Alcohol is poison!

Zeitgeist I've seen parts of, it's all stuff that was just rehashed stuff for me though. It's what I like to call a great "sheeple call" that has woken up a lot of sheep. That said, it's not as well-researched as it ought to have been. It's on the right track with religion, however, due to poor sources and research, it's opened itself up to a lot of discreditors that lambasted the sources and, in turn, use that to fuel their criticism of Zeitgeist Part I as bogus. If you're really interested in Astrotheology and the roots of all religion, then the foremost expert of 50+ years is Jordan Maxwell. Highly recommend him (I own his DVD, "Astrotheology"). You can YouTube him as well, he's also heavy into researching occult symbols and secret societies.

On the back of the dollar bill is the sign of the Illuminati--the all-seeing eye. It's also a sign of freemasonry--13 steps. The roots of the Illuminati go back to ancient Babylon and Sumeria, as evidenced by the Bohemian Grove meetings that see all the world leaders each year get together and sacrifice effigies to Baal, the owl god of wisdom. It also is loaded with homosexual connotations. Alex Jones has been the only one to date to infiltrate (with video), the Grove's operations...to my knowledge anyway. Nixon referred to it as the "Goddamned faggiest thing" that he ever partook of.

As for 9/11, the official story is the conspiracy, and anybody with the ability to reason and a basic understanding of physics can look into the facts themselves and see how absurd the official story is. I'm not overtly concerned with who did it as I am with the fact that the story is a false one.

Gibson wrote:EIC--
For those looking to add a starch to their diets, quinoa is a much better recommendation.

Quinoa is not a bad starch, though I think it is not necessarily ideal.

Notably, any starch will add to the waistline.

This is totally flawed. Excess starch will certainly do so, but reasonable starch consumption will not. Many cultures throughout the world eat starch on a regular basis and are quite trim.

Of course the notion of eating gram for gram sugar vs potatoes is absurd. A pound of sugar lasts me over a month; a pound of potatoes used as a food staple would last a couple of days.

Okay, but how many grams of carbs are in that pound of sugar and how many grams of carbs are in that pound of potatoes? I can see the light bulb over your head from here!

If I were to eat that weight in fructose, in the form of fruit, which isn't realistic either, assuming my tummy were empty, I would only end up looking and feeling great, particularly since it is summer and many fruits are ideal for re-hydration.

Of course, I disagree. But if it works for you, then by all means keep it up.

Gibson wrote:why do you assume that discourse carries so much weight? personally, I couldn't care less.

Which discourse are you referring to? You mean Dr. Price's findings? They carry so much weight because he found remarkable health among various cultures all over the world eating a traditional diet. Moreover, he noted that certain fundamental aspects of diet were the same regardless of whether the traditional people were in Africa or South America. Put it another way: Thousands of years worth of experience led numerous and isolated groups of people to the same conclusions about diet. I'd say that's worth some attention, don't you?

nidhogge wrote:Zeitgeist I've seen parts of, it's all stuff that was just rehashed stuff for me though. It's what I like to call a great "sheeple call" that has woken up a lot of sheep. That said, it's not as well-researched as it ought to have been. It's on the right track with religion, however, due to poor sources and research, it's opened itself up to a lot of discreditors that lambasted the sources and, in turn, use that to fuel their criticism of Zeitgeist Part I as bogus. If you're really interested in Astrotheology and the roots of all religion, then the foremost expert of 50+ years is Jordan Maxwell. Highly recommend him (I own his DVD, "Astrotheology"). You can YouTube him as well, he's also heavy into researching occult symbols and secret societies.

On the back of the dollar bill is the sign of the Illuminati--the all-seeing eye. It's also a sign of freemasonry--13 steps. The roots of the Illuminati go back to ancient Babylon and Sumeria, as evidenced by the Bohemian Grove meetings that see all the world leaders each year get together and sacrifice effigies to Baal, the owl god of wisdom. It also is loaded with homosexual connotations. Alex Jones has been the only one to date to infiltrate (with video), the Grove's operations...to my knowledge anyway. Nixon referred to it as the "Goddamned faggiest thing" that he ever partook of.

As for 9/11, the official story is the conspiracy, and anybody with the ability to reason and a basic understanding of physics can look into the facts themselves and see how absurd the official story is. I'm not overtly concerned with who did it as I am with the fact that the story is a false one.

Way off topic here, but virtually all of the nation's Founders were Free Masons. In light of that fact, the presence of the "all-seeing eye" on our dollar bill is not too concerning. I would be no more concerned about that than if I found out that Free Masons' favorite color was green.

And I can't tell from your comment, but are you suggesting that you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? Please tell me you're not!

The only people, EIC, that think that the official 9/11 story was true are folks like yourself that haven't done any research into it just because they think it's too incredible that the government would actually allow it to happen. WTC 7 is the smoking gun, not to mention the interview by one of the WTC 7 survivors that recently was released. BBC was another smoking gun when they reported the WTC 7 building collapsing live 20 minutes before it was taken down. The airplane fuel doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to support the official conspiracy that the steel supports in the buildings were melted. Skyscrapers are specifically designed to be able to withstand planes crashing into them without collapsing. You may also like to know that Pearl Harbor was known by FDR well in advance of it actually happening (go read his son-in-law's biography on him, amongst plenty of other primary sources out there), and that the BBC recently uncovered that the CIA offed RFK (and JFK is a given--Lee Harvey Oswald's mom told reporters, and was ignored, that her son was in the CIA).

There is a real history in America, and then there's the taught history.

Freemasonry is a branch of the Illuminati. Most Freemasons are not aware of this connection until the 32nd or 33rd degree level. A good deal of our founding fathers were Freemasons, that is correct, though most rejected the wealth associated with it by favoring independence and freedom instead. Some continued to act in the interest of bankers, fighting to enslave America with a central bank. The power to coin and regulate money has changed hands between private, unelected interests and the Congress on 8 separate occasions. Andrew Jackson was quoted as saying "I know that the banks want to kill me, but I'm going to kill it." Sure enough, he survived his assassination attempts, and killed the 2nd central bank.

nidhogge wrote:The only people, EIC, that think that the official 9/11 story was true are folks like yourself that haven't done any research into it just because they think it's too incredible that the government would actually allow it to happen. WTC 7 is the smoking gun, not to mention the interview by one of the WTC 7 survivors that recently was released. BBC was another smoking gun when they reported the WTC 7 building collapsing live 20 minutes before it was taken down. The airplane fuel doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to support the official conspiracy that the steel supports in the buildings were melted. Skyscrapers are specifically designed to be able to withstand planes crashing into them without collapsing. You may also like to know that Pearl Harbor was known by FDR well in advance of it actually happening (go read his son-in-law's biography on him, amongst plenty of other primary sources out there), and that the BBC recently uncovered that the CIA offed RFK (and JFK is a given--Lee Harvey Oswald's mom told reporters, and was ignored, that her son was in the CIA).

There is a real history in America, and then there's the taught history.

Freemasonry is a branch of the Illuminati. Most Freemasons are not aware of this connection until the 32nd or 33rd degree level. A good deal of our founding fathers were Freemasons, that is correct, though most rejected the wealth associated with it by favoring independence and freedom instead. Some continued to act in the interest of bankers, fighting to enslave America with a central bank. The power to coin and regulate money has changed hands between private, unelected interests and the Congress on 8 separate occasions. Andrew Jackson was quoted as saying "I know that the banks want to kill me, but I'm going to kill it." Sure enough, he survived his assassination attempts, and killed the 2nd central bank.

No, I've looked into, believe me. And some of it is superficially enticing. But it all suffers from the same fundamental flaw: You cannot come up with a plausible motive for why the gov't would want to commit that act in that manner.
If the gov't wanted an excuse to go to war, why not just blow the building up with a shit ton of explosives? Why all the song and dance about airplanes? Seems like a long and messy way around the barn.

And you totally misunderstand the jet-fuel issue. The fire did not have to be hot enough to melt the steel, just to weaken it. Metal does not lose its strength like an on-off switch; one minute it's there 100% and the next minute it's not. It loses its strength on a gradient. How much of a reduction of strength in the support beams would it take to weaken them enough to no longer support the structure? I don't know and neither do the college student cooks producing "Loose Change." I've studied enough responses by engineers and scientists to conclude that the conspiracy theories are bullshit. It's just like global warming.

And it's not that I can't accept it, it's just that I'm too damn educated to buy into any of that crap. Nid, if you really believe the conspiracy theory, then why the hell are you in the United States? I'm not saying that you're not welcome, but if you really believe that your gov't is capable of such a thing, then there is absolutely nothing to stop them from killing you tomorrow. If they would go to great lengths to kill so many people in such a manner, then they are probably reading all your posts, monitoring all your phone calls, watching you walk, watching you sleep. They could cap your ass and no one would ever be the wiser.

EIC wrote:
Way off topic here, but virtually all of the nation's Founders were Free Masons. In light of that fact, the presence of the "all-seeing eye" on our dollar bill is not too concerning. I would be no more concerned about that than if I found out that Free Masons' favorite color was green.

And I can't tell from your comment, but are you suggesting that you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? Please tell me you're not!

So you are OK with an unbelievably secretive group having so much power as to warrant their sign being on US currency?

EIC wrote:
And it's not that I can't accept it, it's just that I'm too damn educated to buy into any of that crap.

That's your problem right THERE. You are not open to reasoning coz you already made up your mind.

EIC--
I respond to your post about matching pototatos with sugar gram for gram. Then you post that you were really talking about matching carbs. C'mon man.

I looked up your guru, price, you should mention that periods of undereating were also fundamental to those "primitives'" diets. That said, I'm sure there is a lot of value to his work. That said, he did die in the 1950's, and fortunately, not everyone closed the book on diet and nutrition upon his death.

Anyone seen "Freedom to Fascism?"

Caustic--

For whatever reason, I have not. Aaron Russo was a genius, and his death was a huge loss to the freedom movement.

EIC--

There are massive amounts of scientists and engineers that scoff at the official story. Also, not only was the jet fuel heat below the melting point of steel, the difference was incredible. Again, I reiterate--skyscrapers are designed to withstand such blows. And, do you know know anything about WTC 7? You made not one mention in reply to it. Watching "Loose Change" doesn't tell me you've looked into 9/11. That, like Zeitgeist, should only serve as a spark to ignite your interest for more serious research from far more credible sources with far more concrete proof.

And, why am I in the USA? Because there's no other safe area in the world outside of Russia and China, and Russia is about 30 years off until they are ready for a true democracy, and China is too totalitarian. The USA can still be saved by getting rid of our corrupt and bought politicians. Ron Paul's presidential primary run inspired millions of us, and as a result, hundreds of Ron Paul Republicans are running for office on the local, state, and federal levels.

You speak of the government as if it's one entity that acts on its own. Why would the government do this? Simple--get America to hate the Middle East, and strip our civil liberties while we're not looking. The first thing that Paul O'Neill reported that Bush said when he served under him (O'Neill's biography) after assuming the presidency was "What can we do to get us back in Iraq to get Saddam?". Gotta finish what poppy couldn't, right?

Here's an article on the Bushes and their relation to the WTC buildings:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Let's not forget that the man that attempted to assassinate Reagan was also from a family that has extremely close ties with the Bushies. Let's also not forget Preston Bush, our current president's grandfather, who attempted to overthrow FDR and the United States government during the Depression to form a fascist state akin to Mussolini in Italy, a man that funneled money to Hitler and was christened by the New York Times back then as "Hitler's Angel." He went on to become Senator and, of course, Congress turned a deaf ear to the military general that blew him in along with the other corporate fatcats who tried to stage the coup. Much like how the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 while 4 members of the Senate were present, with the vote deliberately being held while Senators and Reps were home with their families for the Christmas holidays. From 1913 on, our dollar has consistently dropped value, while gold and silver still possess the same purchasing power as they always have. A dollar was 1/20th of an oz. of gold back then, and it is now nearing 1/1000th of an oz. yet again.

If anyone wants to check out freedom to fascism, I'll make a special link to download it--unless you want to download through bit torrents like www.btjunkie.org but you'll need to download http://www.vuze.com/content/FeaturedContent.html first.

I told you guys, we need another area on this forum for these kind of topics

EIC: You often fill this forum with high quality content. Respect. Just like nid. Respect.
In this issue you two seem to disagree.
You said "why would the government allow this to happen? - No reasons.." - are you really serious?
Can't you honestly not come up with one single reason?
Clue: What happened afterwards?

I'm not expert on this, but here is Aaron Russo's explanation to the 9/11 question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

He starts talking about Rockefeller, so wait for that part, "there's going to be an event."

This vid?

Misirlou - That's the one!

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

There are massive amounts of scientists and engineers that scoff at the official story.

Just like the "massive amounts" of scientists supporting global warming, right?

Also, not only was the jet fuel heat below the melting point of steel, the difference was incredible. Again, I reiterate--skyscrapers are designed to withstand such blows. And, do you know know anything about WTC 7? You made not one mention in reply to it. Watching "Loose Change" doesn't tell me you've looked into 9/11. That, like Zeitgeist, should only serve as a spark to ignite your interest for more serious research from far more credible sources with far more concrete proof.

Skyscrapers are not designed to withstand such blows. Are you kidding me? Wind, yes. The rare airliner flying head first into the building? No. I can't imagine what it would take to make a structure withstand that impact. Also, aren't you forgetting that everywhere after 9/11 all you heard about was the flaws in the design of the structure? Most structures rely on centralized columns for load bearing, but the Twin Towers relied largely on the external facade for load bearing. You can see, then, how this would present a problem when something weighing 200 tons slams into the side doing 400 mph. That is a TON of kinetic energy, which would not only obliterate the siding (obviously) but would also weaken the beams themselves. From that alone you've got already weakened columns of steel (from the kinetic shock) supporting more load than the otherwise should (from the now nonexistant facade). Then you have a raging inferno which further WEAKENS (note I did not say "melts") those beams. I'm not surprised by the result.

I take it that you believe that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, yes? You know, because it's so weird and creepy that the towers fell straight down! Except that they had no reason to fall in any other direction except straight down. While they were burning, the only force acting on the towers was gravity which, as we all know, pushes straight down. The "pancaking" effect is because the towers did not crumble from the bottom. They fell when one floor collapsed onto the one below, bringing all the other floors above with it. This then caused those already weakened, overweighted, heated columns to bear even more of a load, causing that floor to collapse, and on and on it goes. It really is quite simple, actually.

I'll admit that I do not recall off the top of my head what you're referring to with WTC 7. As I recall, the building came down sometime after the other two towers. I seem to recall seeing evidence that the structure was declared unsafe and unsalvagable, and demolished intentionally.

You speak of the government as if it's one entity that acts on its own. Why would the government do this? Simple--get America to hate the Middle East, and strip our civil liberties while we're not looking. The first thing that Paul O'Neill reported that Bush said when he served under him (O'Neill's biography) after assuming the presidency was "What can we do to get us back in Iraq to get Saddam?". Gotta finish what poppy couldn't, right?

Okay, so I take it you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy to get us back into Iraq. For the moment, I will overlook the piles of U.N. Security Council resolutions which were issued under Clinton, authorizing military action in Iraq. So, okay, 9/11 was to get us into Iraq. And, as I discussed above, I take it that you believe the towers were brought down by a controlled demo. But you still didn't answer my question: Why would the government (or Bush and his cronies, if that pleases you) go through all the hoopla of a plane smashing into the tower only to bring it down by controlled demo just to get us into Iraq?

As I discussed, why not hire someone to just load up a bunch of explosives in the basement of the WTC, you know, like the terrorists did in 1993, and bring them down that way? Then spin it with some evidence that the terrorists were armed by Hussein. Surely this would have been easier than making up a story about planes flown by Al Qaeda operatives. Also, who the hell do you suspect was flying those planes? I mean, what Bush crony volunteered for that job? Surely it wasn't jihadists who, we know from years and years of experience in Israel and elsewhere, are ready to die for Allah. No, it must have been someone in Bush's fold.

Or maybe you believe that the planes were remote controlled? In that case, you have a lot of explaining to do regarding those calls from Flight 93. And what of all the family members that were supposed to be on those planes? Were they rounded up on buses before they got on the planes? Not to mention that now you have the government flying remote-controlled aircraft to fly into a tower only for the government to blow the tower's up anyway, when they could have just blown them up in the first place! Do you see what I'm getting at? And all of this messy ridiculousness just so Bush can go to war in Iraq? A war which very nearly cost him a second term in office and has forever marred his legacy as a president? As an attorney, I can assure you that your case just doesn't "hold water."

And, why am I in the USA? Because there's no other safe area in the world outside of Russia and China, and Russia is about 30 years off until they are ready for a true democracy, and China is too totalitarian. The USA can still be saved by getting rid of our corrupt and bought politicians. Ron Paul's presidential primary run inspired millions of us, and as a result, hundreds of Ron Paul Republicans are running for office on the local, state, and federal levels.

China, arguably the biggest perpetrator of human rights violations in our world, is one of two safe areas on our planet? If you think this country is corrupt, you won't like China, I can assure you. I agree that there are no shortage of corrupt politicians in the United States. But if you think that our president engineered a plan to kill thousands of Americans just so he can go to war, you should seriously pack everything up and run as fast as you can. The fact that you are still here is perhaps the best evidence that you don't really believe your own theories.

Why would the government do this? Simple--get America to hate the Middle East, and strip our civil liberties while we're not looking.

This makes it sound like stripping civil liberties is a goal unto itself. Like Bush and all his buds are hanging in the Oval Office slapping high fives about how they just listened in to some guy in Virginia having phone sex with his girlfriend in Florida. You assume that Bush somehow has something to gain simply by stripping our civil liberties. So what is that, precisely? POWER? CONTROL? Dude's gonna be out of office in 6 more months. What does he have to gain by doing this? Or, more particularly, what does he have to gain that would justify the political cost in doing so? I'll believe it when Bush declares term limits void and announces his plans to stay in office despite the November election.

I constantly hear people complain about how Bush et al. has "stolen our civil liberties." Can you tell me one way in which you or someone you know has had his or her civil liberties infringed since Bush took office? No, go ahead. How many times have you been asked to stop preaching your 9/11 theories by a federal agent "or else"? Have your phone calls been monitored? You can't say either way, can you? My point is that it has been come trite and popular to complain about how Bush has stolen our civil liberties when, in reality, no one has really experienced this. For just about everyone, life is the same as it ever was. My, such a police state!

Also, if you think restricting civil liberties is unique to Bush, you are kidding yourself. Our country has a long, long history of such activities, and in far worse ways that what you accuse Bush of doing. There are famous U.S. Supreme Court cases where President Lincoln ordered newspaper editors to be put in jail for printing pro-South articles in areas in the North. In the early 20th Century, both the federal and state governments routinely punished people for discussing and disseminating anti-WWI and pro-socialist literature. I'm not saying that this justifies what Bush is alleged to have done, but it certainly puts it into perspective and shows that it is not unique to this particular man that you all hate so much.

Why do you guys honestly care? No offense but what is IS. Whether you happen to "know" something doesn't change it. Why waste your time worrying about the collapse of the economy (future), or 911 (past). You are wasting precious life; precious time NOW when you are thinking or talking about this stuff. The world is corrupt. That is no secret. Money is the root of all evil- common knowledge. Fear controls the masses- yes. How does it personally effect you? What can you personally do to change it? Does this knowledge empower you in any way? Why is it so important for you to prove your point (right or wrong)? What if you could change the minds of 1,000 people on the internet; what would that accomplish? It is really just an ego thing...the need to prove yourself right and someone else wrong. Let them be wrong; why not? Arguing is really pointless when you think about it. I used to do it constantly. I would get so obsessed about proving myself right to this person that I didn't really realize that it was controlling ME-the need to be right. Even if you prove someone wrong logically, they will not usually concede because that is VERY threatening to the ego. That is DEATH to the ego. Let ego's be. JMHO

I think what we saw after 9 slash 11 was just the same old tactics from _ and _. It worked before and it worked this time too.

Jharsh80: It's seldom possible to close down the ego, but it is possible to change the direction of it.
I think much of what you're saying is true, but for some people discussions are something to fill the life with. Of course one could argue that their are much better ways to spend the time on this planet, but that's an individual decision to make and besides, in the end, we are all egoistic creatures.

JHarsh80 wrote:Why do you guys honestly care? No offense but what is IS. Whether you happen to "know" something doesn't change it. Why waste your time worrying about the collapse of the economy (future), or 911 (past). You are wasting precious life; precious time NOW when you are thinking or talking about this stuff. The world is corrupt. That is no secret. Money is the root of all evil- common knowledge. Fear controls the masses- yes. How does it personally effect you? What can you personally do to change it? Does this knowledge empower you in any way? Why is it so important for you to prove your point (right or wrong)? What if you could change the minds of 1,000 people on the internet; what would that accomplish? It is really just an ego thing...the need to prove yourself right and someone else wrong. Let them be wrong; why not? Arguing is really pointless when you think about it. I used to do it constantly. I would get so obsessed about proving myself right to this person that I didn't really realize that it was controlling ME-the need to be right. Even if you prove someone wrong logically, they will not usually concede because that is VERY threatening to the ego. That is DEATH to the ego. Let ego's be. JMHO

Some of what you say has merit, some of it sounds like you are a bit selfish. Why care about 9/11 or our country's economic problems? Because I, for one, give a damn about the fate of our nation. Our society cannot exist if people are selfish. And I think it is ridiculous to turn a blind eye to problems just because they don't effect me "personally." Only cowards would ignore these issues; sweeping them under the rug because they are too inconvenient, too messy, too ugly to deal with if they have no direct impact on MY well-being.

Now if you meant, "Why debate such topics on the Internet?" then I tend to agree. There is not much point to debate it here. But what set me off was not so much Nid's belief that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but was the suggestion that anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand. My posts may not have convinced Nid to abandon his thoughts, nor was that my intention. My intent was to make him reconsider the assumption that anyone who disagrees with his view of 9/11 is just a naive fool.

In my opinion, America could use a little more of that. Americans need to realize that people can disagree on things and it doesn't mean that one or the other is stupid, naive, or has bad motives. Intelligent, reasonable people with good intentions may still disagree with each other based on their perspective. I don't think it is a waste of time to try and make that point on the Internet.

Misirlou wrote:I think what we saw after 9 slash 11 was just the same old tactics from _ and _. It worked before and it worked this time too.

Jharsh80: It's seldom possible to close down the ego, but it is possible to change the direction of it.
I think much of what you're saying is true, but for some people discussions are something to fill the life with. Of course one could argue that their are much better ways to spend the time on this planet, but that's an individual decision to make and besides, in the end, we are all egoistic creatures.

Nid, Have your read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle? It changed my whole outlook on the ego and life in general and I highly recommend it. You are right that we are free to chose what we want to spend our time with and I'm not trying to preach. I honestly don't care what others chose, it is there perogative (sp?) No not Bobby Brown!! I was just presenting an option, and by no means was I implying that anyone should or shouldn't do it. I don't care what others decide to spend there mental time on, just trying to maybe help or present a different point of view. Like I said, I didn't realize that when i always used to love to debate and spend hours trying to prove my case or the facts, I was actually a bit of a slave to it. The question I guess is whether or not it is truly a choice for you or mental conditioning. Only you can answer that question.

EIC wrote:

JHarsh80 wrote:Why do you guys honestly care? No offense but what is IS. Whether you happen to "know" something doesn't change it. Why waste your time worrying about the collapse of the economy (future), or 911 (past). You are wasting precious life; precious time NOW when you are thinking or talking about this stuff. The world is corrupt. That is no secret. Money is the root of all evil- common knowledge. Fear controls the masses- yes. How does it personally effect you? What can you personally do to change it? Does this knowledge empower you in any way? Why is it so important for you to prove your point (right or wrong)? What if you could change the minds of 1,000 people on the internet; what would that accomplish? It is really just an ego thing...the need to prove yourself right and someone else wrong. Let them be wrong; why not? Arguing is really pointless when you think about it. I used to do it constantly. I would get so obsessed about proving myself right to this person that I didn't really realize that it was controlling ME-the need to be right. Even if you prove someone wrong logically, they will not usually concede because that is VERY threatening to the ego. That is DEATH to the ego. Let ego's be. JMHO

Some of what you say has merit, some of it sounds like you are a bit selfish. Why care about 9/11 or our country's economic problems? Because I, for one, give a damn about the fate of our nation. Our society cannot exist if people are selfish. And I think it is ridiculous to turn a blind eye to problems just because they don't effect me "personally." Only cowards would ignore these issues; sweeping them under the rug because they are too inconvenient, too messy, too ugly to deal with if they have no direct impact on MY well-being.

EIC, With all due respect. I know what I suspect to be the truth of 911 and other things that the majority of the population takes for granted, yet knowing and developing a strong attachment to your beliefs are two different things. I understand how what I said could be taken to mean that I don't care, but that is far from the truth. What I am trying to say is that I don't personally attach myself or my sense of self to these things and let them control my emotions and cause stress and worry. It is very possible to care about things and yet approach them from a realistic standpoint, while still taking action to resolve them. The first step is accepting what is first though. Once you accept what is (not care less), then you can begin to change things from a more effective way where your emotions are no longer tied in and you are more clear headed and rational. you can resolve situations that we take to be problems, but not be so attached to them and make them part of your identity. I am not talking about apathy. Take action...just try not to let it define who you are. Many great intentioned people end up in this boat and end up suffering unnecessarily. You can still take action without identifying with the problem. I hope that makes sense. As far as selfishness goes, it is just my opinion that proving myself right for basically no other reason than to prove someone else wrong is kind of selfish. Again just my humble opinion.

Now if you meant, "Why debate such topics on the Internet?" then I tend to agree.

That was my main point I guess, but not everything I was trying to say.

There is not much point to debate it here.

See!

But what set me off was not so much Nid's belief that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but was the suggestion that anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand. My posts may not have convinced Nid to abandon his thoughts, nor was that my intention. My intent was to make him reconsider the assumption that anyone who disagrees with his view of 9/11 is just a naive fool.

Do you honestly think that you can make Ned change his mind? Isn't that ultimately up to Ned? I can see you were offended by his assumption that you mention. That can be threatening to your own ego. So you set out to show that he was the fool (my own words). What is it that drives that.

Why does one man's opinion have enough power to set you off? That is a question that I had to investigate within myself before I could control my reactions. Why was I giving anyone enough power to control my emotions, and more importantly, why did I believe they had the power to in the first place?

In my opinion, America could use a little more of that. Americans need to realize that people can disagree on things and it doesn't mean that one or the other is stupid, naive, or has bad motives. Intelligent, reasonable people with good intentions may still disagree with each other based on their perspective. I don't think it is a waste of time to try and make that point on the Internet.

Sure, absolutely! That is not a waste of time. But when do you concede that this person is not going to change his mind a let him be with his beliefs (be they correct or night). If someone says that sound travels faster than light, you can simply factually and unemotionally point out that this is incorrect, and you can prove this by the fact that lightning proceeds thunder. Facts are harmless. My whole point is that when you are emotionally or psychologically identified with your beliefs (set of thoughts, right or wrong) then it can cause an approach that will probably set you as well as the other on an ego based defensive. Facts in themselves are benign. I totally agree there is nothing wrong with correcting someone, but sometimes it is beatinga dead horse.

I don't mean this as criticism at all, and I hope it doesn't appear that way.

EIC--

Just like the "massive amounts" of scientists supporting global warming, right?

Actually, no. Nothing like those scientists. Those scientists are paid to force square pegs into round holes and are driven by greed and fame. Those who oppose the official story of 9/11 only have to look forward to media and colleague ridicule for attempting to expose the truth. Huge difference.

Skyscrapers are not designed to withstand such blows. Are you kidding me? Wind, yes. The rare airliner flying head first into the building? No. I can't imagine what it would take to make a structure withstand that impact. Also, aren't you forgetting that everywhere after 9/11 all you heard about was the flaws in the design of the structure? Most structures rely on centralized columns for load bearing, but the Twin Towers relied largely on the external facade for load bearing. You can see, then, how this would present a problem when something weighing 200 tons slams into the side doing 400 mph. That is a TON of kinetic energy, which would not only obliterate the siding (obviously) but would also weaken the beams themselves. From that alone you've got already weakened columns of steel (from the kinetic shock) supporting more load than the otherwise should (from the now nonexistant facade). Then you have a raging inferno which further WEAKENS (note I did not say "melts") those beams. I'm not surprised by the result.

Well, looks like I debunked your theory of the WTC buildings not being designed to withstand airplane attacks right here (and I can provide other sources if necessary as well...):

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Some of those mischievous engineers and scientists I was talking about:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

I'll admit that I do not recall off the top of my head what you're referring to with WTC 7. As I recall, the building came down sometime after the other two towers. I seem to recall seeing evidence that the structure was declared unsafe and unsalvagable, and demolished intentionally.

Just like most folks who buy the official garbage, you have no idea about WTC7. WTC7 was reported by the BBC as brought down 20 minutes before it actually happened. This was live. No other mention in the media was given to WTC7. NOT ONE mention. How does a big building get destroyed with no mention whatsoever? It was 355 feet away from the other buildings, and at most, would have gotten some flame material on it. There was a good deal of insurance money to be made off of the collapse of that, and the other two towers. It's a great facade as well--everyone's distracted with the twin towers, so let's blow this one up and collect a big paycheck too when nobody's looking! And, indeed, nobody in the media did look.

Watch the Smoking Gun interview of Barry Jennings, a man with a lot of balls coming out with what he went through in WTC7:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16285

Okay, so I take it you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy to get us back into Iraq. For the moment, I will overlook the piles of U.N. Security Council resolutions which were issued under Clinton, authorizing military action in Iraq. So, okay, 9/11 was to get us into Iraq. And, as I discussed above, I take it that you believe the towers were brought down by a controlled demo. But you still didn't answer my question: Why would the government (or Bush and his cronies, if that pleases you) go through all the hoopla of a plane smashing into the tower only to bring it down by controlled demo just to get us into Iraq?

No, 9/11 was not a conspiracy to get us back in Iraq--it's far, far greater than that. Israel wields a massive influence over American affairs, and has been lobbying hard to get us involved in the Middle East for some time (Read "The Israeli Lobby" by Mearsheimer and Walt). AIPAC makes the NRA looks small as a lobby...watch how Clinton and Obama kissed their asses promising billions of American taxpayer money to Israel as well as promising to fight their wars for them. Couple this with oil greed and the design to bankrupt America, as well as the erosion of our civil liberties to prepare us for the eventual NAU and the fact that, as IH pointed out, Rockefeller himself said we'd need an event like this to encourage "globalism" aka, the removing of our sovereignty as Americans (and a few others dating back to the early 90's)...9/11 was used as a rouse to get people so emotionally blind and angry that they agreed to anything. See: The Patriot Act. I was blind and angry, I'm just happy that I woke up from my slumber a couple of years ago.

Surely this would have been easier than making up a story about planes flown by Al Qaeda operatives. Also, who the hell do you suspect was flying those planes? I mean, what Bush crony volunteered for that job? Surely it wasn't jihadists who, we know from years and years of experience in Israel and elsewhere, are ready to die for Allah. No, it must have been someone in Bush's fold.

The official story was that it was Saudis. I wouldn't be surprised if it were really Israeli Mossad agents, however. Read up on the 9/11 "Dancing Israelis":

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

As an attorney, you don't even know my case, and your analysis couldn't be farther off from what I've researched and found to be true. Bush is a puppet, he was just doing the bidding of his masters. You can make the argument that Bush never actually won an election, as there was fraud in both instances.

China, arguably the biggest perpetrator of human rights violations in our world, is one of two safe areas on our planet? If you think this country is corrupt, you won't like China, I can assure you. I agree that there are no shortage of corrupt politicians in the United States. But if you think that our president engineered a plan to kill thousands of Americans just so he can go to war, you should seriously pack everything up and run as fast as you can. The fact that you are still here is perhaps the best evidence that you don't really believe your own theories.

What part of "totalitarian" do you not comprehend? I never said they were great on civil rights, but guess what? You don't have any here either, as they're gradually getting stripped away month by month in the USA. FISA Amendment Act now allows the government to spy on you without a warrant whenever they want through a private organization. By the way, my roommate was from China, and he went back for a summer as well--unless you're one of the Chinese making 100 bucks a month (which is a good majority, yet there is a good majority making good middle-incomes), then you love it there. It's not the place that it's demonized out to be and is, in fact, very capitalistic.

If you think that I think that our president even has the capacity to add to thousands yet alone engineer a plan, then you're lost it. Bush just does what he's told. The fact that I am still here? What sort of shit reasoning is this? The government (or more specifically, the shadow government) only takes care of people that are problems. JFK, RFK, Ron Paul (blacked him out from the media, would be assassinated in office), MLK, John Lennon, Andrew Jackson (fortunately he won against the banksters), Sen. Huey Long, the list goes on. I don't upset the status quo, if I did, then I'd be a threat.

This makes it sound like stripping civil liberties is a goal unto itself. Like Bush and all his buds are hanging in the Oval Office slapping high fives about how they just listened in to some guy in Virginia having phone sex with his girlfriend in Florida. You assume that Bush somehow has something to gain simply by stripping our civil liberties. So what is that, precisely? POWER? CONTROL? Dude's gonna be out of office in 6 more months. What does he have to gain by doing this? Or, more particularly, what does he have to gain that would justify the political cost in doing so? I'll believe it when Bush declares term limits void and announces his plans to stay in office despite the November election.

Again, this is NOT Bush's doing. The erosion of civil liberties is not his agenda, but part of a far greater agenda to more easily manipulate the masses. Our family has a personal mechanic, real smart guy that works as an engineer full-time and does car work on the side...he said this is how you trap a boar. You drop some feed on the ground, and then build a fence alongside it while it's busy. Drop a little more, and build the next side, and it'll continue to eat. Drop a little more, and it'll start looking around as you build the 3rd side but will continue to eat. Drop a little more, and enclose the sucker in a fence. There were a series of events that have led to the degradation of American sovereignty. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the illegal income tax, the illegal 16th amendment that was never actually ratified, the Vietnam War, the complete removal of the gold standard by Nixon, affirmative action rather than constitutional action, deficit spending, and inflation. Our country is being picked apart bit by bit, the dollar *will* eventually cease to be a currency, and our borders will be united with Mexico and Canada. The results will be chaotic, the Constitution will be worthless by that time, and the standard of living will be horrendous. An inflationary depression is inevitable that will make the last deflationary depression look like a sunday picnic.

I constantly hear people complain about how Bush et al. has "stolen our civil liberties." Can you tell me one way in which you or someone you know has had his or her civil liberties infringed since Bush took office? No, go ahead. How many times have you been asked to stop preaching your 9/11 theories by a federal agent "or else"? Have your phone calls been monitored? You can't say either way, can you? My point is that it has been come trite and popular to complain about how Bush has stolen our civil liberties when, in reality, no one has really experienced this. For just about everyone, life is the same as it ever was. My, such a police state!

You do realize that civil liberties encompass more than freedom of speech, correct? I'll make a mental note to report every civil liberty violation that I read about to you since they've been happening ever more and more.

In the early 20th Century, both the federal and state governments routinely punished people for discussing and disseminating anti-WWI and pro-socialist literature. I'm not saying that this justifies what Bush is alleged to have done, but it certainly puts it into perspective and shows that it is not unique to this particular man that you all hate so much.

You do realize that Congress realized it was duped by the bankers to getting into World War I? We wanted nothing to do with the war--it was a farce. Woodrow Wilson even admitted to fucking us over in his memoirs regarding the Federal Reserve:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world -- no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

All you have is the illusion of freedom EIC, and even this won't last unless the people of America do something about it. You may also want to look into all the anti-WW2 legislation that Congress enacted to keep us out of WW2 so as to not make the same mistake twice, and the media smear campaign that FDR used to get all of them out of office while he dismantled each act, one-by-one. We had no place in either war, and Germany was to be defeated in both wars regardless of our involvement.

JH--

I'm well aware of the law of attraction, living in the present, egos and how they inhabit chakras (ie - the tightening feeling in your chest chakra when annoyance and later anger manifests), how to deal with them, etc. That's irrelevant to me educating people. Everything EIC stated came off as somebody who has no idea of what's going on in the grand scheme of things. I'm not being rude, but I've put in my hours of research...the stuff he's discussing is the stuff I've blazed past years ago. Nothing new, and just a lot of misinterpretation (such as the emphasis on Bush, who is ultimately irrelevant).