by William Skink
James Loewen wants Americans to know about what our historic sites get wrong, at least I’m assuming that’s why he wrote a book titled Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong. Apparently there are enough lies to take up over 400 pages. That’s a lot of lying, America.
Montana’s selection is the confederate fountain, a topic being vigorously discussed right now for political reasons. Those other lies aren’t politically expedient to highlight right now, so get a pass.
Previously this post, and other opinions about whether or not this fight at this time is worthwhile, has been deemed wrong, according to Pete Talbot. Fair enough.
While a more historically accurate plaque may be the ideal outcome over this sudden sensitivity to Civil War propaganda, I really wonder if this will be a political win for Montana Democrats.
Allow me to use myself as an analogy: I regularly describe media as lofty as the NYT as being propaganda when it comes to reporting on various geopolitical issues. My “plaque” is excerpts from alternative media, like Counterpunch. From past reactions I’ve received, this conduct is kind of annoying.
So, for Montana Democrats burning away the summer doldrums with a fountain controversy, I suggest this fight you’re picking is analogous to conspiracy bloggers acting haughtily superior to the duped sheeple. I will tell you, from first hand experience, that is not a popular position to take.
Here’s another not-popular position to take: the stars and stripes fly over land stained by genocidal colonialism.
JC
A monument might be like a time capsule, unpacking a time when people thought differently. I think historians call the haughty attitude about people who came before “presentism,” that is, if we have any historians in the Empire of Lies. Loewen is a good step, but his being quoted at Cowgirl is troubling, a respectable historian being used to advance the manipulation of charlatans.
I nice progression is from Loewen, who just talk about lies, to Ellul, Bernays, Lippmann, who talk about sheeple. Time you learned, grasshopper. There are not so much “conspiracies” as simply secrets, keeping truth from people who cannot handle it.
Passive aggressive much?
if you read the post I said I’m using myself as the example of a conspiracy blogger. the “haughty” adjective was not directed at you. it’s how the people I was writing the post about, the Dem bloggers distracted by the fountain issue, would describe a blogger like me. geez, Mark, paranoia much?
Moi? “conspiracy bloggers acting haughtily superior to the duped sheeple” is my schtick! I am the one who endures ridicule for that. Mind your boundaries. If tehre is ridicule to be endured for such talk, it is to be directed at me.
~hehehe~
What else is there to guide the flock besides some old monument?
That and a Russian love affair.
There’s always FOX to dazzle those sleeping on the other side of the bed, or sleepwalking at Wal-Mart. Same bed, same snoring, different tribe, different dream, all missing the front-line action. Big events are happening, patterns changing. Hopefully, nobody will notice if we raise and lower the proper flag.
Politically Correct Cultism, which by the way is the title of a Zero Hedge posting (comments allowed) yesterday.
A nugget found at the bottom.
“The Cost Of Cultural Marxism
Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society. If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s. We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.
Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise. The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.”-Zero Hedge.
Swede, the seventies called. They happened right after the sixties, and urge you to move forward.
Does that mean you’re giving up on JFK conspiracies and war protests?
The more I read, the more I realize the implications of the JFK assassination were vast, so that I begin to suspect that he was merely in the wrong place in time. Whoever the executive was was to be set aside, as the object was not to kill a man, but to seize control of the executive branch of government.
I admire Nixon, and Reagan really thought for a brief time before he was shot that he was president, but the JFK assassination changed the nature of government, ceding power from an elected executive to hidden forces, military and financial, behind the scenes. It has affected us ever since.
Oh,wait! Forgot. Talking to Swede here. You’re right.
Bad man shoot from window. Kaboom! He fall down. He die.
Could’ve said just “No”.
You’re right. That last line was gratuitous. My apologies.
Do you, and/or Zero Hedge, think for one minute that Republicans, neocons, or AIPAC are for individual liberty? If so, smoke another one.
“…”The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, “Let us reason together.” “…Corporatism has sometimes been labeled as a Third Way or a mixed economy, a synthesis of capitalism and socialism, but it is in fact a separate, distinctive political economic system. ” http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm
Zero Hedge like Counterpunch is a conglomerate of authors of different political stripes with a strong distaste for banking institutions. In fact most of the commenters are “stackers” meaning they hoard precious metals.
I’ll agree that Repub. currently are NOT for individual liberty. TPers are, necons is one of your labels and has a tortured meaning.
Regardless, corporatism is in the same vein as collectivism and statism.
Capitalism did evolve into corporatism. Evolution suggest an adaptation to conditions in order to thrive. Corporatism is the genetic mutation caused by governments intervening in the market and using chronyism in order to benefit some at the expense of others. You can not call a bird a fish just because it once was a fish and evolved out of the oceans. You can not blame fish for the evolution.
If you want to lay blame, do not blame capitalism but government. Government created the conditions that fostered corporatism. The ability for some to hold absolute power corrupted the system.
Um, well, hell ya. Governments created corporations. And they created they created the conditions that fostered capitalism. Capitalism is not anything but an artificial creation of humans, whether individually or collective. It has no existence outside of human constructs — it is not a natural state of the earth. It did not exist before humans constructed it.
And as such, corporatism isn’t a mutation, it is the intended end state of those who created capitalism. And the government has done nothing but facilitate the hostile takeover of the economy by those who thrive on corporatism. And it has facilitated it because of the built-in feedback loop called “campaign contributions”, i.e bribery and corruption.
You want to change capitalism from an end state whereupon wealth coalesces into as few hands as possible, then you need to regulate it. It you want a different economic construct, then you have to tear capitalism down, or wait for it to implode.
Again, WWIII is a (and already is being fought in places like Greece) war using debt slavery. If the debt slaves win, capitalism will fall. Simple as that. All of the weapons in the debt war (loans, stock markets, derivatives, CDO’s, austerity measures — privatization, pension raiding, bank capital controls, etc.) only work when people borrow money and pay it back. If people/companies/countries quit paying back loans and default, who is going to pay for and maintain enough debtor prisons for the masses?
When the press finally begins to report on debt strikes — and the rioting in Greece right now is a debt strike — people will understand how far along WWIII is.
Cry me a river JC. Unions contribute more money to politicians than corporations.
“The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.
AFSCME, the public-employees union, has vaulted ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become the largest campaign spender of 2010. Jerry Seib discusses how that could boost the Democrats? Plus, Neil King on the Republican wave sweeping Indiana.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.”
Just because the playing field has been leveled with CU you guys are squealing. That and the fact that all employees can be partial owners which blurs the line between capitalists and the common worker. You could also say governments facilitated union membership to take over the economy.
Wet dreamers are wishing WW3 was Greece related, truth be known its origins are further southeast.
And let’s review a quote I posted here back on the 12th.
“Wake me up when hegemonic corporate co-modification start shoving people into gas chambers.”
You’ve got to stop the bald-faced lying, Swede. Unions don’t even come close to corporations in campaign contributions. From OpenSecrets:
“The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.”
And that doesn’t include corporate PACs and Super-PACS, which also contribute significantly more than unions.
Spewing bullshit doesn’t improve your credibility, Swede.
I am curious about how we use language. Certain words have wink-wink meanings, as in “good schools” meaning mostly white, “contributions” meaning “bribes,” “education” meaning dumbing down, and a journalist using a “well-place source” meaning “I just make stuff up.”
“Credibility” as used here means, I think, “in agreement with the mainstream,” so that for the word to have a useful function, you would have to offer evidence that the mainstream has opinions worth being in agreement with.
Swede and I don’t often agree, but I do like that he pays no attention to the mainstream. That is usually a productive avenue of thought.
Credibility: the quality of being trusted and believed in; the quality of being convincing or believable. It’s something both you and Swede completely lack.
But I think you miss the point. Need we worry about the opinions of people who themselves have no evidential basis for their beliefs, and in fact base their opinions on pronouncements of authority figures?
In that case, is not ‘credibility” a green curtain behind which lurks a know-nothing?
Let me flesh it out some more: lacking credibility plus a massive dose of narcissism.
Ya know Pete corporations donors give and give generously to Dem candidates. What you want is an uneven playing field, you already got free advertising from the majority of print media and networks.
The way I see it the money spent on both sides equals out.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Did I say anything about which party gets more corporate donations? No. All I said was corporations give more than unions. Case closed.
Wow, this is going blow your mind, Pete, send you back to the drawing board. I am not a narcissist. I am merely lucky. I am self employed, have been since 1986. Consequently, I don’t have anyone with power over me whom I have to mind-meld with. I also have time – I’ve been able to take time to read and explore all these years, going wherever perceived truths led me without fear of repercussions.
Few are so fortunate, Pete. So instead of narcissist, perhaps label me just someone miles ahead of you on the same road, due to fortunate circumstances.
It is unbelievable arrogant and thoroughly narcissistic to think you and another are on the “same road”, Mark.
I’ll be thinking now for the next thirty seconds about the wisdom of your statement.
OK. Done.
That might be your problem, critical thinker. I can assure you it that it isn’t mine.
Why do you avoid looking at evidence? Why do you prefer the security of group consensus over individual insight? Why do you resort to ridicule when the group consensus is challenged? Why did you pretend to be Monty?
It’s not like I don’t know you.
Damn, I forgot delusional.
OK, that’s a nice insult to hurl. (My stock answer is “People say I am delusional. What is wrong with them?”)
But let’s ground it. “Delusional” means having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. I think I can back my opinions with credible evidence, reading and thinking.
On the other hand, I don’t think you can. If you pick an issue to try me on, I will try to measure up.
I am going to challenge one of your (perceived on my part) opinions, and ask you to back it up with evidence. It is this: The Democrat Party is our best hope for progressive change.
Got chops?
Tell me again about the Death Star (you know, from the Star Wars movie) that took out the Twin Towers.
The discussion you are referring to has to do with the work of Dr. Judy Wood, whose resume’ follows:
Her work, a 500 page compilation of evidence called “Where Did the Towers Go?” speculates that the Towers were brought down by some form of directed energy, that is, a non-kinetic source that caused molecular dissociation, apparent in teh photographs from that day. Evidence to support that speculation is in the seismic signatures, absence of debris, erratic behavior in eh earth’s magnetic fields, the presence of a large and unreported Hurricane (Erin) 200 miles off the coast of Manhattan, cold fires, 1400 cars that were “toasted” with a process not involving heat. and a pyroclastic flow that did not kill anybody. In addition, 1,200 people jumped to their deaths form the building that day, though there was no reason to think they would not eventually be rescued.
Nowhere does she use the term “death star.” She does not speculate on the nature of the weapon, though we know such weapons exist. She does not know where it or they might have been located. She bases her work on evidence, trying as much as possible to theorize in advance of analyzing it.
You should read the book before you characterize her work in the manner you have. At 500 pages and containing some math and scientific jargon(she generally tends to avoid jargon but sometimes it cannot be avoided) it is an effort, but well worth it.
Your turn. Please support the statement that the Democrat Party is our best hope for progressive change with evidence.
Except for a few crackpots, the entire scientific community has debunked Dr. Wood’s hypothesis. Here’s just one example (with a great graphic of the Death Star taking out the towers):
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html
But to answer your question, is “the Democrat Party our best hope for progressive change,” I’d have to answer to answer yes, with caveats. There are progressives within the party, from local legislators, like State Sen. Dick Barrett, to statewide office holders (Denise Juneau) to national candidates (Sen. Bernie Sanders). The people I associate with most in the party are the activists working to move the party to the left. Before that can really happen, though, serious campaign finance reform needs to take place, bold policy needs to be advanced and strong, progressive leadership needs to take the helm. We’re working on that.
I was active in a third party in the 90s. It no longer exists so until something better comes along, I’ll work within the Democratic Party. Or, I guess, I could sit around and write about Death Stars and fake moon landings. And despite what is said here often, there is a difference between the two parties. I mean, look at that clown car called the Republican Presidential candidates that has Donald Trump with polling numbers close to Jeb Bush’s.
My question for you is this: Why do you let other people do your thinking for you? (That’s why “debunking” sites are even there, the general understanding that people want to be reassured and do not themselves want to think about or confront evidence.) I realize there is comfort and security inside a group or in submission to authority figures, , but is there dignity?
Anyway, your techniques of argumentation here, the appeal to authority and feigned dismissiveness, coupled with ridicule, do not work. You have not used your own brain. What scares you about seeing the evidence for yourself, thinking about it for yourself? (I should have guessed you’d run to a debunking site! Silly me! Silly me!)
I’ll ask you to explain one small question on your own, Dr. Wood’s favorite question: Where did the towers go? You don’t know, do you.
__________
I am aware that progressives on the ground have no other choice outside the Democratic Party, and sympathize. Third party movements in this land serve the interests of the major parties, and end up helping one or the other, as Nader helped Bush, not that I care. So I was not asking you about that.
Rather I was asking something concrete: What is the good of the Democratic Party? There’s always a few perceived good heads around, but even if they are real, if they are elevated to a high position, they are crushed by the money that runs the party. (I saw this with Dennis Kucinich around the time of the health car debate – he fought a good and valient fight, and then he got on the plane with Obama. When he got off, he was intimidated and crushed. Somehow, they got to him. That always happens. A few good people in an otherwise corrupt party don’t get it done.
You yourself say that campaign finance reform is key. But since the party is roiling in that money, are you realistically thinking that something good will happen in the party?
I don’t have the answer, Pete, but neither do you. We don’t live in a real democracy, so I don’t expect democratic process to work. At least I am not going through the motions.
If you ever want to discuss the matters I raised, beyond juvenile ridicule and runnign to authority figures, I am all ears.
Pete, Nine One One was actually perpetrated by the Reptiloids from planet Zxclon. Or … It was done by God, punishing us for the sin of the Gay. Either explanation is as satisfactory and suits the ‘evidence’ as well as that of ‘Dr.’ Wood. A critical thinker would know that that which cannot be known cannot be interpolated to fit a pat thesis. That is a critical thinker would …
A critical thinker would look at the evidence, which neither you nor Pete have the courage to do..
Bug off, light weights. There are close to 300 million like you. Enjoy the quality company.
Sorry, Mr. Skink, for trashing this comment thread. I started a long response to Mark’s various aspersions, but what’s the point? If I’ve learned anything after nearly a decade of blogging, it’s that nothing kills discussion of a post faster than two people going back-and-forth, ad nauseam, and bickering off topic. It’s like arguing with my four-year-old grandson: repetitive, non-sequiter responses to irrelevant statements (and always having to get that last word in).
I bid you adieu.
Don’t see through that at all! No siree!
Honestly, Pete, you could just admit that you aren’t familiar with any details of the debate and resign. That doesn’t make you stupid. I just happen to have an advantage here, being familiar with Dr, Wood, Architects and Gage and jones and all the wild bunch. It’s a hall of mirrors. I went in the rabbit hole several years back and came out the other end with a solid grip on the evidence and who the liars are. You could do likewise.
shoud read … “trying as much as possible to AVOID theorizING in advance of analyzing it.”
I’ll be in my garage, waiting. I bought some oak barn wood, and in it is an apparition of the Virgin Mary. I am goign to frame it and then worship it.
Pete, you just used the 9/11 Truther organization, “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” to supposedly debunk Dr Judy Wood.
“Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” claim the towers were destroyed with high explosives and Thermite, thermate, or nano thermite planted in the towers.
So does that mean you also believe, like the link you posted, that planted explosives and thermite brought down the towers?
interesting. But wrong.
For one thing, as Dr Wood points out, if high explosives were used there would be spray patterns on all the buildings on all four sides across the street from the WTC. There would be lots of people/victims with blown ear drums, head concussions from the blast waves, and burns.
But there weren’t a lot of injury victims and the ones there were weren’t treated for blown ear drums, head concussions or burns. Strangely, people either died, or didn’t, There were very few that required emergency room visits. Also the many many videos taken by everyday people and professionals are absent the sounds of high explosives.
It’s kind of funny and ironic that you chose A&E for 9/11 Truth as your source.
I have a copy of Dr Wood’s book. I’ve never seen anyone debunk what she presents. How do you debunk an official NIST/FEMA photo? They are documented and cataloged and quite usable as evidence in a court of law. The photos she uses are data. and the data conclusively proves some new technology outside our current realm of understanding caused about 80% of the WTC to demolecularize and blow away. I know it sounds fantastical. But no one has yet presented a better explanation of the data, that I’m aware of. And until someone does, I have to go with the best explanation I’ve found.
Dr Judy Wood isn’t the only person who noticed the conspicuous lack of a rubble pile at the WTC on 9/11.
Pete left, Steve. His “I bid you adieu” was his final word.
I’ve seen this behavior often, but I was him once, I remember that sickening feeling I had when I first realized, in 1988, that Inhad been lied to all my life. So I don’t want to be too hard on him. This has far more to do with the nature of people that with the nature of evidence.
People learn from personal experience. Pete’s learning, but hasn’t had that ah ha moment yet. Maybe Bernie will be that catalyst he’s not looking for, hoping never happens. Gotta’ wonder, however, if Bill Clinton and Obama didn’t ring one’s bell, there may me a media-induced malfunction blocking reality from ever oozing in. Kill that tv.
Reptile Dysfunction, Truther born and proud of it!
Mark, this is the thing you seem totally incapable of grasping. It really doesn’t matter if Wood is correct about every particular of Nine One One. (She isn’t.) What matters is that you and others accept an untestable hypothesis as if it must be true. Where did the Towers go? A Battlemech with a microwave? The Death Star? Reptilloids from Pegasus One? GOD infuriated? Those are all equally acceptable hypothesis, none testable or any more rational than another. Wood herself has stated that she has no idea what happened to those buildings, save that she somehow does have a ‘theory’. You, critical thinker that you are, have embraced that as truth. Embracing the unknown and unknowable as truth makes you suspect, and rightly so.
You should take those matters up with a “truther,” as I am not one of that species. The so-called “Truth Movement” is but a second level of cover-up designed to catch those smart enough to know the 19 hijacker conspiracy is impossible. I avoid all elements of the Truth Movement.
Your sweeping dismissal is a weak tactic. If you’d read her work you’d know that she has done everything humanly possible to simulate the events of that day on a small scale, and all of the phenomenon she has witnessed have been shown to be possible on a small scale. Further, the weapons exist. A quick google search is all that takes.
You’d also be familiar with the evidence produced over 500 pages. Even if you’re not a reader, her two and three hour presentations are available on YouTube.
I suggest, if you want to be credible in debating this matter that you 1) review the evidence and 2) deal with specific parts of it, item by item. It’s painfully obvious you are shooting from the hip, again a part of that “nature of people” thing that I used to describe Pete’s behaviors. You guys will do any thing but – ANYTHING BUT! – look at evidence. Why?
Pete introduced the topic, not me. No doubt he’s sorry about that. He thought it was going to be easy.
Mark, I have watched the video and read way too much of Wood’s thesis. My complaint still stands, and you won’t refute it, because you can’t. Personally, I think it was God punishing us for the the Gay …
I frankly don’t believe you, Rob, as your questions indicate a state of mind that has vague impressions but no specifics. The debate on this subject should take days and hours, as the volume of information unearthed is massive and complex.
This is generally the problem that those of us who have been in and out of the rabbit hole encounter – we are up to our ears with information and analysis, but our critics have nothing and seek nothing on their own. Steve W above did a little bit of extra effort to bring some facts to the table, but I don’t bother with that, as I know it is pointless. Your side prefers to be without evidence, and rely instead on innuendo, sweeping dismissals, arrogance, ridicule, and appeals to authority.
Your method of argumentation, which I’ve seen you use countless times, to highlight one point, insist it is a lynchpin, and then clamor on that it has not been addressed to the exclusion of anything else that might come up. It’s a defective form of reasoning in this case especially, as her hypothesis is not untestable, in fact, she brings much evidence to the table to simulate the events of that day.
No, Mark. My ‘state of mind’ is that I’m really kind of laughing at you. I don’t care what you “believe”. Reason is what it is. And there is no reason to believe that a Direwolf Mark II, packing a microwave cannon, deconstructed the towers.
Why did you put the word “believe” in quotes? I didn’t use it.
This is so typical! You’ve not looked at the evidence, in fact are afraid to do so, and having nothing in your quiver resort to ridicule. Read your comment, look for content. There is none.
Please, go find Pete, and the two of you have a seance.
No reason. Do you even know what those words mean?
I’m pretty good with words and stuff. You’re confusing, as you have the false front and nothing behind it,
Scratch that. You’re not confusing. .
So you don’t really know what those words mean, do you? Nope. ‘Guess not.
OK! You win! I let you have the last word, you phony bastard.
Rob presents no evidence of a rubble pile that would approach what should have been present had 7 buildings at the WTC collapsed. Instead he talks gibberish.
Show me the photo of the rubble field that approaches what one would expect Rob. Dr Wood has lots of photos of the tiny rubble field. Show us your evidence. Explain why her evidence, documented Fema and NIST photos, are deficient.
The Aliens used microwaves? God works in mysterious ways? That’s the point. No matter how much evidence Wood or Mark or anyone else has accumulated to date, there is still a line beyond which we really don’t know. Assuming beyond that line is truly just an assumption. We laugh and laugh at people who claim that God manipulates our universe, and then assume unknown people wielding an unknown weapon once (and strangely not since) perpetrated the Baddest ass block op ever, to start a war they easily could have started in a thousand known and more mundane ways. I just don[‘t see the former being all that different from the latter.
In case you did not notice, the debate shifted from a debate about events and evidence to your and Pete’s behavior. Each of you wears blinders, steadfastly refusing to look at mountains of accumulated evidence, instead choosing to ridicule and make taunting observations obviously based on ignorance. The difference between you and Pete: He does not pretend to have looked at the evidence. He’s an honest tool.
No Mark. There is no debate. You’re arguing your religion and good on you for standing pat. Of course the only way you can do that is to identify the sinners, so I’m certain that for you ‘the debate’ has shifted, as you call it. But while your presenting from the holy texts, ask yourself this. What rational actors, ’cause no one did this alone and they are obviously not mad, would say to themselves, we’re going to spend trillions of dollars that we already control in developing a weapon that can harness energy from a hurricane to blow up some buildings and start a war so that we can make billions, billions I tell you! Bwahahaha!
It is not I who says anything like that, but the evidence does speak. I ask you again, what scares you so that you cannot bring yourself to look at it? moral cowardice?
Mark, your uber-weapon hasn’t been used in 14 years. What exactly do you think I’m supposed to be afraid of?
Steve. you can slap them in the face with evidence, which I will do one time here, and they won’t (can’t) look at it. They take solace in ridicule. Our crime, the thing that makes us “conspiracy theorists” is thinking. if this were the 1600’s we’d be labeled witches, in the `1700’s jailed as Quakers, in the 1950’s and 60’s we’d be labeled “communists.” Americans historically hate people who think.
The photo below is a thermal image of Ground Zero with some overlay showing the actual size of the buildings compared to what was left that day. Normally a demolition leaves about 30% of the original size in debris, so that the rubble should have stood perhaps thirty stories high. There is perhaps two stories of debris. There has been no time for the steel to have been “shipped to China,” a false lead and part of the cover-up. It is not buried undergone, as photos from that day clearly show the basements of the buildings mostly free of debris and intact. Firemen were wandering around down there after the buildings disappeared.
The these photos below, a section of tower of perhaps 70 stories in height that turns to dust before our eyes.
The evidence is there, easy to find, and people avoid it. Why? What power of mind do the people who did this crime have over the population that they can make them stare at their shoes? It is thought control, that’s all, really interesting to watch but painful to endure.
[I cleaned up the photo source — JC]
Hmmm … photos don’t print. I am not good at this, I guess. I’ll print this comment at my own blog along with the photos.