The jig is up.

[John Q. Citizen]

I talk to people everyday who know 9/11 was an inside job.

I had some roofing done a couple of weeks ago. While chatting with the contractor and his crew 9/11 came up. The contractor and his crew all knew 9/11 is an inside job.

I'm sitting watching my daughter's middle school volly ball game. The soccor mom next to me and I start discussing 9/11. She tells me, "It's obvious our government was involved,. No doubt about it."

People aren't stupid. Even if the radicals running the show right now think they are.


People don't nessecarily know all the minutia. Most don't have the time or the inclination to follow the latest twists and turns. But they don't have to. They already know.

Apparently, the only people who haven't got a clue are the hardcore bushbots and a few democratic self styled intellectual hardcore partisans who are scared that telling the truth will somehow hurt the Democrats.

So what does hurt Democrats? The latest media frenzy over the latest non-story about the latest "Dean Scream" BS, or telling the truth about 9/11?

[HamdenRice]

1. So true, great post

It's like this great unspoken, but obvious truth. I find the same to be the case in my life. Everyone knows, but the media and party elites are terrified of discussing it.

The exceptions are also the hardcore OCTers, such as you find in this forum. The only explanation for their behavior is that they refuse to even imagine it could be true, so they won't even look at the facts.

This is not going to be like the JFK, King, and RFK assassinations. This is going to come out soon and it's going to lead to a complete overhaul of our system of government.

[LARED]

2. Let me see if I understand this

Apparently, the only people who haven't got a clue are the hardcore bushbots and a few democratic self styled intellectual hardcore partisans who are scared that telling the truth will somehow hurt the Democrats.

So at least 50% (far more according to your statement) of Americans know that 9/11 was an inside job, and it's business as usual for the country. No riots, no massive country wide protests, nothing??????

Perhaps your overstating your case, or perhaps those people you talk to are just agreeing with you in order to avoid an unpleasant situation.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Perhaps you don't agree with me? Why am I not surprised... Oh well,

I'll get over it.

:)

[frylock]

14. how many people now realize the reasons for war were based on lies?

Almost 3000 lives stolen, yet it's BAU for the country. No riots, no massive country wide protests, nothing...

[Ezlivin]

3. Inside job and no riots

There is a disconnect with the citizens of this country. I believe that they have given up on any hope of changing things through mass protests or other public demonstrations.

Stolen election in 2000? No riots.

Stolen election in 2004? No riots.

No WMD, never-ending war, lie-upon-lie? No riots.

9/11 is an inside job? No riots.

When you feel powerless you can acknowledge anything (Hitler is gassing Jews) and simply go on with your life. We've seen this behavior countless times before in history when despots come to power.

[HamdenRice]

6. Excellent reply -- the enigma of our age

Unfortunately since the proliferation of television as the dominant media of our society, unless something is ratified as "news" it simply doesn't exist. Or even if it exists in peoples' minds, it exists in a kind of netherworld, a half reality.

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. Sorry

Speak for yourself.

If I thought our government was responsible for the mass-murder of 3,000 citizens i would do a lot more than go to a protest march.

[LARED]

9. Sure but,

you a brainwashed by the mass media to the point you cannot even understand the issues. You can't see how evil they are, how masterfully you are manipulated. At least that's the theory.

[vincent_vega_lives]

10. but...but...baaaaaa

http://sf4dean.com/albums/Arkansas-Love-Dean!/sheeple.thumb.jpg

[LARED]

12. LOL!!! (n/t)

[mhatrw]

20. WWLD? n/t

[Nozebro]

11. Would you also answer the questions about JFK that challenge your

claims about the assassination of him? We've been waiting for nearly a week, and ducking makes you look even weaker.

[mhatrw]

19. WWVVD? n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. IWVWMTF (nt)

[Ezlivin]

33. "[I] would do a lot more than go to a protest march"

Has anything done by our government ever forced you from the couch to the streets?

It's all well and good that you would "do a lot more than go to a protest march", but what exactly would that entail?

1. Contacting your representatives;


2. Writing letters to the editors;


3. Creating documentaries;


4. Holding seminars across the country;


5. Posting on forums.

I am curious as to what your "lot more" would involve. Those that believe that 9/11 was an inside job have done all of the above and have protested in the streets.

So let's pretend for just a moment that you believe that "our government was responsible for the mass-murder of 3,000 citizens."

What is your "lot more than go to a protest march" actions?

[Beam Me Up]

4. Well, I'll tell you my answer to your question:

So what does hurt Democrats? The latest media frenzy over the latest non-story about the latest "Dean Scream" BS, or telling the truth about 9/11?

I'm totally fed up with "Democrats" and "Republicans". But, then again, I'm totally fed up with the whole society in which those two groups are supposed to mean anything. Except for a very few brave individuals NO ONE -- no one in media, academia, religion, science, politics, military -- again, no one except for a few brave individuals has stood up in the face of this obvious lie -- and it was OBVIOUS from day one.

US Imperialism has a history that goes all the way back to the late 1800s. The "Democrats" have been as much a part of this history as have the "Republicans". Now we see clearly where this has gotten us. I'm not saying there aren't "good Democrats". Sure there are but there are also "good Republicans," too. But what has happened to our society? What has happened to our system of governance that we've gotten to a place where the whole country can be hijacked by a bunch of thugs and held captive for almost a decade? Clearly the political landscape that our media paints for us is not the real political landscape. That real political landscape remains hidden and obscured, covered over by, as you put it, the latest political non-story. What it boils down to as this: as long as WAR remains very profitable for a few, so long as wealth creation and monetary systems are tied to death and destruction, WAR will remain with us. And in an age such as this where WE have the greatest weapons of mass destruction ever devised by the human mind -- and lots of them -- then our chances of survival as free men and women are right up there with that proverbial snow-ball in hell.

Democrats BAH! Make me spew.

[Nozebro]

8. Nationalize the defense industry & they won't be incented to start wars. nt

nt

[mirandapriestly]

16. good idea.

[LARED]

17. Why is that a good idea?

Seriously. Many people believe the defense industry is already controlled by Bush. Many people around these parts are sure at any moment military law will be declared by Bush. How does putting the defense industry under control of the government make it less likely we would go to war?

[mirandapriestly]

18. the profit motive

although they could still steal money the way the Pentagon has, I suppose. But, as it is now, the defense contractors operate as though they are "part of" the government except they have zero accountability and the opportunity for enormous profits.
I suppose you think it's good the media has been privatized, too.

[LARED]

22. Do I understand you correctly?

I suppose you think it's good the media has been privatized, too.

To my knowledge the media has always been privately operated with a few exceptions. You would prefer a media run by the government?

Perhaps I've just misunderstood your point?

[truedelphi]

28. The media is run by the governemn t

The corporations are the government and the government is their chosen few
string pullers.

There is nothing on main stream media that has not met the approval of the
selected few.

Anything covered in the major newspapers has to be approved of by the banks
and the oil industry.

[LARED]

29. You comments force me to ask a question

Do you actually read any newpapers or view any major media outlets?

[mirandapriestly]

31. Veto of the Fairness Doctrine and gradual deregulation of

broadcasting. I ASSUMED you would know what I was talking about. Now, what kind of people are for privatization? let's see.... what happened when we PRIVATIZED the voting machines? Who is trying to PRIVATIZE social security?? What kind of people tend to take over when something is privatized and/or deregulated?

[LARED]

32. You assume a lot.

You implied you were in favor of privatizing the media. The fairness doctrine and deregulation are issues about the level of oversight the government has over private organizations, not privatizing them.

Your comment seemed to be advocating a state run media. Is that something you want to see? I sure don't. Is improved oversight a good thing. Most likely yes, but I have to admit I am a strong advocate that ideas be allowed to be heard. All of them.

What kind of people tend to take over when something is privatized and/or deregulated?

People that try to make a profit? Do I win something?

[mirandapriestly]

34. I didn't imply anything like that Lareds

you're trying to turn the tables. Progressives understand the issue, others try to frame it as to say "what's wrong with allowing profit?" If I wanted this argument I would register at Free Republic. Say, what happened to the little RW slogan you had at the bottom of your post? Did you have a disagreement among yourselves?

[LARED]

35. I was mistaken

I thought it possible to discuss a comment you made. Somehow you believe your incessant implication that I am some sort of right winger is dialog.

[Nozebro]

36. Excellent post. ALL DUers should read & heed it. Thanks. EOM

nt

[LARED]

38. I stand corrected

You implied the media had been privatized

I suppose you think it's good the media has been privatized, too.

I was trying to understand your view, as the media are private organizations and continues to be, hence cannot have been privatized. How do you think the media should be changed? What role should the government have in controlling the media?

[John Q. Citizen]

52. We own the airwaves, and we own many of the forests they get their

wood pulp from for newsprint.

We get to decide who, when, why and how much we want to let them use our proprty.

Or am I missing something here?

[mhatrw]

21. no war profiteers = far fewer wars

What does it matter if the Iraq War is a social, political and military disaster if you sat at home in the US and made a billion on it?

[LARED]

23. So if I understand your theory

We go to war because someone makes a profit. Meaning the military industrial complex is somehow making the government go to war.

I seems to me the military industrial complex is here with or without war. They don't need a war to make money. They need other people threatening us to make money.

[mhatrw]

24. No profit motive = no mil/ind complex as seen today. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

25. If the stock piles are empty the orders flow. If the stock piles are full,

new orders slow down.

They are here, but business picks up big time when the munitions start flying.

Check the history of the DOW and get back to me.

[seatnineb]

39. The miltary Industrial Complex makes MORE money during war!

It is not a question of the Military Industrial Complex making money....it is a question the Military Industrial Complex making more money!....WHEN THERE IS A WAR.

It found that the top 34 CEOs combined have earned almost a billion dollars since the 9/11 attacks on the United States. This would have been enough money to employ and support more than a million Iraqis for a year to rebuild their country.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0831-01.htm

[Nozebro]

43. 9/11 & Iraq have proved how wasteful & incompetent (remember THAT?)

the military and its "owners" (defense industry) are. Wouldn't it be better to try something different?
Why do CT'ers not see that? After all, it's CT'ers that claim the defense establishment (military and intelligence orgs.) "blew it" and allowed OBL's boys the chance to defeat the mighty U.S. National Defense. I say, it's time to rope 'em in and take away their ability to transfer more $ from us to them.

[seatnineb]

40. Excellent point! n/t

[Nozebro]

26. "Many people believe the defense industry is already controlled by Bush"

Where in the world did you come up with that notion? Did Osama tell you that? Hussein?
Is that some kind of GOP/neocon/CT'er spin point?

[Nozebro]

41. Military Industrial Complex LEADERS would not have as much influence

over the neocon agenda of starting wars, all of which are driven by the profit motive. I'm surprised you (all) didn't know that.

How do you think keeping the defense industry in private hands (that finance political campaigns) works
to help make the world a more peaceful place?

[LARED]

42. I did not say keeping the defense industry in private

(actually most are publicly owned corporations owned by millions of people) hands made the world safer, I was wondering why some seem to think nationalizing the military complex makes the world safer?

In one better than the other?

[Nozebro]

44. Well, then what exactly ARE you saying? I'm sure you have a point

about such a vitally important issue as reigning in the power of the military industrial complex to serve the interests of the neocons, at the expense of solving so many other problems like education, healthcare, the on-going loss of millions of good-paying jobs, and so on.

[LARED]

46. I'm not saying anything. I asked a question

Why do those that favor nationalizing the military industrial complex believe thats makes the world safer?

It is not as simple as removing profit from the equation, as there is ample evidence that countries that do have a nationalized military industry still go to war.

Are you up to taking part in a discussion, or are you just a ideologue good at spouting a few sentences your masters have convinced you sound good.

[Nozebro]

47. What is your evidence for this claim? WHICH countries? WHAT wars?

"there is ample evidence that countries that do have a nationalized military industry still go to war."

[LARED]

48. I would suggest a quick historical review of

WWI and WWII, Try looking up any number of civil wars in the world, Most dictatorships.

Is there evidence that a nationalized military industrial complex prevent wars?

[Nozebro]

49. Why can't you answer the question? Ask your boss/co-workers to help you

out. I thought you knew what you were talking about. Was I wrong? Was it just more "Lareds" BS?

[LARED]

50. Good Lord, can you get more pathetic?

I asked a simple question. Why do you believe a nationalized military industrial complex is safer than a public one.

Attempting to change the subject you asked me a question, without answering mine. You raised the point about a nationalized military being safer not me.

Lets take it one step at a time. After we've discovered your all bluster and BS, we can them move on to my question.

[Nozebro]

53. Stop disinforming for a second & read what YOU wrote.

I didn't say a nationalized military is "safer". I said it would be a good idea because of the lessened potential of the M.I.Complex for war profiteering.

Now, tell us why we're safer with a privatized defense industry. Do you need to wait until Monday to get help from someone who doesn't have to monitor progressive forums (compared to where MP saw your sig. line, DU IS a progressive site) to give you the SPIN on that RW idea?

P.S. I don't know which "Lared" wrote that particular post, but any of you can respond.

[LARED]

54. So if I understand you correctly

You believe the the ability to make a war profit would be lessened by nationalizing the military industrial complex

The only thing that comes to mind is Well Duh!!!!!!! no kidding.

You also think that doing this is a good idea. Why is it a good idea? I'm not saying it's bad idea, I don't understand why you believe removing the profit motive changes anything about war.

Also what notion drive you to beleive my sig line is some how right wing?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nozebro]

56. I didn't do that.

And I know "you" didn't either.

Now, would you like to address the substance of my post? Oh, that's right, you didn't get a chance to see it. The question is: do you agree that the defense industry should be nationalized and the defense budget cut by 50%?

[LARED]

57. Sure

First the cutting the defense budget by 50% percent is a great idea. I don't think we should do it tomorrow either. We should phase out programs over a say - five to ten year period to reach that goal.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced nationalizing the defense industry solves a bunch of problems either. On balance I believe it creates more problems than it solves. I have a higher trust in market controls verses centralized government control. (neither are ideal) But markets are at least more efficient.

We still need defense programs as there actually are bad guys that want to do the USA harm. In that respect I like efficiency

[Nozebro]

58. Nothing Progressive about those ideas, that's for sure.

nt

[LARED]

59. What's not progressive about them?

Please explain yourself

[Nozebro]

60. DUers: Do YOU think "Lared's" ideas in Post #57 are Progressive ideas?

nt

[LARED]

61. What's the matter, can't form an actual opinion on your own? (n/t)

[Nozebro]

62. I think they're conservative ideas, not Progressive. Are you afraid others might agree?

Let's see what other DUers have to say about those particular ideas. Maybe Senator McCain will read your post and give his opinion. You never know.

[LARED]

63. Who knew a 50% cut in defense spending was a conservative idea,

I didn't.

Who knew nationalizing a huge segment of the economy was a progressive idea?

I didn't

I think you're mixed up. You seem to have conservative and progressive ideas mixed up.

[Nozebro]

64. Opposition to nationalizing the defense industry shows your true colors.

Nice attempt to make distinctions without a difference, but calling for a 50% reduction in the defense budget 10 years down the road is the same thing RWingers do when pressed about privatizing Social Security. Do you also support boosh's SS goal?

[LARED]

65. You misunderstood what I said

I said phase in 50 percent cuts over 5 to 10 years. Like 10 percent per year for 10 years. or 20 percent over 5 years

Please show me where nationalizing the defense industry is a progressive position? Since when do you get to determine what is a progressive position and what's not. You're entitled to your opinion, but lets hope greater minds than yours are setting policy for the progressive movement.

As a side note it's a mindset like yours that prevents me from identifying myself as a progressive.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

67. I'm not sure where you get the idea...

that anyone here (whether a "LARED" or not) would think Bush a Progressive.

[Nozebro]

68. The same place where "anyone here" would think a privatized defense industry

complex is a Progressive idea. You don't claim to be a Progressive, in the sense that most people here would consider someone a Progressive, do you? Now, just answer the QUESTION. No need to play with words in order to avoid a substantive answer.

[AZCat]

69. Stop playing gatekeeper.

It's just pathetic.

[Nozebro]

70. Why are you reluctant to answer the question? It's a simple yes or no question.

nt

[AZCat]

75. And it's irrelevant. n/t

[LARED]

71. I'm a democrat.

And what are you?

You still need to answer the question as to when did nationalizing the military industrial complex become a progressive cause?

I think you are clueless about progressive causes and in fact seem to operate in ways to discredit progressives. Also where are all your allies you were expecting?

[Nozebro]

73. boosh could say he's a (small d) democrat, too. thanks for the heads-up.

Your writing and spelling is impressive. Have you been taking some lessons or are you helping someone out while they're off and away?

[LARED]

74. And one could say you're a

troll (small t).

[Nozebro]

76. You could say that, but you'd be wrong & my post would still be accurate.

nt

[Nozebro]

45. Who told you that, and what is it supposed to mean?

"Many people believe the defense industry is already controlled by Bush."

[Quixote1818]

13. People seem to be losing their fear of just blurting it out. nt

[wildbilln864]

15. this also ...

needs a kick!

[schmuls]

30. I believe it is the herd mentality. People can be like sheep, even

if they are intelligent. I wish I knew the physiological/psychological reason for this. They will watch and do nothing. Just like when someone is attacked and everyone waits to see what happens next. Also, I blame it on the school system and the demise of civics. People are vastly ignorant of our political process and don't know or care about the mechanics of the impeachment process. Many don't know what the constitution tells us are our duties as citizens. Half the people don't even care who gets elected!

[porkrind]

37. Something akin to abuse anxiety or stockholm syndrome

Those who want us to keep our heads down and not ask embarassing questions because they have been conditioned by thier abusers to tow the line. I say let the sun shine in. We should ask as many questions as we like, and government should answer!

[CJCRANE]

51. I take it most of the sceptical replies

to the OP were posted before the Democratic landslide that's just happened.

It seems Americans weren't asleep, they just had no voice. Now they've spoken. Let's see what happens.

[SaiGirl]

72. FEMA Perp Walk

The authors of the official FEMA Report(s) on 9/11.

Here presented.
Criminally indictable, prima facie, in their own words:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm

========================================
Therese McAllister
Position: Research Structural Engineer
Task: Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse

Education
Florida Atlantic University, 1979, BS Ocean Engineering
Oregon State University, 1986, MS Ocean Engineering
Johns Hopkins University, 1998, MS Structural Engineering
Johns Hopkins University, 2000, PhD Structural Engineering

Dr. McAllister’s research interests include reliability-based structural assessment, performance of structures in fire, structural stability and progressive collapse, and improved prediction of structural performance in extreme events. Dr. McAllister will be conducting research in the Structural Fire Response and Collapse project of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation.

Prior to joining NIST in 2002, she was FEMA’s Technical Project Manager for the ASCE/FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study. She has conducted engineering research and development projects on the design and construction practices for multi-hazard mitigation; the design and construction of critical facilities and shelters, and their performance during high winds, coastal storm surge, and flooding events; and technical guidance and metrics for manufactured housing foundation systems in floodplains.

Her experience includes providing structural and coastal engineering expertise for a number of forensic engineering investigations and as an expert witness. She has conducted applied research in support of Navy ocean facilities and vessel moorings. Significant projects included a floating anti-terrorist physical barrier and an advanced mooring system for the USS Pigeon ASR-21, a submarine rescue vessel.

Her research at Johns Hopkins University proposed a method to estimate the time-varying reliability of welded steel structures, which was validated for documented fatigue damage in two steel miter gates in the inland waterway lock and dam system.

Dr. McAllister is the editor and co-author of FEMA Report 403: World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations. She has published papers on mitigation practices for multi-hazards, the design of wind shelters, and the reliability of redundant steel structures subject to fatigue damage.

Dr. McAllister is a registered professional engineer in the Maryland. She is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Committee on Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jonathan Barnett
featured in a program by NOVA on PBS (the award-winning science program premiering "Why the Towers Fell," an overview of the forensic engineering following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, on April 30.
Barnett was interviewed, and the metallurgical work by Professors Ronald Biederman and Richard Sisson was described.)
Barnett has appeared and spoken about the building collapses on NPR's "Talk of the Nation", and other "news" and entertainment venues. supporting the official FEMA report.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/media.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John Gross
Published "Fire Resistance Testing of WTC Floor System, Aug. 25, 2004, Presentation by John Gross ", propping up the official story.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/PublicBriefingULTestsGross082504.pdf
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ronald Hamburger (educating the Hollywood community)

Presenting: Conspiracy or Science: Why Did the Towers Fall?
Sunday, December 3
11 a.m.
Debates have been raging for years about whether or not the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed due to the impact of the two commercial airliners that struck them on 9/11/2001. Questions about the collapse of building 7, which was not struck by a plane, also feed the conspiratorial fire. Could terrorists have planted explosives throughout the World Trade Center in advance of the crashes? Were the fires caused by the planes enough to bring down these engineering marvels? Wherein lies the truth?
Ronald Hamburger, a structural engineer and Senior Principal at Simpson Gumperts and Heger consulting engineers in San Francisco, will discuss why those buildings collapsed and illustrate his talk with graphics. He was a principal author of FEMA's initial report on the collapse of the twin towers and later a key participant in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) study.
$6, or free for Friends of the Center.
PURCHASE TICKETS ONLINE!
Friends of the Center RSVPs call:
[phone] ext. 102,or email: [e-mail]
(Friends' RSVPs are recommended if concerned about seating availability.)
The Center for Inquiry-West
4773 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, CA 90027
2 blocks west of Vermont at Berendo
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jon Magnusson

Jon D. Magnusson, chairman-CEO of Seattle-based Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc., one of the successor firms to the engineer of record for the World Trade Center, Skilling Helle Christiansen and Robertson, says that in the dozens of media interviews since the attacks, he is asked the same question:
Why did the towers collapse?
He says he answers a different question: How come they stood up so long? Ninety-nine percent of all buildings would have collapsed immediately had they been hit by a Boeing 767, says Magnusson.
"The real question is how did they stand up so long after the planes hit?" he says.
That provided precious time that gave occupants time to escape. The answer, he says, is the redundancy inherent in the design of the exterior structural tube
designed by Les Robertson and the late John Skilling.
The time between the attacks and the collapses saved thousands of lives, he adds. "You can't harden these buildings to take that kind of impact," says Magnusson.
"If you design for a 767, what about a 747 or an Airbus super jumbo?
"It's a losing proposition," he continues. "Even if you could harden the buildings, with the awareness that airplanes can be used as weapons, what about of people at football games, in cathedrals, in concert halls? The problem is not about buildings.
The real question is how do you keep airplanes out of the hands of evil people? As we enter this national dialogue, we need to make sure we're focusing on the right problem."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

============================================================
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm
===========================================================

Additional background material on the careers and professional associations of the above-named persons is welcome.

Why hide their bright and shining lights in a bushel ?