God help us! Another “enlightened” soul!

I mourned for the losses of 9/11..

But for us people who have been living in the middle east for the past 20 years…Your numbers were not impressive at all..its so common here in this part of the world, thousands dying…boooring!

Excuse me if I sound ignorant to suffering, its just that we got numb a bit, see?

Before you were “enlightened”…I wish you would just lift your head, open your eyes and try to understand what your governments have been doing for the past couple of decades…

Yeah, it was Iraq who attacked the WTC!

Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was the assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan where he developed the theory of economics that came to be called “Reaganomics.”. Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review.

Here is what Paul Craig Robert has to say about 9/11:

“I haven’t looked at it very close, but I did go to Georgia Tech and I did learn some physics and I know enough physics to know that it is strictly impossible for those buildings to collapse in their own footprint, at free-fall speed except under controlled demolition. Those buildings did not come down the way the 9-11 report says. It is strictly impossible, in fact, it’s a total, the account in the 911 report is a total contradiction to the laws of physics”.

Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here)

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/02/post.html

Morgan Reynolds

Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during George W. Bush’s first term.

Here is what Morgan Reynolds has to say about 9/11:

“There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse…, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed (“g” or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require “pulling” or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up.” (read his paper)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern had a 27-year career with the CIA as an analyst, spanning the administrations of JFK to GHW Bush. His duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief (PDB). During the mid-eighties, Ray was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Here is what Ray McGovern has to say about 9/11:

“There are real doubts in my mind whether they [Cheney and Rumsfield] clue the president in on some very serious things, 9/11 for example… a lot of bizarre stuff going on there… very troubling. What can be more telling than the fact that the president was unwilling to see the commissioners alone, he had to have Cheney with him… that’s not symbiosis, that’s making sure we’ve got our stories straight.”

Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here)

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/01/interview_with_ray_mcgovern.html

Prof. Steven E. Jones

Steven E. Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Jones has also investigated the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all collapsed nearly symmetrically on September 11, 2001, were brought down by pre-positioned explosives. Professor Jones describes himself as a life-long Republican who voted for President Bush in 2000.

Here is what Professor Jones has to say about 9/11:

“I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled- demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as “junk science” because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony. It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated”. (read his paper)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Stanley Hilton

The following lawsuit was filed by Bob Dole’s Chief of Staff, Stanley Hilton, against the Bush Administration for crimes against the American people by orchestrating 9/11.

A former theoretical and nuclear physicist, Dr. Hilton wrote his thesis at University of Chicago on how the government could use terrorist attacks to set up martial law, entitled How to create a Presidential Dictatorship under Pretense of National Emergency. Hilton has personally known top Bush administration officials for decades, including Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. He graduated Chicago Magna Cum Laude in 1971. he attend a year of graduate school in Poliitical Science at University of Chicago (1971-72) in the PhD Program, and published a thesis entitled, “The Case for Atomic War as a Vehicle to World Domination.”

The Lawsuit:

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml

The Complaint:

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonComplaint.shtml

David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including “God and Religion in the Postmodern World,” “Religion and Scientific Naturalism,” recently he has written several papers and two books about 9/11; “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.” And “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions”

Here is what David Ray Griffin has to say about 9/11:

“It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government”. (read his paper)

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

How many of you can say that? Most people talk about their convictions, but do nothing about them.

I am probably wasting my breath here. You people (boomers) need to get over the 60’s and the 70’s. Whole generations of people have grown up with a very different world view. Yet, so many of you are still clinging to that era, one way or another, either by staying in the hippie mindset or revolting completely against it. So, basically, anger at her for being an old fart who is still obsessed with the 60s is pretty hypocritical coming from other old farts who are obsessed with the 60s.

Z

How arrogant.”

It’s that, but in an interesting and pervasive way. Its interesting, because, historically, it would be considered a very “right-wing” sentiment, but has somehow become “left-wing” today. How did that happen?

Why would so many rather be wrong than naive? And how did this very reactionary attitude come to be considered at all progressive?

I’m very curious about this question.

How arrogant.

p.s., My first vote was for Goldwater. My heroes are Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush 43.

I think the Guardian photo is actually a bit overdone. On close inspection it looks masklike and the eyes peeking out are on the creepy side. Better, I think, to have had Joan look closer to her age and softened enough to look like a benevolent grandmother. It would have lent her greater authority.

Here’s how you learn to look good in a photo of you in your later years.

Wrinkles will abound as will the effects of gravity on the face in general. You will tend to be wizened and have, even if ever so slightly, more than one chin.

A good makeup artist can handle the wrinkles, as can, as we see in Baez’s portrait, a slight softening of the focus from the photographer or in photoshop. You also learn, as we see in the photo, not to pose head on into the camera but to give the camera your best side — and, yes, you learn which side that is.

You handle gravity with the hands and press them to your face in such a way that it appears you are either pondering or being wistful. This both pulls up and masks the secondary chins at the same time.

Do all this and have the confidence that the photo editor at the paper loves you (If you are liberal he will) and you get nice photos in the press that make people remark, “Hey, she doesn’t look so bad. In fact she looks pretty good.”

Give me a good photog, a makeup artist, a hair person, control of the lighting, and somebody who poses the way I tell them to pose and I can take twenty or more years off of anyone.

I’ve done it.

(And now I will shut up.)