
          March 17, 2014 at 11:55 pm

          Maybe you’re right. Maybe not.

          Just be aware that your theory has to account for the east penthouse collapsing (within its own footprint) a relatively considerable amount of time before the rest of the building.

          • Bevin
            March 18, 2014 at 1:25 am

            Dear guest,

            Brent is correct.

            As another skeptic of the gubmint fairy tale put it rather succinctly,

            “Free fall, of course, means zero resistance to collapse, but solid steel never offers zero resistance.”

            It’s not that complicated. As long as the the solid steel is in place, no matter how bent or twisted it might be, it is going to offer massive resistance. As long as it in place to offer resistance, the building mass above can never even approach free fall velocity. Not even close.

            The only way to make the building fall at anywhere near freefall velocity, is to use explosives to fragment the steel frame into thousands of tiny pieces, such that they can no longer offer any upward resistance whatsoever to the building mass above as it drops straight down.

            Any resistance whatsoever, and the building will not achieve anything near freefall velocity.

            Are you following me?

            As I said, no one who understands anything about architecture, structural engineering, civil engineering, materials science, or physics is going to be conned into believing that “building fires weakened the structure enough” that all three WTC towers magically turned to dust before our very eyes.

            Only mainstream laymen with severe cognitive dissonance, who subconsciously resist the glaringly obvious, can cling to the gubmint’s “conspiracy theory.”

            Watch the AE911 video for a good overview of the architectural and structural case for false flag operation.

  3. Helot
    March 17, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    HA! Just about every time I see someone connect the phrase, ‘conspiracy theorist’ or conspiracy theory’ to the numbers 911, I think of this video:

    9/11 – The Truth In 5 Minutes

    Also, I like your approach, MamaLiberty.

    • Bevin
      March 18, 2014 at 1:49 am

      Dear Helot,

      I like what Charlie Sheen said.

      “Call me insane,” said Sheen, “but did it sort of look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?”

      Sheen also expressed his doubts about whether al Qaeda hijackers seized U.S. commercial jets that day. “It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets: that feels like a conspiracy theory,” he said.

      Well said indeed. I guess not everyone in Hollywood is an Illuminati puppet.

      • Helot
        March 18, 2014 at 4:31 am

        I did not know Charlie Sheen said all that. No wonder it looked like he was being attacked ferociously by all the media outlets for awhile there – hard – in a way movie stars don’t get treated for what all he had going on in the sidelines of his life. I thought it was odd at the time. Now, perhaps, I know why.

        Also, I haven’t read a great deal about the WTC buildings, but I’ve read some. This is the first time I’ve heard about WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6. Up until now I didn’t even know they existed, let alone that they were damaged more severely than WTC 7. Which means most people likely don’t know about them either.

        • eric
          March 18, 2014 at 5:15 am

          Two things abut 911 ought to raise questions in anyone’s mind – if their mind is not completely closed:

          How did the tubular “cores” of the twin towers vertically collapse at or near free-fall speed? These cores provided the main structural support for the buildings. Most people do not understand how the towers were built; the explanation given by NST and the government is hard to swallow once you do understand how they were built.

          If (per NST and the official story) the Twin Towers were brought down as a result of (in sequence) the impact of a commercial jet, which not only weakened the buildings as a result of the impact itself but also contributed to the weakening of structural steel by blowing off fire insulation – followed by the high heat fire caused by jet fuel, etc. – then how do we account for the collapse of WTC7?

          It was not struck by an airplane; therefore its fire insulation could not have been blown off. There was fire, yes, but not fueled by an accelerant such as jet fuel; it was an ordinary office fire fueled by paper, wood and so on. In other words, not nearly hot enough to weaken structural steel. Ordinary office fires may gut the interior of a steel-framed tall building, but they have never – not once (prior to 911) brought down a steel-framed tall building.

          Moreover, WTC7 was supported by numerous columns (not a main core tied to an exterior sheathing, as the towers were). How is it possible that all the key columns failed at exactly the same moment – which would have to be the case for a symmetric collapse of the building, as in controlled demolitions?

          • Bevin
            March 18, 2014 at 5:36 am

            Dear Helot, Eric,

            The “Pancake Collapse Theory” is total bullshit.

            This video demolishes it in two minutes.

          • Bevin
            March 18, 2014 at 5:41 am

            Another video that goes into greater detail in debunking the official “pancake collapse theory.”

          • guest
            March 28, 2014 at 11:11 am

            “There was fire, yes, but not fueled by an accelerant such as jet fuel; it was an ordinary office fire fueled by paper, wood and so on. In other words, not nearly hot enough to weaken structural steel.”

            9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained

            “It’s true that no plane hit WTC7, but Boeing 767’s are not the only objects capable of inflicting damage to a building.

            “From multiple angles of the North Tower’s collapse, debris can be seen striking WTC7.

            “The following pictures show damage to the building.”

          • eric
            March 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

            Hi Guest,

            No one disputes that WTC 7 was damaged by debris and so on. The question is whether this damage can account for a freefall collapse of a steel framed tall building onto its own footprint. Not a partial collapse, but a sudden, total failure of all the building’s structural supports such that it literally disappeared within less than 30 seconds.

            I’d not have looked askance at a portion of the building failing; some of the roof collapsing, say … but the entire building coming down exactly like it would have if in fact it had been wired for implosion? It doesn’t pass the smell test.

            Bevin – a regular here – is an architect. You might ask him his thoughts on the subject.

          • Bevin
            March 28, 2014 at 11:41 am

            Dear guest,

            Also, even jet fuel fires are not as hot as many might imagine.

            Many people think “jet fuel” must be something exotic that burns at blast furnace temperatures. But jet fuel is essentially plain old KEROSENE.

            Jet fuel is a clear to straw-colored fuel, based on either an unleaded kerosene (Jet A-1), or a naphtha-kerosene blend (Jet B)

            Jet-A powers modern commercial airliners and is a mix of pure kerosene and anti-freeze…

          • BrentP
            March 28, 2014 at 1:14 pm

            Guest,
            Those who say WTC7 fell because of fire and debris need to explain to me why WTC3,4,5,&6 didn’t fall.

            The problem is that all the explanations for WTC7’s failure due to the damage sustained from the collapse of the towers do not concern themselves with why structures that saw orders of magnitude more fire and debris damage from the same stayed up.

          • Bevin
            March 28, 2014 at 6:55 pm

            Dear guest,

            Eric and the others are 100% correct.

            Building fires NEVER result in a modern steel framed building simply disintegrating into thousands of pieces before our eyes and dropping straight down into a pile of rubble on the ground.

            NEVER.

            http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

            It doesn’t matter whether one examines the issue from an empirical perspective, or logical perspective.

            Either way, it is simply flat out impossible for a modern steel framed building to vanish in a puff of smoke that way.

          • guest
            March 29, 2014 at 7:18 pm

            Let’s not forget the east penthouse. WTC7 didn’t fall all at once.

            Where were the explosions to account for the east penthouse collapse, in the “controlled demolition” scenario.

          • Boothe
            March 29, 2014 at 8:46 pm

            Guest, do you understand the “false flag” concept? Are you familiar with the burning of the Reichstag? Have you ever heard the Nietzsche quote: “Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”? My friend, if you are defending the State on this site, you have come to the wrong place. We seek the truth here; we have no interest in the comforting platitudes of the State or its minions that tell us there are “terrorists” out there coming for our freedom and the gun-vernment is here to protect us. That’s male bovine excrement at its finest! The real terrorists coming for our freedom are the State itself and so has it always been! Two hundred million (plus) dead subjects (in the 20th century alone) at the hands of “their” gun-vernments can’t be wrong, now can they?

            It’s time to wake up and smell the taxes! The banksters are behind this travesty and tragedy we call “government.” The only way the events of “nahn-uh-levin” could have played out the way they did so smoothly was with the cooperation of key players in the State. The way you get “the State” to cooperate (or even instigate) is to offer them money and power. So ask yourself who really has all the “money” and power? So you think they couldn’t have pulled it off without someone finding out, do you? Well…people did find out and raised the alarm “Hey, something’s wrong here. No way building could have collapsed like that from a jet fuel fire…” evokes a response from the statist of “oh, but there are doubts” response from those that can see no evil in the state. Frankly, I smell a subtle, yet big-time (and probably tax-feeding) Clover here. Come clean guest; what do you do for a living?

          • Bevin
            March 29, 2014 at 9:50 pm

            WTC7 Tenants & Their Significance

            http://letsrollforums.com/wtc7-tenants-their-significance-t16930.html?s=9af0b22f283548a34b38c46687f8f011&

            Note the security oriented federal agencies which had authority over the events that unfolded on 9/11.

            “This building had to be brought down. It is safe to say that this was most likely the 9/11 operations field office, and once the operation was complete, the building had to go. It was a classic coverup, where the criminals covered their tracks.”

          • guest
            April 10, 2014 at 4:01 am

            “Guest, do you understand the “false flag” concept?”

            Umm …:

            “guest
            “March 17, 2014 at 4:52 pm

            “There’s plenty of reason to doubt the intentions of America’s government when it comes to foreign policy.”

            ” The banksters are behind this travesty and tragedy we call “government.””

            It’s the other way around: government is behind the travesty of the actions of those you derisively call “banksters”.

            Banking isn’t the problem. Lending at interest isn’t the problem.

            Fractional reserve banking is a problem, but without the government protecting them, the free market would correct this problem on its own.

            It’s because the government is enacting the very regulations many Americans actually support that is the cause of both our economic problems and America’s imperialism:

            Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)

            War and the Fed | Lew Rockwell

            It is collectivism – not the profit motive – that causes our problems. Don’t blame the bankers, per se. Blame ourselves.

            Those who think bankers are the problem typically hold the views of Greenbackers, so I’ll offer these resources in response to that issue:

            Government Money Masters: Anti-Gold Videos that Thousands of Tea Party Voters Think Are Conservative
            http://www.garynorth.com/public/8574.cfm

            “The conservative movement is filled with well-meaning people who do not understand free market economic theory. They believe that they hold to free market economics, but they in fact hold to a crude Keynesianism: economic salvation by fiat money.”

            Why the Greenbackers Are Wrong (AERC 2013)
            http://tomwoods.com/paper/

            “A subset of the end-the-Fed crowd opposes the Fed for peripheral or entirely wrongheaded reasons. For this group, the Fed is not inflating enough.

            “Their other main complaints are … (3) that under the present system we are burdened with what they call “debt-based money”; their key monetary reform, in turn, involves moving to “debt-free money.””

            Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt Is an Anti-Gold Currency, Pro-Fiat Money, Greenback, Keynesian Tract. Here, I Take It Apart, Error by Error.
            http://www.garynorth.com/public/department141.cfm

            “Ellen Brown is the latest in a long line of pro-fiat money, anti-gold currency, monetary statists who have infiltrated the conservative movement.

            “They have accomplished this for over 50 years by the tactic of wrapping themselves in a flag of opposition to the Federal Reserve System. I call them false-flag infiltrators.”

          • eric
            April 10, 2014 at 5:25 am

            Hi Guest,

            I see no meaningful difference between “banksters” – by which I mean the Fed apparatus and the money-manipulators connected to it – and government (specifically, the central government).

            They operate together, on the same basic ground rules, for their mutual benefit. The “game” is set up by them, for them – with us (ordinary people) as the pawns.

            It’s part of the matrix, if you like.

            Just like the Democrat-Republican duopoly. It provides superficial “choice” and thereby props up the illusion of consent. But the game is fixed.

            It’s the same with regard to the financial system.

            As I see it, the one thing the con must have is a legal monopoly on money. And specifically, a legal monopoly on fiat money.

            Take that away and it becomes much harder to engage in the sort of massive, pervasive fraud that is SOP in “high finance.”

            I agree that debt at interest – per se – is not pernicious.

            But creating debt out of thin air is.

            I understand that doing so can “stimulate” economic growth. But it is artificial, unnatural growth. In biology, that would be called cancer.

            And it’s the same thing with regard to economics.

            People – an entire country – living beyond its means; a short-lived boom, followed by an inevitable bust. Saving effectively penalized; speculating encouraged by rewarding it.

            Currency should be stable and stability requires it to be tied to real value – which can be achieved by the currency itself having real value (i.e., precious metal). If I have a gold dollar, the gold is valuable irrespective of what the government (and banksters) do. But if I have a paper dollar, its worth is utterly dependent on the “faith and credit” of the government/banks.

            And we all know how solid a foundation that is.

          • Bevin
            April 10, 2014 at 6:45 am

            Dear guest,

            Nobody here is condemning capitalism and the free market. Everyone here is well versed in the distinction between laissez faire capitalism and cronyist corporatism. They support the former and reject the latter.

            The Fed is corporate rent seeking of the most outrageous kind. Essentially the banksters got laws passed that made counterfeiting legal — for themselves, but nobody else.

            This alone makes any talk of Amerika since 1913 being a “free market” let alone a “free country” absurd.

          • guest
            April 11, 2014 at 4:05 am

            It seems we agree on the monetary/economics issues, for the most part.

            The reason I pushed back a little on the 9/11 issue is not because I don’t think it’s worth some attention, but because this issue makes libertarians pariahs, especially to conservatives – who believe in free markets at least to the extent they believe it is capable of securing the maximum liberty for the individual.

            But of course, it’s not like this site disproportionately talks about 9/11, so maybe I’m being a bit sensitive.

            Keep up the great work as long as you’re all able.

            And could someone please define “clover” and provide that definition’s etymology? I’ve looked that up on UrbanDictionary and elsewhere, and I really think it’s like an in-house thing, or maybe even like “trying to make ‘fetch’ a thing”.

            I choose to not use the word, in that way, out of concern that I’m being tricked. Congrats for living rent free in my head.

          • eric
            April 11, 2014 at 5:50 am

            Hi Guest,

            I dunno about conservatives believing in free markets! The ones I know frequently espouse corporatist/protectionist ideas.

            Which, actually, I am somewhat in sympathy with – as regards protectionism – so long as there isn’t a free market.

            I oppose, for instance, the wholesale, unfettered importation of goods produced in unfree countries such as China, to “compete” with domestically produced goods. That is abuse of the Chinese workers – as well as a recipe for our own economic suicide. I support free trade when it means free trade.

            But, on this 911 thing. If questioning the official narrative makes me a pariah, I embrace my pariahood. Truth is truth, however socially uncomfortable, however heterodox.

            And the truth is that steel framed buildings don’t collapse vertically onto their own footprint at (or very near to) freefall speed as the result of an office fire, or debris falling on them.

            This is engineering and math – not opinion. The data – the evidence – does not support the official narrative.

            Whatever really did happen, WTC 7 was not felled as described by the 911 Report.

            And the way the Twin Towers collapsed is also highly suspicious. In particular, the way their steel tube cores simply disintegrated. It defies belief – because it defies physics.

            Why is there literally no publicly available video (or even still photography) of an airplane descending toward the Pentagon? I lived in DC for years; there were video cameras everywhere – even before 911. Thousands of tourists would have been walking around, with most of them having video cameras or at least cameras. A commercial jet flying low and erratically would have prompted people to look up. Hey, what’s that? In Dallas, in 1963, several different people took pictures of JFK’s assassination. Yet in 2001, no one took pictures or video of an airplane Kamikaze-diving toward the Pentagon? Really?

            How is that a wide-body jet only left a relatively small initial hole in the side of the Pentagon? Windows not damaged on either side of this hole? Where did the tail go? The two huge jet engines hanging off the wings? Why no signs of damage/destruction on either side of the original (small) hole? Where did the wings go?

          • guest
            April 11, 2014 at 10:09 pm

            “Why is there literally no publicly available video (or even still photography) of an airplane descending toward the Pentagon?”

            Apparently, there were eyewitnesses:

            9/11 Debunked: 136 Eyewitnesses to Pentagon Attack

            A resource page is provided in the video.

            “How is that a wide-body jet only left a relatively small initial hole in the side of the Pentagon?”

            According to the following video, which addresses several of the Pentagon issues, there are photos of plane debris (the “A”, “c”, and “n” from the word “American”; wheel rim; landing gear; engine parts; cockpit), as well as of the damage the engines did; and the hole was about 18 feet wide, while the plane’s body was 12 feet 4 inches wide:

            9/11 Case Study: The Pentagon

          • eric
            April 12, 2014 at 5:46 am

            Hi Guest,

            Debris, yes.

            But (and recall, I was in the area at the time and watching the local affiliate coverage) the debris you mention was post facto.

            Initially – right after the impact – the scene at the impact point showed no such debris. And just a fairly small hole in the side of the building (which later expanded). No damage above the hole, where the aircraft’s tail should have impacted. No damage to either side of the hole – where the wings should have impacted. And given the low – almost ground level – point of impact – what about the two enormous jet engines hanging from the wings?

            These questions could be dealt with if video of the flight (and impact) were released. Yet the government refuses to release, for instance, the full video we know was taken by Pentagon security cameras. We know that video taken by nearby security cameras (as, for example, at a gas station not far from the Pentagon) were also taken by the government and has simply disappeared. Is this not suspicious?

            Another thing:

            I know a guy who flew supersonic F4 Phantoms in combat during the Vietnam war. The guy has tremendous credentials as a pilot. He told me that the maneuvering performed by the aircraft that struck the Pentagon – as described by the government – was in his opinion beyond the capability of anyone not a very experienced pilot. Yet we are told that – and expected to believe – that a guy who could barely handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a twin engine commercial jet just off the deck, at near ground level, and fly it straight and level into the Pentagon without hitting the ground or losing control before he hit the Pentagon.

            My retired F4 combat vet pilot friend calls BS on this.

            And for me, that is extremely persuasive.

          • BrentP
            April 11, 2014 at 11:54 pm

            Guest,

            Someone went and interviewed the eye witnesses.
            The plane they saw was not on the path the government says the plane that hit the pentagon was on.

            There was a plane. But apparently it doesn’t match the government story.

            If the government isn’t lying, why doesn’t it release the videos that would confirm its story?

            This appears to be the documentary I watched some time ago:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bR-k96laOI

          • Helot
            April 12, 2014 at 12:25 am

            guest wrote, “Apparently, there were eyewitnesses”

            Yeah, and there were many cameras, too. What happened to those many videos? Oh wait, I know, “it got lost”? Just like in Oklahoma. What a coincidence. Sort of like the coincidence that the hole in the Pentagram was the office where they were investigating the Trillions of Dollars which were, “lost”.
            I guess they found some evidence as to where those “lost” Dollars went?

            Not to derail this worthy conversation but I feel compelled to add: eric wrote, “I oppose, for instance, the wholesale, unfettered importation of goods produced in unfree countries such as China, to “compete” with domestically produced goods. [...] I support free trade when it means free trade.”

            Oh no, that smacks of merchanitilist/protectionist tendencies.

            The problem is: the taxes, the rules and the regulations here, not over there. Subsidies be damned.

            Please consider, ‘Free or Fair?’ By Walter E. Williams:

            “At first blush, the mercantilists’ call for “free trade but fair trade” sounds reasonable. After all, who can be against fairness? Giving the idea just a bit of thought suggests that fairness as a guide for public policy lays the groundwork for tyranny.” …

            https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/12/walter-e-williams/the-evil-of-fairness/

            Especially, consider this part: “Last summer, I purchased a 2010 LS 460 Lexus, through a U.S. intermediary, from a Japanese producer for $70,000. Here’s my question to you: Was that a fair or unfair trade?”

          • guest
            April 12, 2014 at 1:20 am

            “Yeah, and there were many cameras, too.”

            That issue is addressed in the resource page I mentioned.

            “The problem is: the taxes, the rules and the regulations here, not over there.”

            I agree. That distinction is why I said that eric and I agreed “for the most part”, but it seems clear to me that he understands a decent amount of Austrian Economics.

            I figured that the links I provided contained sufficient information to clear up that issue.

          • eric
            April 12, 2014 at 5:22 am

            Hi Guest,

            For me, Austrian Economics is the ideal to be pursued (not unlike the ideal of a society in which everyone abides by the NAP) but I try not to fall into what I consider to be the trap of defending or endorsing labor arbitrage (for the benefit of multinational corporations, chiefly) in the name of the free market, as many Republicans (and some Libertarians) do.

            Immigration (I prefer migration) provides an analogy. Take away the arbitrary political constructs – imposed at gunpoint – called borders… take away the political manipulations/social engineering and wealth transfers at gunpoint – and I am 100 percent in support of the free movement of individuals, of their right to go wherever they wish to live work, etc.

            But, so long as a welfare state exists and there is an artificial incentive for loutish people to cross borders chiefly to partake of these artificial incentives, then I oppose the unlimited/free migration of people across the political constructs called borders.

            Free trade – properly speaking – can only take place between free individuals, in the context of free societies. It’s a dangerous and dishonest thing to speak of “free trade” with countries such as China.

            Or for that matter, the US!

          • Helot
            April 12, 2014 at 3:17 am

            RE: “but it seems clear to me that he understands a decent amount of Austrian Economics.”

            Thank goodness,

            And, it was a pleasure to see you type the words, ‘Austrian Economics’.

            Sometimes it’s a lonely road.

            I don’t need to watch the zombie TV show, what is it? ‘The Walkers’? …. I’m freaking living it.

            Nothing has changed since, ‘The Night of the Living Dead’.
            There’s just more color and clarity.

          • eric
            April 12, 2014 at 5:09 am

            I’ve had an instinctive, almost animal aversion to authority since as far back as I can remember (I remember running into the woods at around age 8 to avoid being forced to go to church) but one of my intellectual turning points was coming across Our Enemy The State as a young teenager.

          • BrentP
            April 12, 2014 at 10:03 am

            Is there a single expert, educated person, in any field applicable to the events of 11-sept-01 that has examined the evidence/facts in any decent way that believes the government story who doesn’t depend on a check which requires sticking with the narrative?

            I don’t recall any.

          • guest
            April 14, 2014 at 2:35 am

            “But, so long as a welfare state exists … then I oppose the unlimited/free migration of people across the political constructs called borders.”

            The thing about regulations is that they cause even more problems that then get blamed on the free market. Trying to use the government to solve the welfare problem is like shooting yourself in the foot.

            Further, the Welfare State will not end so long as we are using fiat, or otherwise non-commodity, money. I refer you again to the above video called “War and the Fed”.

            “It’s a dangerous and dishonest thing to speak of “free trade” with countries such as China.

            “Or for that matter, the US!”

            When you have time, I found the following video helpful with regard to trade with China:

            Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 23: The Importer) by Walter Block
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTT_WHyzZ54

            To the extend that we DO trade with China, it’s a good thing. The problems come only from government interventions.

            You actually don’t want the trading to stop. That would make life worse for people in both countries.

            Remember: Communism entails the denial of private property in producer goods; So the more you trade with them, the more you undermine their Communist goals.

          • eric
            April 14, 2014 at 5:37 am

            Hi Guest,

            It may be that the only way to end the state is to overwhelm it (as by open borders while there is a welfare state). But of course, that’s a dangerous roll of the dice, the outcome of which may be not what we’re after at all.

            Politically, I incline toward the belief that people would be more receptive to open borders if they did not have to fear an influx of tax feeders. I include myself among that number. But when you know that open borders – or even a lax immigration policy – will mean a certain increase in tax feeders (as now) then it is hard to be in favor of open borders, etc., even when one is supportive of the basic idea.

            On trade: It’s corporations we’re really taking about – on both sides of the ocean. Corporations and government (and the reverse; they amount to the same thing). The Chinese are even less “communist” than the Soviets – greatly less. They – the leadership – are smarter. They have emulated the corporatist authoritarian state that is the United State (singular), for the sake of profit and power. The corporate-government cartels on both sides of the ocean have reached across that ocean to shake hands – and wring the necks of workers and citizens in each of their respective countries.

            I fear this sort of thing will exist so long as man (well, most men) is plagued by his true original sin… the urge to control and do violence to others.

          • Bevin
            April 14, 2014 at 5:13 am

            Dear Guest,

            “Remember: Communism entails the denial of private property in producer goods; So the more you trade with them, the more you undermine their Communist goals.”

            Correct!

            That is why China must continue trading with the USSA despite the latter’s quasi-Fascist, quasi-Communist economic policies, as implemented by John Maynard Keynes and the Banksters of the Federal Reserve System.

          • guest
            April 17, 2014 at 5:29 am

            “On trade: It’s corporations we’re really taking about – on both sides of the ocean. Corporations and government (and the reverse; they amount to the same thing).”

            Without the government to protect them from competition, corporations wouldn’t be able to take as great a risk with people’s money because people would just go to a competitor. Government is the source of monopolies, not corporations.

            Murray Rothbard noted that there is nothing violent about corporations, per se:

            Power and Market
            R. Policy Toward Monopoly
            http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp#3R._Policy_Toward_Monopoly

            “Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann’s The Good Society.[77] It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.[78]”

            As Tom Woods noted, when you learn the real history of Anti-Trust legislation, you will be shocked (paraphrase). I found the following to be helpful on this issue:

            Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M

            Dominick Armentano: The Case for Repealing Antitrust Laws
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBT-fnJsfo0

            The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 8 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
            Myths and Facts About Big Business
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGeA1Sbd4XM

            How to Reach the Left | Roderick T. Long
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4hjO1ak4_M

            The problem was never the profit motive; It was non-commodity money and government regulations.

          • eric
            April 17, 2014 at 6:50 am

            Hi Guest,

            We’re probably arguing semantics here – in that I agree the fundamental problem is the legalized use of force to obtain special advantages or to coerce people.

            This is what a corporation is – and does. It uses force (the legal system) to create for itself “rights” as a “legal person” (such as the “right” to free speech) and to insulate itself and its officers from being held accountable for harms caused.

            Indeed, we should not forget that the fundamental purpose of a corporation is to limit liability.

            Just as an actual human being hasn’t got more rights or different rights than any other human being, so also we’re all equally accountable for what we do when we cause harm.

            Corporations exist to end-run this necessary corollary of rights.

            But corporations are not human beings; they therefore have no rights. And the individual human beings who run a company and make decisions, etc. are no less liable for the harm they cause by dint of a legal shield called “corporation.”

            Throw corporations in the woods!

          • guest
            April 18, 2014 at 12:18 am

            “Indeed, we should not forget that the fundamental purpose of a corporation is to limit liability.

            “… we’re all equally accountable for what we do when we cause harm.

            “Corporations exist to end-run this necessary corollary of rights.”

            There’s a misunderstanding here about Limited Liability. It doesn’t protect people from causing harm, it protects shareholders’ uninvested money:

            Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation
            http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/

            “Limited Liability

            The big objection to corporations is usually limited liability for shareholders. Now first let me mention that many non-attorney critics of this notion seem confused about what it means (and many attorneys also misapprehend it). They think the doctrine insulates a tortfeasor from liability even if he was negligent, so long as he is a shareholder. Or that the doctrine exempts managers and officers of the corporation from liability for torts of others. They are wrong. The doctrine merely says that shareholders are not jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the company that they have a share in.”

            You mentioned the issue of corporations granting themselves the rights of people, such as the right to free speech.

            First, I agree that Corporations aren’t people, but it is people that are doing the actual speaking, and rich people have a right to speak, too.

            Second, we can’t have it both ways: Corporations can’t be held accountable for crimes as if they were persons while at the same time be denied the right to speak because they are not persons.

            No doubt you have Citizens United vs. FEC in mind when you advocate getting rid of corporations (I think that’s what “throw it in the woods” means, but I’m not sure).

            It turns out that the ruling did not say that a corporation has a right to free speech, but that speech couldn’t be restricted based on its source:

            Story of Citizens United v. FEC, The Critique
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJEeKez1Jlw

          • eric
            April 18, 2014 at 5:21 am

            Hi Guest,

            Of course rich people have the same right to free speech (and so on) as anyone else. The problem is not speech, per se.

            It is that corporations rent-seek.

            They bring tremendous resources to bear in order to elect and re-elect candidates who will protect them and favor them with special privileges and exemptions, contracts – and so on.

            It’s also bad when individuals do this, I agree. And I concede that fundamentally, the problem is the government – the system that makes it legal/normal to use the coercive apparatus of the state to rent-seek (and redistribute, etc.).

            But I also object to corporations in principle as anathema to liberty – because they are entities created solely to maximize short-term profit, devoid of the actual flesh and blood normal human being’s desire to create something – and to avoid causing harm.

            Corporations have no conscience, no empathy. They don’t care about the future – much less the harm they might cause. What do they care about? The next quarter’s profits.

            Corporations are sociopathic in their essence.

          • guest
            April 18, 2014 at 9:53 am

            “But I also object to corporations in principle as anathema to liberty – because they are entities created solely to maximize short-term profit …

            “…

            “They don’t care about the future – much less the harm they might cause. What do they care about? The next quarter’s profits.

            “Corporations are sociopathic in their essence.”

            The dangerous risks that corporations take are only taken because the government has set up the game in such a way that this result is guaranteed.

            Corporations merely play the game, and we are all willing participants – if also unaware – in that we use the paper money that makes the game what it is.

            Corporations could never be bailed out if the government wasn’t suppressing alternatives to the counterfeit money being created by the Fed.

            And economic crashes are the necessary result of artificial credit expansion.

            Corporations literally have no choice but to screw everyone because you and I are the ones being mislead by artificially low credit into making malinvestments.

            More money in the system leads to lower interest rates. And if that money is counterfeit, then the result is unsustainable investment booms.

            The only way to stop economic crashes is to stop using non-commodity money, allow the malinvestments to crash, and to then base wealth creation on sound money, which would make systemic malinvestments impossible.

            But if you try to use the government to supress corporations’ ability to make profits, then you’re going to get even more cronyism and less liberty.

            The profit motive is not at all a bad thing:

            The Social Functions of Profits | Robert P. Murphy
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuZfe9lTMk

            Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KseRuyAjlHY

            “Corporations have no conscience, no empathy.”

            Well, non-persons aren’t capable of those. :D

            (I’m just messin’ with you.)

            Nobody needs a corporation to have empathy. When you buy food at the grocery store, you don’t care that the manager doesn’t greet you, personally, or even know you exist.

            By simply seeking profit, businessmen satisfy consumer preferences efficiently.

            In fact, it would be really annoying if every time I went to buy something the business owner or the workers wanted to talk to me.

            The economic destruction that has been associated with corporations has nothing to do with their cold, unfeeling, profit-maximizing goals. You actually want MORE people to be like them – except without the government interventions.

  4. to5
    March 18, 2014 at 5:55 am

    There are reports of the steel from 1&2 being phosphoric white hot for up to 30 days after the event. There were also mini nuclear charges placed throughout the towers when being built, because what goes up must come down someday. Also only 20,000 employees of 1&2 were at work that day, normally there would be 50,000. There were no top level management employees at those large firms in the buildings that were killed that day. Someone was warned?

    Note how the leftovers of the buildings were recycled within 9 months of collapse, before any one could get around to investigating. When a plane crashes, all the parts are recovered at great expense and reassembled in a place big enough so the plane can be studied and examined.

    Other skyscrapers have had much bigger fires, and stayed standing, even in 3rd world countries.

  5. Tor Libertarian
    March 28, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    Jet Fuel A & A-1
    Flash point – 38 °C (100 °F)
    Autoignition temperature – 245 °C (473 °F)
    Open air burning temperatures – 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

    Smoke you see in tower collapse vids is a sign of oxygen deprivation which results in lower temperatures.

    The WTC steel was tested by UL at 2000 C and retained it’s spec. It is not likely that an open air burn for less than 50 minutes could have caused enough deformation to result in collapse.

    The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at the 560 C temperatures estimated by the FEMA report and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.

    Molten steel was reportedly found below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful “fuel” was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top.

    Thermite, to take one possible culprit, is an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations. It would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F (2482C) in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750F

    At some point the order was given to detonate the towers. Most likely, to hide evidence of clandestine criminal enterprises by those high in government, or much less likely, to prevent further losses to those in the immediate vicinity of the buildings. (just my theory)

    This is probably military industrial gang warfare by CIA,MI6,Mossad etc. Strike team A attacking strike team B.

    The more you dwell on the intrigues of countless false flag psyop squads, the more they win.

    • Helot
      April 12, 2014 at 3:37 am

      “military industrial gang warfare”
      “To be governed, is to be watched.”

      I would like to think : “Great Stuff! Nuff said?”

      However; it isn’t so.

      Tor wrote, “the fact is American individuals without pull and protection are deeply powerless and subject to limitless tyranny for the most part”

      I think maybe All is lost when even Tor doesn’t ‘get it’?

      Que: The Fourth Turning?

      Tor wrote, “The entity that can stop women [...] ” … Oh wait, I think I’m totally misreading you here.

      Tor wrote, “I prefer the risks of unlimited individual murder and slavery, over the known tyrannical facts of worldwide mass prohibition and mass human behavioral control.”

      That’s some heavy duty shit! That’s words of freedom, maybe even “liberty”. Our generation, and the one before us, cannot have that!

      Maybe the next one can deal with it. Make sense of it. Understand it?

      But not ours, and not the generation before us.
      I think I’ve given Up on them.
      They love death and gooberment more than their own children.

      Bring on The Fourth Turning.
      Post haste.

      • April 12, 2014 at 5:45 am

        What if I could legally put a casting call ad on Craigslist, looking for nude babies and naked toddlers for a softcore film shoot? Goo Goo Google Webcam Rascals I’ll call it,

        And other such things.

        How could it be worse than what already exists, under their so-called rule of law?

        An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18.

        When we see injustice, we immediately gravitate towards violent retributions and murders as the solution, do we not?

        Television and Children
        http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm

        I mean it only as a shocking gimmick that I am preaching at the choir to be even more freedom oriented than you guys.

        I absolutely agree that I don’t get all manner of things. Or that I get them for a while, and then go astray.

        Why should it comfort any of you that you’re “not as bad” as the other guys? You’re permanently imprinted in a way that can’t be undone. Being a lesser monster, is still being a monster.

        There are certain formative events we can only experience from about age 3 to age 11. After that, it is too late to undo them.

        Of course, doing auto repair and maintenance is worth a thousand times anything I might scribble or emote here. And discussion is valuable as well. Doing is always better than talking.

        But to the extent we are going to talk, why proceed only from their talking points, and only take swings at the balls they’ve place on tees for us to smack with the drivers and irons they’ve sold to us in their Megamarts.

        To only play the political games they have arranged at their private clubs and public courses.

        Buy Bushwood?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjDoupVRiRQ

        Is it true that: “The most important decision you can make is what do you stand for Danny?” – Can’t we all think of a lot more decisions far more important than that?

  6. April 12, 2014 at 2:55 am

    Dear Helot,

    Re: Eric’s “I oppose, for instance, the wholesale, unfettered importation of goods produced in unfree countries.”

    Also Re: Eric’s being mostly in agreement with Ron Paul on abortion. (IIRC)

    I’m not an expert on what is mercantilist or protectionist from a theoretical standpoint. These labels are hard to grasp and not as consistently defined as I’d like.

    In spite of Americans giving themselves feel good labels to the contrary, the fact is American individuals without pull and protection are deeply powerless and subject to limitless tyranny for the most part, IMHO.

    What I am fair confident in saying, is the size and power of an entity that can stop free trade and slave trade is utterly gigantic and nearly omnipotent.

    The entity that can stop women from having abortions and selling their children to slavers likewise needs to be utterly powerful and vastly immense and globally connected to prevent the women from voting for an abortion or a sale of their child by using their feet.

    The words murder, and slavery are political words, they have no natural reality. I don’t believe in them, because I don’t believe in the mega-monstrous entities that turn our lives into cartoons because they exist to perpetuate opposition to these concepts as if their prevention is something vital and sacred.

    I prefer the risks of unlimited individual murder and slavery, over the known tyrannical facts of worldwide mass prohibition and mass human behavioral control.

  7. April 14, 2014 at 4:16 am

    Our “thoughts” on fairness, justice, free trade, borders, foreigners, and virtuous economic systems are mostly hardcoded into our psyches via force.

    They are parts of our personality that are adapted to threats, though we aren’t conscious of them as such. They are part of our false selves.

    Notes on a Ghost_What Is The False Self?_Stef Molyneux
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JEBj_Zijuk

    It is a painstaking process to recognize them for what they are. Part of the PhOO* that gums up our brain, and prohibits clear thinking. Such concepts need to be washed away, and replaced with something rationally chosen and logically defensible.

    *Philosophy Of Origin (things our families and school inculcated in us that is incorrect and damaging to our goal of living a prosperous life of voluntary freedom.)

    It should be clear, if you take some time to consider China’s vast increase in wealth, that it is America that needs to adopt the Chinese production ethics, not the other way around. Nearly all of us violate some traffic laws. Why do we consider the economic laws to be any more deserving of adherence?

    Any alleged property right, that requires the thugs of state to enforce, is no right at all. Should Clover make his own mock version of this blog, it would make the world that much richer, since he can’t really “steal” anything from here.

    Why shouldn’t Americans be able to create our own vehicles, by disassembling and adapting existing models. Or even by outright copying them?

    Why can’t Americans create a site called googuhl, where every search includes creepy information only a stalker would know. And all kinds of implied threats, instead of the sanitized smiley face search results we’re accustomed to?

    If a woman wants to by a knockoff designer item made by Kelvin Klein in Shanghai that is indistinguishable from the authentic item, why do we want Huge National Cartels to use force to stop her?

    OFC
    http://sociorocketnewsen.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/chinese-knockoffs6.jpg?w=580&h=293

    IP Fosters Corporate Concentration
    http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/tgif-intellectual-property-fosters-corporate-concentration/

    Slave Labor and IP – A Misplaced Analogy
    http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/slave-labor-and-intellectual-property#axzz2pk61pfnR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *