Just How Deep Does The Rabbit Hole Really Go?

[sagas4]

nonentity said:

I listened to an interesting show a bit ago...

James Fetzer.

Hour 1
Hour 2

A caller comes in on the second hour and says that he worked in a position in the late 80s where he was aware of the EPA declaring that the Twin Towers had to be taken down because of the asbestos exposure

[/b], and that they hired a demolition company to develop a plan to do the job. So apparently all of the logistics required to "pull" the buildings was developed a long time ago by the best minds in the demolition business.

How that all connects with what happened ... who knows, but that does explain that there WAS a well developed set of plans at the very least.

These are two interesting hours of interviews...

- NonE[/size][/quote]

You lit the fuse on that candle I was holding but neither of use realized it was a stick o Dyn - O - Mite! ;D

[NonEntity]

Damn, these people come along and make a big thing, a BIG THING, out of just one little lapse of brain function on my part. Take it and turn it into this HUGE DAMNED SPECTACLE of my supposed mental incompetence. Hmph. Aren't there some kindza laws protecting good people like me from the likes of these anti-social trouble makers? Marc? Anyone? HELP!!!

- NonE



Oh, yeah... and by the way... You're probably sorta right, from what I've read. I don't know that ALL asbestos is okay, but from what I understand, there are only certain kinds of fibers that are a problem, and the problem is really not much of an issue in general conditions. Now if you're a worker in the stuff AND you smoke, there appears to be a REAL hazzard that is pretty predictable. But otherwise it appears only to be a lawyer full employment act kind of issue.

Since listening to that show, I've listened to a few other of Fetzer's shows. The man has some problems. It sounds as though he's gonna blow a gasket much of the time. And I notice that frequently he has guests on, and then speaks FOR them instead of letting them speak for themselves, and when they DO speak, he walks all over them if they don't TOTALLY agree with every nuance of his perception of the issue. He really does his issues more harm than good, I think, coming off as a raving lunatic even when he is discussing something wherein he has good and accurate knowledge.

Oh, well. I guess that's okay since I was really looking forward to someone new to model myself after and to help me refine my skills as a speaker and host of serious debates. He is almost as good a role model as Bill O'Reilly.

[sagas4]

Ok NonE,

I'm sorry. I must have ate too many lead based paint chips as a kid. (I really liked the flavor).

It was kind of difficult though to watch a 30 year old who spent a few years in manufacturing with that stuff in the late 70's with the physical capacity of the average 85 year old because the "new" stuff's supposedly not dangerous like that bad naturally occurring stuff that has been in use since the 1930's and has over 3 thousand uses, Including the brakes on your car.

I guess I really should quit getting out a straw and snorting that brake dust every time I change the brakes. Mixing that and Lead Paint doesn't help my mental acumen. ;D

[Darren Dirt]

Just thought I'd offer a "WOW, THAT'S A GREAT ADDITION TO THE RBN LINEUP!" thought, re. James Fetzer's recently-added show (June2006)

mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html


- - -

update:
oops, I think I was getting Mr. Fetzer mixed up with Kevin Barrett, who IMHO is a calm, articulate, skilled debater.

So make that a "restrained wow that's great" based on the surprising observations from nonE:

It sounds as though he's gonna blow a gasket much of the time. And I notice that frequently he has guests on, and then speaks FOR them instead of letting them speak for themselves, and when they DO speak, he walks all over them if they don't TOTALLY agree with every nuance of his perception of the issue. He really does his issues more harm than good, I think, coming off as a raving lunatic even when he is discussing something wherein he has good and accurate knowledge.

Alex Jones clone?
Disinfo shill placement?
Both?

Hmm...


Fetzer's gasket-blowing, IIRC, was on full display in the CSPAN coverage of the recent Los Angeles 9/11 Symposium.

[Darren Dirt]

nonentity said:

Oh, yeah... and by the way... You're probably sorta right, from what I've read. I don't know that ALL asbestos is okay, but from what I understand, there are only certain kinds of fibers that are a problem, and the problem is really not much of an issue in general conditions. Now if you're a worker in the stuff AND you smoke, there appears to be a REAL hazzard that is pretty predictable. But otherwise it appears only to be a lawyer full employment act kind of issue.

[I'm not an expert by any means]Google Video: The History of Asbestos (30 minute documentary)[/I'm not an expert by any means]

[Darren Dirt]

911 truth bristol

47 min 22 sec

"this film is a compilation of the views of 911 footage from around the world. Watch this 45 minute film and make up your own mind about the truth by looking at the facts."



...sorta like a "best of" -- each "topic" is covered by showing clips from various other videos (e.g. the melting of steel due to "fires" shows some of Painful Deceptions, then some of Loose Change)

Great idea, 911TB!

more here: www.911truthbristol.com/videos/films.html

[NonEntity]

Just watched that video, Darren. Excellent. Thanks.

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

WOW.

Incredibly thorough video resource all-in-one-place:


www.freefreedomnow.blogspot.com/

...which links to...

nwodocumentation.blogspot.com/

9-11-videos.blogspot.com/

alexjones-video.blogspot.com/
davidicke-video.blogspot.com/
alexansaryvideo.blogspot.com/

[NonEntity]

Oh My God! (well, it's an expression... you know!)

The latest polish is being put on the 9/11 debacle in full color and cinematic glory narrated by The Postman and The Contender, no less!

Check out the promotional site. UNbelievable (except that they will...)

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

The latest polish is being put on the 9/11 debacle in full color and cinematic glory
Check out the promotional site. UNbelievable (except that they will...)

from the site: "...the personal stories of tragedy and triumph that led to the formation of the 9/11 Commission and the publication of the Commission's landmark report. From miraculous individual feats of survival to the final recommendations to make America safer, this moving documentary features never-before-seen interviews from families directly touched by the tragedy..."

wow.
I'm still trying to make out what this use of the word "landmark" means?!?

and of course, no mention of the 'miracles' necessary to make the official conspiracy theory = Commission Report plausible... but of course all the emotional warm & fuzzy buzz words for distraction~ [side bar: I also understand from one of the unofficial conspiracy videos that it took Bush like 411 days to appoint a commission, where it took only 5-9 days for the tragedies of JFK assassination & Pearl Harbour attack, etc]

I'd not heard of this piece of work, NonE, so thanx for the posting~

from what I've read, rather than being "Commission" it should be "The Omission Report"~

[sagas4]

Am I seeing things or did I read that correctly . . . .

It said, When Americans demanded to know what went wrong something went right?

Or do they mean far right like fascist war monger.

BTW I have been hearing this catch phrase lately. Islamic Fascists. Now someone anyone please explain that one for me. I thought fascisms was a marriage or merger between corporate interests and state power (i.e. use of aggression to accomplish the corporate goals).

Back to the main point: Did anyone else here notice all the emphasis on the "touchy feeley" emotional aspect of this Docufiction?

When someone wants to do that up front and to immediately evoke some emotional reaction/attachment as opposed to discussing the emotional nature and/or impact (since emotion is natural in extreme events), my reaction is to think someone is trying to obscure logic reason and rational thought for another motive.

[Darren Dirt]

sagas4 said:

Am I seeing things or did I read that correctly . . . .

It said, When Americans demanded to know what went wrong something went right?

Or do they mean far right like fascist war monger.

BTW I have been hearing this catch phrase lately. Islamic Fascists. Now someone anyone please explain that one for me. I thought fascisms was a marriage or merger between corporate interests and state power (i.e. use of aggression to accomplish the corporate goals).

Fascism has always been protrayed as something unique from democracy, or even socialism (i.e. communism) so that "democratic socialism" could be accepted (i.e. the last 4 decades) without any complaints even from those involved in the "cold war" AGAINST socialism (oops I mean communism )

We know what fascism REALLY is, instead what the western "leaders" do is they redefine terms (*cough*anarchy*cough*) so that in this case when people hear "fascism" they think "totalitarian dictator who makes the 'trains run on time'" ... so that way when Bush/Blair/Harper -- so-called "democratic leaders" do identical things, they aren't looked at as fascists since it's not TOTAL control... And they can be as thoroughly integrated with globalist/corporate interests as they wish since the sheeple have no idea that that's what real fascism is.



PS: watch it, dude... you included "logic" in the same discussion-context as left/right politics

eye2i2hear said:

it should be "The Omission Report"~

Aye cap'n, just like the title of one of David Ray Griffin's books
Amazon search link <-- check it out ; I am linking to SEARCH results because WOW there's a buncha really good titles that came up, including a couple I've never even heard of

[eye2i2hear]

darrendirt said:

We know what fascism REALLY is, instead what the western "leaders" do is they redefine terms (*cough*anarchy*cough*) so that in this case when people hear "fascism" they think "totalitarian dictator who makes the 'trains run on time'" ... so that way when Bush/Blair/Harper -- so-called "democratic leaders" do identical things, they aren't looked at as fascists since it's not TOTAL control... And they can be as thoroughly integrated with globalist/corporate interests as they wish since the sheeple have no idea that that's what real fascism is.

yupp...
as long as there's The State, it's always Humpty Dumpty Time (said like "it's Howdy Doody Time")
nice reminder, Darrin!
"identical things" indeed~
"We (The People) Good; they (the touted enemies) b-a-a-a-a-a-d."

mental minder: Humpty Dumpty Time is relevant to:
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' ..."

(how's that for a tie back to the thread title?!)

[Darren Dirt]

www.cosmicpenguin.com/ has a "9-11 Truth" page with a buncha links to audio interviews and whatnot.




Plus some alternative-to-the-alternatives viewpoint re. HIV and AIDS. :-\

[Darren Dirt]

"The Hidden History of 9-11-2001"

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/

Research in Political Economy
Paul Zarembka, Editor
Department of Economics
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14260-1520

Volume 23 (2006, 374 pp.)

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001

Editor: Paul Zarembka, SUNY at Buffalo


This comprehensive work brings together rigorous scholarship on the events of 9-11-2001, and assesses whether the truth has been told by the U.S. government. The volume can be seen as a definitive explanation of 9-11 as a world-changing event. The lead chapter demonstrates that eleven of the FBI-named Arabic hijackers could not have been on the planes and that the Dulles airport videotape -- essentially being the case that hijackers boarded flights -- has very serious authentication problems. Part II consists of three chapters, beginning with an examination of the 9-11 flights themselves as well as insider trading beforehand. The following chapter reviews extensive evidence -- based partly upon newly-released reports by more than 500 firefighters -- permitting a conclusion that three WTC buildings were brought down by demolition. The next discusses military drills which were scheduled and served to confuse standard defensive operating procedures.

Part III opens with a chapter examining the connection between al-Qaeda and Western covert operations, showing how al-Qaeda is inseparably connected to the latter. This is followed by a chapter which argues that Machiavellian state terrorism is rather common and not at all unlikely for 9-11. The third chapter of this part examines how the 9-11 Commission wrote its own history of 9-11, rather than reporting and analyzing true history. The rise of Islamophobia as an ideological force to sustain U.S. imperialism is then introduced and examined in the subsequent chapter. In Part IV, the final chapter, while not explicit, offers a possible connection to the process of undermining pensions in the U.K., i.e. as 9-11 changed the political economy of Britain.

ABSTRACTS of all chapters (full text also available
at some libraries under ScienceDirect subscription).

911Truth.org review, 6-23-2006:

Hidden History is a benchmark in 9/11 research; a serious reference volume that ... offers up facts to be considered, and places 9/11 within a historical and social context that differs radically from the Official Story.

...

Hidden History is Volume 23 of Elsevier's Research in Political Economy series. Edited by Paul Zarembka, Professor of Economics, Vol. 23 is a carefully researched, well-documented compendium, replete with accurate and informative citations.

A majority of contributors to Hidden History are associated with academic institutions, with one Emeritus, and one currently unaffiliated. This should not be construed as tacit endorsement by any of the Universities or Colleges. However, it should be considered likely that publishing in Hidden History will be cited as evidence of the maintenance of academic standing for some of the authors.

At issue is the veracity of the official story. As it turns out, not even the most basic premise of the Official Story is doubt-proof. We are told by the Bush administration, and reminded by the 9/11 Commission, that 19 Arab hijackers under the purview of al-Qaeda, pulled off the most technically demanding terror incident ever, right under the noses of the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, etc., etc., etc...