The Greatest Crisis In Modern History

[Canadian Blue]

QUOTE

As far as your second sentence goes, they only need to fool some of the people. They have to make it obvious enough so that some people see it for what it is. They don't want to fool everyone, just the fast food guzzling simpletons are enough.

Again: what a crappy police state to allow so much dissent and anti-government information to flourish.

LOL!!!

I've heard of these 9/11 truth movement sites from the mainstream media. So far for the most part they have all been refuted by people who have credentials, yet are conveniently paid off by the government, Mossad, CIA, or the Aliens. As for the police state, dude do you know what a police state is. In Germany they cut off Sophie Scholl's head for handing out some leaflets during World War 2.

I love the people that are "experts" make claims that the A-10 which is not made for air to air combat took out United 93. As for the military response, it was a surprise attack. You know how long it can take for the military to be fully mobilized for a national emergency of the scale of September 11th. All flights were grounded afterwards, and yes their was plenty of confusion and chao's at NORAD, and ATC Towers across the Northeast.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue: You have been posting on this thread for a while now. If you look at your posts you can see that you keep saying the same thing over and over and you have no substance in your posts. All your comments just belittle conspiracy theories as if conspiracies do not exist. You have not offered a single shred of hard evidence to support the official conspiracy theory.

Have you called The FBI to explain to them how you know Osama was involved in 911 ?. Maybe they can use your input to add 911 to his most wanted description. They do not have any evidence that Osama was involved, perhaps you can be of assistance.

You also make things up to say that 911 truthers are saying these things so you can discredit them. I don't think an A 10 warthog can catch a commercial liner. 911Myths does this - make things up to discredit the movement.

When you don't have logic or truth on your side its all you can do. I know you desperately want to believe that the government wouldn't do such a thing but that isn't logical arguement and just shows how niave you are wrt US history.

I think when Donald Rumsfeld accidentally said the plane was shot down he mean't a missile not a gatling gun.

[Canadian Blue]

CanadianBlue: You have been posting on this thread for a while now. If you look at your posts you can see that you keep saying the same thing over and over and you have no substance in your posts. All your comments just belittle conspiracy theories as if conspiracies do not exist. You have not offered a single shred of hard evidence to support the official conspiracy theory.

Kind of like how you post the same sites over and over again, and repeat the same theory over and over again. Even after being show information from people with more respect in the scientific community than some guy who is responsible for the visual effects of the TV show Lost.

I belittle conspiracy theories becauses its so easy. No matter what proof a person gives, the proof was somehow orchestrated by the government.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:Kind of like how you post the same sites over and over again, and repeat the same theory over and over again. Even after being show information from people with more respect in the scientific community than some guy who is responsible for the visual effects of the TV show Lost.

I think that Brigadier General that said Oklahoma was an inside job was more of a weapons expert than a TV host. He was also an engineer- aeronautical and chemical. Where did you get the idea that he was a TV host ? Did you get him confused with the guy that posted the conmgressional report ? You are an idiot.

[kimmy]

This latest round of discussion, with Black Dog and PolyNewbie, has been tremendously entertaining. If it were a boxing match, it would have been over long ago.

While there's certainly no need for me to pile on as well, I have to once again complain about this particular bit:

James Fetzer and King have proven that the buildings could not have fallen straight down like that from an airplane crash using the second law of thermodynamics.

Last time you mentioned this, PolyNewbie, I requested an explanation. I never received one from you, as you apparently either didn't understand the "proof" or couldn't explain it. I went and looked on some truthie websites for a further explanation, and still couldn't find anything satisfactory. All I found was vague talk about "symmetry". That's fascinating, but it's in no way a scientifically accurate use of the second law of thermodynamics.

This kind of argument is typical of religious knuckleheads who try to invoke thermodynamics to disprove evolution. It's not a scientifically accurate use of the principle, but it sounds scientific to people who don't know better. And this kind of trickery apparently works well on "truthies" too.

-k

[Black Dog]

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

heh

[PolyNewbie]

BlackDog: Why don't you try and argue with facts evidence and logic? I could make up a silly story about Bin Laden running this thing from a cave in Afganistan and try not to be insulting and it would sound more rediculous than what you have there.

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy:Last time you mentioned this, PolyNewbie, I requested an explanation. I never received one from you, as you apparently either didn't understand the "proof" or couldn't explain it.

The long and short of his arguement is this: Buildings do not collapse into their own footprint without some kind of controlling force to make that happen. If it was a natural collapse the building would have toppled over.

I think you should listen to Fetzers arguement because being a theoretical scientist qualifies him to speak about this where it is a little beyond my knowledge.

[PolyNewbie]

Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once

That was an FBI operation. The guy that drove the truck taped it and it ended up on mainstream !!!!

ROTFLMAO

Don't you remember anything ?

[GostHacked]

I had a nice long post created before my browser crashed.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

Yeah, I don't see Bin Laden anywhere on that list.

Notice the revision disclaimer at the bottom. Revised NOVEMBER 2001. I guess some one forgot to put the 9/11 attack in there, or that embassy attack was the biggest one he managed to pull off as of this time. No mention of 9/11 in there at all. Instead of me telling you why it is not in there, you can tell me why it is not in there. Seems like he is only wanted for the attacks outside of the U.S.A. Is the FBI that sloppy? Why would they forget to update and mention that on the FBI's MOST WANTED LIST ?? Please take this question seriously.

ON to the Larry Silverstein confession?

Silverstein said no such thing and Rumsfeld, well, if he was lying about 9-11, why do you believe him at all?

'Gettin ready to pull building 6.' (demo crew taking down what was left of WTC 6)

'and the decision was made to pull it.' (from the horses mouth)

There is no question he is referring to the demolition of WTC 7. NO QUESTION in my mind about that at all. Even when he says it, people don't believe it is what it is and how important that statement is.

As for Rumsfeld, it could have just been a slip of the tounge, and either

way I do not think this bit of 'evidence' is worthy of anything.

And TYRANNY was mentioned a few times in this thread

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tyranny.

http://janschejbal.wordpress.com/2006/07/1...ag-fire-decree/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...6/hsorensen.DTL

[Riverwind]

The long and short of his arguement is this: Buildings do not collapse into their own footprint without some kind of controlling force to make that happen. If it was a natural collapse the building would have toppled over.

You have it completely backwards. Buildings will collapse into their own footprint unless they are acted on by an outside force. If you disagree then try to prove that buildings do not collapse into their footprint. There are no examples of buildings that toppled without some external force such as an earthquake acting on them. Your entire arguement is based on a false assumption.

[reffric]

To start with, there is no point in arguing the 9/11 truth movement because the mind has already been made up. Much like the patriot act, you can't argue against something called the "truth movement". It's the truth. How can you argue the truth? By arguing the truth you are immediately wrong.

I have tried before to go issue by issue through the 9/11 truth movement and to be completely honest the only one out of the whole thing that I can not explain is the WTC 7 collapse. That one still gets me.

But as much as I have tried, as much proof as I have laid out, nothing ever changes. They want something to be there. There was no concern when they blew up the WTC under Clinton's watch, because nobody questioned events that occured during that time.

[Black Dog]

Oh great. They're multiplying.

First: P(WNED)olyNewbie

BlackDog: Why don't you try and argue with facts evidence and logic? I could make up a silly story about Bin Laden running this thing from a cave in Afganistan and try not to be insulting and it would sound more rediculous than what you have there.

In case you haven't noticed (and I notice you haven't noticed) I've been using logic this whole time, which leads me to believe you wouldn't recognize logic if it walked up to you, shook your hand, said "Hi, I'm Logic!", showed you its driver's licence with its name ("Logic") on it, and then punched you in the face for your sullying of its good name in service of your jackassed cause.

And trust me, any story you cook up about bin Laden is unlikely to be even half as far-fetched and asinine as the "inside job" hypothesis (if I can apply a scientific term to such a collection of half-baked ideas as those of the "truthers.")

What makes Tabibi's breakdown Teh Awesome is that it perfectly lays out all the logical (there's that word again!) incosistencies in most "inside job" theories.

For example: why would they crash planes into the WTC, but hit the Pentagon with a missile? Why dick around with the jets in the first place? Why shoot down Flight 93 if it wasn't hijacked at all? I mean, for someone who's all "we need to ask questions so we can learn Teh Trooth, you stuoopid fast-food lovers!" you've sure shit the bed on asking some very obvious ones about your own theory. You and your ilk get bogged down in the most nit-picky crap that you completely miss the larger implications of what you're saying.

The long and short of his arguement is this: Buildings do not collapse into their own footprint without some kind of controlling force to make that happen. If it was a natural collapse the building would have toppled over.

No engineer in the world would agree with you.

I think you should listen to Fetzers arguement because being a theoretical scientist qualifies him to speak about this where it is a little beyond my knowledge.

First: the guy isn't a "theortical scientist" (except in the sense of him being a scientist, in theory). He's a fucking philosopher.

Hee's a question: why are you playing up this guy's qualifications (imaginary as they may be) while ignoring or discounting the countless experts in aviation, engineering, physics etc who's opinions blow your wacky ideas out of the water?

Here's anothe rthing I've been wondering: what do you get out of this? Suppose there was a fiendishly complex plot by the government to blow up the WTC for some reason. What are you gonna do about it? In fact, if I were you, I'd back off the whole thing. Any government willing to murder thousands of its own citizens for extremely hazy reasons would not hestitate at bumping off anybody who gets too close to the Trooth. You, Fetzers, Riverio and all the other truthers should probably buy a comound somewhere to hunker down and wait out the rise of the One World Government of the Trilateral Commission of the Elders of Zionist Masons.

[Black Dog]

Next:

Notice the revision disclaimer at the bottom. Revised NOVEMBER 2001. I guess some one forgot to put the 9/11 attack in there, or that embassy attack was the biggest one he managed to pull off as of this time. No mention of 9/11 in there at all. Instead of me telling you why it is not in there, you can tell me why it is not in there. Seems like he is only wanted for the attacks outside of the U.S.A. Is the FBI that sloppy? Why would they forget to update and mention that on the FBI's MOST WANTED LIST ?? Please take this question seriously.

Easy one. OBL was indicted for the 1998 embassy attacks. He has not been indicted for 9-11 or any other attacks but is nonetheless wanted in connection with them.

Linky

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's "Most Wanted Terrorists" is a list of fugitives who have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in the United States district courts, for alleged crimes of terrorism. The list formed in late 2001 in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It originated in concept from the extant FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. It now serves as a companion to that earlier list, which in years past, had listed several major terrorist fugitives.

'Gettin ready to pull building 6.' (demo crew taking down what was left of WTC 6)

'and the decision was made to pull it.' (from the horses mouth)

There is no question he is referring to the demolition of WTC 7. NO QUESTION in my mind about that at all. Even when he says it, people don't believe it is what it is and how important that statement is.

Two totally different contexts. But rather than get into what Silverstein did or did not mean when he said "pull it", let me ask you this: why, after organizing such a clever ruse to bring down the Twin Towers, would they be so sloppy as to wait until after the attacks, when the places was crawling with resucers and press to demolish WTC7? Why not, I dunno, hit it with a plane of its very own or use the cover of the first two collapses to bring it down? This conspiracy alternates between unerring malevolant brilliance and total fucking idiocy with remarkable speed.

[White Doors]

The long and short of his arguement is this: Buildings do not collapse into their own footprint without some kind of controlling force to make that happen. If it was a natural collapse the building would have toppled over

This is just wrong. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

[Black Dog]

You know what the stupidest/saddest thing about the truthers is? It's that they spend so much time and energy picking nits in pursuit of phantom conspiracies when they could be devoting themselves to addressing real questions about the government's handling of 9-11, such as, say, the infamous "bin Laden memo" which warned of impending attacks, but was curtly dismissed by the POTUS. Do they put the same energy into drawing attention to the use of torture on terrorism suspects like Jose Padilla as they do into the minutiae of cell phone technology and the durability of steel reinforced concrete? Hell, no. All those things are just too real for them. I swear their whole raison d'etre is to concoct a fantasy world so they don't have to face the unpleasant realities of life, even as they pretend to be the Bestest Truth-Seekers Evah. That, or they are all government plants paid to make opponents of the Bush administration look like nattering, ill-informed jackanapes. Take your pick.

[PolyNewbie]

WhiteDoors:This is just wrong. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

I just use evidence and the opinions of experts. The only thing in my posts that is "original" is that remark about people not being able to tell their mother from a chimp if they can't see that the Osama tapes are faked.

You should email James Fetzler and tell him he is wrong. He has a Phd in theoretical physics, what are your qualifications ? Do you know anything about the second law of thermodynamics ?

Most people without any degree can clearly see there is something odd about those collapses. I take it you see them as normal.

BTW: Where have I been wrong ?

[PolyNewbie]

BlackDog:You know what the stupidest/saddest thing about the truthers is? It's that they spend so much time and energy picking nits in pursuit of phantom conspiracies when they could be devoting themselves to addressing real questions about the government's handling of 9-11, such as, say, the infamous "bin Laden memo" which warned of impending attacks, but was curtly dismissed by the POTUS. Do they put the same energy into drawing attention to the use of torture on terrorism suspects like Jose Padilla as they do into the minutiae of cell phone technology and the durability of steel reinforced concrete? Hell, no. All those things are just too real for them. I swear their whole raison d'etre is to concoct a fantasy world so they don't have to face the unpleasant realities of life, even as they pretend to be the Bestest Truth-Seekers Evah. That, or they are all government plants paid to make opponents of the Bush administration look like nattering, ill-informed jackanapes. Take your pick.

The "minutiae of cell phone technology" that you mention is not inconsequential. It proves that "Hi Mom Its Mark Bingham" recording was faked. When was the last time you needed to use you last name to ID yourself to your mother ?

The durability of steel reinforced concrete is very important since the buildings had a large amount of steel reinforced concrete that was atomized during the explosions collapse.

I'm not creating a fantasy world, I'm only proving that the official version of 911 is a fantasy and I'm doing it based on evidence not insults or innuendos.

[Black Dog]

You should email James Fetzler and tell him he is wrong. He has a Phd in theoretical physics, what are your qualifications ? Do you know anything about the second law of thermodynamics ?

Again: no. According to his bio, has a PhD in the "history and philosophy of science."

BTW: Where have I been wrong ?

/\

/\

*ahem*

The "minutiae of cell phone technology" that you mention is not inconsequential. It proves that "Hi Mom Its Mark Bingham" recording was faked. When was the last time you needed to use you last name to ID yourself to your mother ?

The durability of steel reinforced concrete is very important since the buildings had a large amount of steel reinforced concrete that was atomized during the explosions collapse.

It's clear you still don't get it. What a surprise. look: if you can't explain how or why they actually pulled off the conspiracy, none of the above matters for shit. It's pointless nit-picking that doesn't shed any light on any conspiracy and its means or motives. It proves nothing. In light of the glaring abscence of alternate theory of how the attacks were actually carried out, the holes in the story (the real ones, not the bullshit one's the truthers make up as easy as I breath) fade to insignificance.

Again: it's not enough to say "there's something funny with this story." That's not proof. None of the crap you've cited is proof, fact, evidence, data, affirmation, substansiation or confirmation that 9-11 was an inside job.

I reckon that's about the sixth time I've said essentially the same thing (which pales in comparison to your 356 instances of self-repetition, but I don't roll like that), so I shan't bother saying it again. The thrill is gone, PN, old buddy. It was fun, but I'll leave you now to your nutty world of theoretical scienticians and all powerful guvment plots and hope that someday, some way, you'll snap out of it. Who knows: maybe a stint in one of them FEMA camps would do you some good.

Finally:

I'm not creating a fantasy world, I'm only proving that the official version of 911 is a fantasy and I'm doing it based on evidence not insults or innuendos

If you're sad about people making fun of you or implying mean things, maybe you should consider not being such a hard headed, incontrovertible doofus.

[Canadian Blue]

Where did PN get it wrong, well he said Osama Bin Laden wasn't on the FBI's top ten most wanted list. PN also said that the WTC Towers may have been taken down by a phaser beams. The supposed FEMA deathcamps aren't even guarded by anyone [you'd think the government would want to keep a lid on something like a concentration camp]. Also said that America was the most tyrannical country in the past 1000 years, you know even worse than Nazi Germany, China, Imperialist Japan, Idi Amin's regime, etc. PN also said anti-semitism is a form of thought control, for some stupid reason.

Apparently Lyndon Larouche is also the most respectable thinker of our time as well......

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog: Again: no. According to his bio, has a PhD in the "history and philosophy of science."

Philosophy of science is the theory of science. He is a theoretician and has done numerous physics papers on this.

if you can't explain how or why they actually pulled off the conspiracy, none of the above matters for shit.

Thats bad logic. So if I tell you that nuclear reactors run on chocolate bars then in oreder to prove me wrong you must show exactly how they do work ?

I do not know what happened on 911 but the evidence disputes the official claims. The official version of 911 isn't possible.

If you're sad about people making fun of you or implying mean things, maybe you should consider not being such a hard headed, incontrovertible doofus.

You are the one that is absolutely convinced Osama did it. Not even the FBI is convinced of that. Maybe it is you that is the doofus.

Show me where I have been hard headed ! I have presented evidence of everything I have stated. I have used the testimony of generals,colonels, brigadier generals, congresmen, senators, and scientific experts and used film footage. The only evidence you have put forth is a couple of engineers and mainstream publications that depend on the Pentagon for information and/or income, some of whom, are related to high ranking Pentagon officials. These people lie and they manipulate facts. A perfect example is the misleading of people wrt how the world trade centers were contructed in the Nova and BBC presentations on 911.

You cite web sites like 911Myths, which are full of misleading facts.

The government has already lied about the weapons of mass destruction and countless military personel have come forward to say they believe 911 was an inside job, but you continue to believe Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush no matter how many lies they tell you and no matter how much money they make from these wars.

There is not a single shred of actual evidence that supports your views. Repeating Osama did it, you are a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist, Osama did it, you are a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist, Osama did it, you are a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist does not consitute intelligent arguement.

[Canadian Blue]

There is not a single shred of actual evidence that supports your views. Repeating Osama did it, you are a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist, Osama did it, you are a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist, Osama did it, you are a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist does not consitute intelligent arguement.

No the 19 guys who were part of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist organization did it. However Bin Laden was involved since he is their leader.

I don't know how you can call us tin hatted conspiracy theorists when you made the claim a giant phaser beam brought down the WTC Towers. As for these experts, the ones you have cited I looked up, and many of them are kooks, and have a shady past to say the least.

Show me where I have been hard headed ! I have presented evidence of everything I have stated. I have used the testimony of generals,colonels, brigadier generals, congresmen, senators, and scientific experts and used film footage. The only evidence you have put forth is a couple of engineers and mainstream publications that depend on the Pentagon for information and/or income, some of whom, are related to high ranking Pentagon officials. These people lie and they manipulate facts. A perfect example is the misleading of people wrt how the world trade centers were contructed in the Nova and BBC presentations on 911.

The American Society of Civil Engineers. Personally I put more faith in people who specialize in engineering, than some guy who does the visual effects for the TV show Lost [Rivero]. Most of the people you listed have also been quoted out of context, so they may very well not believe it was an inside job.

You cite web sites like 911Myths, which are full of misleading facts.

No, they make the most sense. Plus they have actual experts tell it as it is, not some college dropout who made a few observations while watching TV.

The government has already lied about the weapons of mass destruction and countless military personel have come forward to say they believe 911 was an inside job, but you continue to believe Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush no matter how many lies they tell you and no matter how much money they make from these wars.

I believe in Civil Engineers, who you know, specialize in civil engineering not visual effects for the TV show lost [Rivero].

As well Bill Clinton on Bush do fundraising together. I don't see anything especially worrying about that, and am not about to say they both were responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing.

PS: I agree 100% with what BD said, all these conspiracy theorists are focusing on these kooky theories about Sept 11, while their are more important issues to address. Such as the use of torture, G Bay, The Patriot Act, etc.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:I don't know how you can call us tin hatted conspiracy theorists when you made the claim a giant phaser beam brought down the WTC Towers. As for these experts, the ones you have cited I looked up, and many of them are kooks, and have a shady past to say the least.

Take any list of 100 people and you are bound to find one or two kooks. You found one and have shown that he was in a dissagreement with someone, not that he was a "kook".

I did not say that a phasor beam destroyed the wtc's. Stop putting words in my mouth and then using those words to discredit me. Clearly you have learned something from Popular Mechanics and 911Myths. Its a stunt that is always used by neocons. Its cheap and people see through it.

No, they make the most sense. Plus they have actual experts tell it as it is, not some college dropout who made a few observations while watching TV.

Who is the drop out that made a few observations while watching TV ?

No, they make the most sense.

(re 911Myths)

Show me one point of 911 that they are "debunking" and I will prove to you that they are liars. Any point. Pick one.

I believe in Civil Engineers, who you know, specialize in civil engineering not visual effects for the TV show lost [Rivero].

What do you think of that army engineer that posted on Riveros site about Oklahoma then ? It wasn't Rivero that made the report, it was a brigadier general who is an engineer.

As far as the American Society of Civil Engineers goes, I bet they made the statement supportiung 911 without contacting a single member. It was political, not a scientific endorsement supported by all civil engineers.

PS: I agree 100% with what BD said, all these conspiracy theorists are focusing on these kooky theories about Sept 11, while their are more important issues to address. Such as the use of torture, G Bay, The Patriot Act, etc.

Really, what lead to all these things ? What if it was a lie, doesn't everything else fall down like a deck of cards ? That is exactly why 911 is so important. If we expose 911 as an inside job we expose the criminals that have been behind all these other things.

You can see that the admin is criminal, then why do you believe them about 911 ?

Really: challenge me on any point from the 911Myths site and I will prove they are lying. That goes for anyone reading this post and any point on that site. Same goes for popular Mechanics. They are both easily shown to be fraudulent.

[Rue]

"This is an excellent presentation on the USA place in the world and the internal workings of the USA on a macro level."

So you enjoyed Lydon Larouche's presentation and I take it you subscribe to his political visions of the world and in particular his belief in numerous conspiracies including the Rockefeller-CIA-Carter axis, or say the attempts of Jews to take over the world and reduce it to the dark ages and of course the CIA conspiracy that caused him to get divorced in 1973.

My favourite work from Mr. Larouche is " Kissinger: Politics of Faggotry".

Now you know what I really love about Lyndon. I like the fact that he flunked out of college and yet always realized he was a genius. I mean never mind he went from the Socialist Worker's Party (Trotskyite) to the Revolutionary Tendency movement to the Sparacist League to the New Left, to the US Labor Party and then on to the Schiller Institute. That is what geniuses do. They start off as extremist communists and then over the years move to the extreme right in political views completely ending up advocating alleged economic theories diametrically opposed to where they started.

You know how else we know Lyndon is a genius? He says so. He tells people he is and they do not question him. So when he expresses his conspiracy theories, people accept them because I mean he is a genius.

Of course his incarceration was yet another political conspiracy against him. He never broke any laws.

Now then you quote a rambling address that in fact doesn't say anything. Read it again. It says nothing.

In fact here is the crux of the address you find excellent: (given in April of '06)

"Now, the key thing comes back to this curve again: What this curve means, is that as long as this system operates under the rules it operates under now, the present laws, the present institutions, and so forth, this system, unless a change is introduced in the meantime, will collapse by September. This country could be finished by September, unless we do something. And my job, is to try to educate the educable. There are people in this country and a few other places, who are capable of understanding what I'm talking about: that is, they have the technical competence to be able to understand what I'm talking about."

So let's summarize;

1-the current political system is wrong and will collapse by September, 2006

2-Lydon's job is to educate the educable

3-there are people capable of understanding Lyndon.

Well I am assuming Lyndon's prediction of the September 2006 collapse, is a mistake because the last time I looked we are all still mucking along.

I would imagine you are educable and capable of understanding Lyndon.

Here is what I have to say.

The article you quote offered nothing. All it said was the world is coming to an end and unless we follow what Lyndon says we are doomed. Hmm where have I heard that before.

See for me to take someone seriously I need to read their positions.

What I have read from Mr. Larouche over the years were diatribes against Jews, gays, opinions as to conspiracies being orchestrated by gays, jews, impotent Peurto Ricans (yes he wrote that), the CIA and Carter, on and on.

When one actually tries to analyze his economic theories they find there are none other then, listen to what Lyndon says and let him control the banks.

Well now. Let us talk about what Lyndon is. Why bear around the bush. He is a failure. For a person who succeeded in creatinng a powerful multi-millionaire empire and made himself tremendous wealth no ojne will elect him and no one has ever been able to define any of his economic theories and put them into practice. He has managed to have followers elected to state congress and even as a Lt. Goevrnor of a state, but when you look at his record or his theories no one has ever been able to put them in practice because no one can define them.

See it is easy to tell the world you are a genius and everyone must agree with you and if they don't they ae not "educable". Its easy to present conspiracy theories and tell people the world is collapsing. It is easy to say what is wrong which Lyndon does. But what does he in fact propose as an alternative?

I challenge you to take the address you quote and explain to us based on it what economic theories we should pursue based on that article. You can't. It doesn't provide any. It is called rhetoric. Its junk food. It is all air with no substance.

You really should examine how the Larouche organization raises its money and what happens to people that question his beliefs.

Like any cult leader, he is charismatic, paranoid, narcissistic, and demands people agree with him and stroke his ego.

If he really is a visionary ask yourself, why is it all his writings do but one thing, express his personal opinions as to conspiracies but nothing else?

[PolyNewbie]

Rue:Well now. Let us talk about what Lyndon is. Why bear around the bush. He is a failure. For a person who succeeded in creatinng a powerful multi-millionaire empire and made himself tremendous wealth

My favourite work from Mr. Larouche is " Kissinger: Politics of Faggotry".

Hating Henry Kissinger is not uncommon.

-the current political system is wrong and will collapse by September, 2006

He erred in setting the date but the system will collapse soon. Many economists are saying it. Joseph Steiglitz says it (ex head of world bank) I have heard many top economists say it over the past year. Of course its not on TV or mainstream so you wouldn't know.

The article you quote offered nothing. All it said was the world is coming to an end and unless we follow what Lyndon says we are doomed. Hmm where have I heard that before.

I believe that. If we do not stop globalism the world as we know it will end. Most people will be knocked back to the 14th century that survive. The idea is to recreate society in its entirety as a myth based society.

You really should examine how the Larouche organization raises its money and what happens to people that question his beliefs.

Why don't you tell me ?

I think LaRouche's idea that the country needs to be re nationalized is absolutely correct. Globalism is nothing more than corporations erasing borders and making governments less relevant. Its not about creating a better world for ordinary people, its about re shaping the world in the interest of the top most wealthy elites. They are afraid that too many people will figure out how the world really works and lock them up.

I don't know alot about LaRouche. I posted this thread to hear some other ideas. He makes more sense than Harper & Bush, thats for sure.

Ultimately politics is about the oligarchy vs the people. The oligarchy is winning because most people do not understand that. I didn't get that from LaRouche, I got it from Plato, but LaRouche says it too.