Thursday, November 19, 2015

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Black on white crime

Blogger has come a long way... or has it? Cannot believe it's been so long since I last posted. Uploading and posting multiple images seems to be easy but they don't all seem to be displaying. Not sure if Blogger or Adblock Edge is the problem. Will publish this and see how many of the six images are visible. I am trying to break free of Facebook as I may as well be talking to a brick wall in there.







Monday, September 26, 2011

Pentax Optio E60 Review

(Couldn't seem to post this at dpreview.com)

This the first Pentax camera I've used. They do a pretty good job of designing a camera although this may predate the company's acquisition and dismantling by Hoya, which has sold what remains to Ricoh. The picture quality is quite good. As pictures shot on this type of camera only start to look good at around 50-60%, I set the picture size to 5MP which is more like it's real (i.e. usable) resolution and I have smaller file sizes to deal with.
The case seems to keep the dust out and the zoom works well. The autofocus is moderately intelligent but it sometimes focuses on the wrong item and macro shots seem to have to be further away from the camera than necessary.

It is a bit too automated for my liking, no white balance setting, although it is somewhat redeemed by picking the right setting more often than not. Exposure offset can only be adjusted with the menu and several clicks down, which is the biggest flaw in this camera's design. Again, it is usually well chosen automatically but the designers have acted as if it will be the last thing a user will want to change. Taking shots for a HDR composition (which I sometimes experiment with) requires a lot of clicks.

Colours are enhanced in-camera which produces some pretty vivid images of greenery and blue sky. The night-time mode is good (compared to my last two cameras which were Kodaks), the sensor has good high ISO performance. It's nowhere near SLR performance but at least it is usable, and is easily accessible from the mode menu.



One "hack" I like about this camera is that the shape of the battery chamber works well with my makeshift AA dummy cell, which allows me to reliably use a 14500 (AA-sized) lithium-ion rechargeable battery. Cameras that run on AA batteries always seem to be on the verge of running out of charge, so going Li-ion means it will fire up every time until the battery is genuinely depleted.

Here are some sample images taken in the vicinity of Adelaide.








Monday, December 21, 2009

Podcasts to keep you informed

I began listening to radio shows that were available locally (eg. Sunday Night Safran and Get This) in 2006. After Get This wrapped up in 2007 I visited podcast directories like digg.com and discovered Penn Radio (Penn and Teller made an impression on me when one of their specials aired on TV in the early 90's) and The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. SGU was interesting enough to have me listen to their entire backlog dating from 2005 and I thought these guys cut to the core truth of all issues they covered, which they pretty much did because they only covered subjects like Homeopathy and Creationism in detail (all good). Through that I discovered an Australian skeptical podcast called the Tank Podcast, and its successor The Skeptic Zone. I was later to discover that the skepticism (loosely defined as the discipline of basing conclusions on the best evidence available at the time) is not applied to all fields and subjects. The skeptical community focuses on silly things like water divining, new age beliefs, perpetual motion etc. The skeptical lens is not turned on larger issues like the JFK assassination, the September 11 attacks, global warming, the case for mandatory internet filtering etc. The moon landing hoax theory for example is a safe sandbox for the skeptical community to occasionally play in, and also follows the pattern of shooting fish in a barrel.

Alternative Radio which airs locally at 1 am on a Sunday is locked away in a pay-only format but I record it on my PC with a component tuner and listen to it on my mp3 player. As mentioned in a previous post it led me to investigate the 9/11 conspiracy theory media (a reminder that behind the loaded term it just means a theory about people conspiring) which led me to a set of media I was not aware of before and wasn't topping the Digg podcast charts. Ever heard of Alex Jones, who has one of the most downloaded podcasts on the internet? Neither had I.
Alternative Radio is good but the real incisive lectures come along maybe once every month or two. NPR and Democracy Now is frankly too boring and esoteric even to an Americanophile like me. If you can get used to Alex Jones' style his show is a wealth of information, it's possible for me to listen to three hours a day and not get bored as he covers such a wide array of topics that three hours isn't enough to cover it all. Webster Tarpley of YouTube and Alex Jones Show fame has his own radio show.

Another podcast I happened to come across is the Global Research News Hour, I am becoming an increasingly frequent listener as the discussion goes quite in-depth which is uncommon on podcasts and radio shows.
Coast to Coast AM is usually fluff but perhaps has the most in-depth discussion of all as it is a four-hour program like Alex Jones' (three without commercials) so guests usually stay on for 2-3 hours. Through the Prison Planet forum I discovered The Corbett Report which is a one-man operation that gives ABC Radio National a run for their money.

Finally there is an Australian truly skeptical podcast that focuses on larger issues rather than staying in the shallow end and completely trusting the government and mainstream media like The Skeptic Zone. Truth News Radio Australia is hosted by a guy with a high-pitched voice (I was slightly perturbed when I first listened to it as I couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman and the name Hereward Fenton didn't help). Once I established Fenton's identity I found it to be a good source of information and discussion from an Australian perspective.

I am a person who due to laziness tends to construct my views from second-hand information rather research it all personally and read large tomes. Why not rely on people who are a lot more informed than say a newspaper columnist, TV personality or a member of Parliament?
These latter hosts tend to research voluminously compared the the ones I discovered early on in my podcast listenership. I hope the reader happens to discover "the unreported world" (to borrow a doco series title) and learn the extent to which the world is run by crooks.

Podcast directory

The Alex Jones Show:
Podcast uploaded daily at The Pirate Bay
Podcast uploaded daily at Conspiracy Central (registration required)
Archive of sig_garrett's upload from July 2008 to July 2009
Podcast archive

World Crisis Radio
Official GCN podcast (make it commercial-free with mp3DirectCut)
Podcast uploaded weekly at The Pirate Bay
GCN Archive (includes commercials)

Lendman News Hour (formerly the Global Research News Hour)
Lendman News Hour archive
Republic Broadcasting Network archive (includes commercials)

Global Research News Hour
Global Research News Hour archive

Republic Broadcasting Network archive 2009 (includes commercials)
Republic Broadcasting Network archive 2008 (includes commercials)

Truth News Radio Australia
http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/

The Corbett Report
http://corbettreport.com/

Coast to Coast AM
The Pirate Bay daily upload
Unofficial archive

Sunday, December 13, 2009

The Ricky Gervais/Stephen Merchant/Karl Pilkington Show

Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant, creators of The Office and Extras started their creative partnership in the late 90's on a small London Radio network called XFM and after the sucess of The Office returned to do some more shows in the early 00's. They had a producer called Karl Pilkington who they quickly used as a substitute for coming up with material of their own, and became the focus of the show.

They did shows on XFM in dribs and drabs, switching to podcasts when those caught on around 2005 and continue to make them to the present day despite their turbulent relationship with Pilkington. It's some fodder for your mp3 player anyway if you watched The (original) Office and want more Merchant/Gervais material peppered with verbal abuse.

Download the XFM shows here.

Podcast Season 1 Part 1, Part 2
Podcast Season 2
Podcast Season 3
Podcast Season 4
Podcast Season 5

(In chronological order)

The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Medicine
The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Natural History
The Ricky Gervais Guide To... The Arts
The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Philosophy
The Ricky Gervais Guide To... The English
The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Society

The Ricky Gervais Guide To... Law and Order

If you've gotten through all those check out Pilkington's book Happyslapped by a Jellyfish. If you want to print it out on A4 paper try these settings on Foxit (which has better printing facilities than Acrobat).

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Monday, September 21, 2009

9/11 Truth debating

I've heard on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast that a good test of how well you know something is to try to explain it to somebody else.
This is another slightly low-grade post where I'm archiving forum posts I've spent time on before they fade forever into the ether (IMDB does not archive its posts in perpetuity).

To give a brief background I usually listen to David Barsamian's Alternative Radio and co-incidentally had also "discovered" Youtube when I found out that people had uploaded interesting stuff like documentaries there. Around April this year one of the speakers was Richard Heinberg who had some interviews on Youtube, in one of them he lambasted the 9/11 Commission report out of the blue and I thought this guy probably wasn't a kook and I should check out the 9/11 conspiracy theory media just to be sure (http://www.youtube.com/user/Wakeymedia2). Lo and behold, the composite picture the various clips and documentaries painted was simply too convincing to dismiss, where I expected to find little to no evidence there were a few irrefutable facts. I sought out debunking media and tracked down the Popular Mechanics article I had come across a couple of years back, now that I understood what they were on about I found their brief selective effort pathetic and basically left the "conspiracy theories" unchallenged. In the past week I have come across some websites that seem to offer more detailed debunking and will have to check that out. From what I've seen so far one heavily relied on tool in the debunkers repertoire seems to be derision, if you're just simply interested in knowing what happened (like with something non-controversial like the Chernobyl meltdown) it seems obvious who has the truth on their side. What does a lack of calmly arguing the facts indicate?

Charlie Sheen recently put his career on the line to bring the 9/11 issue to the forefront, as someone registered at IMDB I headed to the Charlie Sheen message board. We begin where I wade in after the JREF forums were mentioned, I am mostly responding to single posts rather than carrying on a continuous conversation so have added little separators to reflect that:

twbrbzkj: The The Amazing Randi, that is your source?
You should be really careful who you laugh at drop when you use Randi as a source.


Me:The skeptics bread-and-butter is shooting fish in a barrel (astrology, spoon bending), I've listened to skeptical podcasts for a couple of years and am quite disappointed by their unquestioning acceptance of anything the NIST report or even the Warren Commission says. They're really just a bunch of regular people like you or I wading around in the shallow end of the pool (what's the harm of the War on Terror?) who are too used to dealing with the feeble-minded and go after the easiest targets when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

---

vashsunglasses :I've found that people who buy into conspiracy theories tend to have mental issues.

And yes, it IS paranoid to ignore all the *actual* evidence (as opposed to claims that have been disproved time and time again) and claim that the United States killed its own citizens. It smacks of the kind of loose thinking conspiracy theorists are known for. If they ever find evidence that disagrees with their delusions they just push it aside and claim it has been tampered with by those within the conspiracy. That right there, believing that there's a massive conspiracy tampering with data... that's paranoia.


Me: vashsunglasses, have you ever thought that when it comes to the September 11th attacks people may be drawing conclusions on evidence rather than the other way around?
And that the Bush administration, which was known for its cronyism may not be the most reliable investigator of the events? (not that the Obama administration is an improvement).

What annoys me about people on the internet claiming to be skeptics is that they take things such as cryptozoology or homeopathy and use a cookie-cutter approach to September 11 in particular without actually researching and then coming back with evidence that categorically refutes every single point of the alternative 9/11 scenario. And before you claim that Popular mechanics has done this, it is a very poor and selective debunking in my opinion (I was disappointed by what was supposed to be an authoritative debunking).

The fact is that governments do make mistakes and secrets do slip but they're ignored by the highly consolidated mainstream media (who from what I've learned so far is ultimately owned by the same people who own the US congress and the presidency i.e. rule by the rich i.e. oligarchy). And believe it or not the people in charge think nothing of sacrificing members of the general public.


vashsunglasses: Nope. I have zero tolerance for conspiracy theories.


Me: Conspiracy: an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

I think in this case (if you take the time to watch the documentaries and lectures on Youtube/Google Video and review the online articles) you could drop the "theory" or call it "conspiracy fact".

I highly suspect that you have minimal knowledge of why various academics and journalists have come to the conclusion that a faction within the government arranged the whole thing in advance and in fact had incentives to pull off this latest in a long line of false flag operations.
So sort of like trying to argue evolution with someone who has a very basic and inaccurate idea of what it is.


vashsunglasses: How about conspiracy fiction? The only problem is that makes it sound like a pulp fiction novel.

---

vashsunglasses: If there's a conspiracy then there should be a paper trail. There should be a money trail. And eventually someone who was actually involved with come out in order to cut a deal and get lots of cash selling a book about it. Or some idiot will get drunk in a bar and spill the beans. I mean someone who planted a bomb or transported one to the location or... heck even manufactured it. Or maybe someone who gave orders? Or one of the people who made sure everyone was paid and keeping quiet? That is the kind of thing that will make people believe you. Cold hard evidence. Documents. A confession from a person who helped commit the crime. Things that would hold up in a court of law. Right now all you have is circumstantial evidence.


Me: I'm going from memory here so I don't have to spend half an hour on this post:


If there's a conspiracy then there should be a paper trail. There should be a money trail.

Mike Ruppert may be your man, he takes a detective's approach to 9/11, like he is presenting a case to a jury.
Larry Silverstein bought WTC 1,2, and 7 before the attacks and the cost to remove the asbestos insulation from the WTC 1 and 2 was estimated at something like a billion (more than the buildings were worth). He also took out insurance policies and after the attacks and a lawsuit got 7 billion if memory serves correct (in any event a good return on the initial investment). In building 7 documents relating to the Worldcom scandal and other cases were destroyed.
There's a major spike in "short" stock trading on the two airlines that had planes alledgedly hijacked, a day or two before 9/11.


And eventually someone who was actually involved with come out in order to cut a deal and get lots of cash selling a book about it.

People (eyewitnesses such as a higher-up in the fire department who threatened to revel information) have been killed. Where information has been revealed (eg. the Underwriters Laboratory guy who went public about their finding that fire could not result in structural collapse) have been completely ignored by the mainstream media, and the UL guy lost his career (as have academics who have gone public).
What incentive would an alleged insider such as Cheney have to go public apart from a warm fuzzy feeling, especially when the War on Terror is still going? Why declare war on themselves by saying that they and others around them were personally were involved in criminal acts?


Or some idiot will get drunk in a bar and spill the beans.

Compartmentalisation helps in this regard, only a handful of people have the complete picture, again the people who have spilled the beans can only do so on certain aspects (such as an alleged Al-Queda pilot not being able to fly the training plane)


I mean someone who planted a bomb or transported one to the location or... heck even manufactured it. Or maybe someone who gave orders? Or one of the people who made sure everyone was paid and keeping quiet?

The threat of being killed and/or losing their career and being ignored anyway seems to be a strong enough incentive. That is a good question though, I think another motivation to keep quiet is that they (a person thinking of going public) were involved in it too and would only be sending themselves to jail or worse by confessing to a crime.


Cold hard evidence. Documents.

One of the biggest eye-openers for me was a photo of the remains of one of the buildings that shows the columns cut at an angle (quite a few collected at a page http://911allthetruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/evidencias-de-que-el-ac ero-de-las-torres-del-world-trade-center-fue-cortado-con-termita/), I don't think I could have beliueved controlled demolition so soon if I had not seen this (as it is actual evidence). Multiple eyewitness testimony is one form of evidence, another is an explosion occurring in the lower levels before any of the planes hit, I know this is only one guy in this case but William Rodriguez's story is interesting (http://dl.prisonplanet.tv/members/video/rodriguez.htm), haven't researched on corroborating testimonies.
Video of the building 7 collapse next to a controlled demolition is evidence in itself given their similarity (Richard Gage showed this on a morning TV show recently).
Steven Jones analysed dust from 9/11 and found unexploded thermite. Also there's footage of orange molten steel flowing from the towers which burning kerosene is not hot enoiugh to produce. Molten aluminium (which melts at a lower temperature) is silver rather than orange which was not seen flowing from the WTC. (Jones presentation from the same event will do http://dl.prisonplanet.tv/members/video/jones.htm).

From the same event there's Webster Tarpley who looks at the history of false flag events (http://dl.prisonplanet.tv/members/video/tarpley.htm) and Jim Fetzer looks at the Pentagon (http://dl.prisonplanet.tv/members/video/fetzer.htm).


vashsunglasses: Thank you for taking the effort to share evidence. I may disagree with you but I can respect you as a person who has taken the time to share information with me instead of saying "duh it's obvious go look it up".


twbrbzkj: Futurist,

Thanks so much for putting up all these great info for all to see...

I just didn't have the energy.

The link for the photos of the cut beams I'm really grateful for. I've not seen them all laid out on one page and always found it hard to round up all those shots to show people evidence.

Here is an eyewitness to the events of building 7 who sadly is no longer with us. Barry Jennings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6UgPODo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

(Futurists's note: I think only the top photo is actually from NYC, the rest are probably just there for comparison. It was the result of a quick Google search.)

---

DropGems:"The fact that you believe THERMATE (I misspoke, not thermite) found in the rubble is not valid cause it was found AFTER the fact, like the ENTIRE 9/11 commission report was after the fact, 14 months after the fact. Seems like you are ignoring a smoking gun, whoever the gun belongs to."

Thermate wasn't found so it doesn't matter anyways.

"It's also bizarre that you think intact thermate is nothing unusual. Thermate also contains sulfur and barium nitrate and was found in the FORM OF THERMATE, not just as trace metals. All these elements already MIXED TOGETHER aren't found in a building collapse, it's not a logical assumption."

Sulfur based dry wall was the 3rd most used construction material in WTC. And again, finding small traces of thermate wouldn't be unusual. WTC 7 rubble was a giant chemical stew. A sulfur molecule attaching to traces of aluminum and forming a compound isn't unusual at all. Remember these were chemicals burning for 8 hours. Tons of chemicals were mixed together and lots of chemical reactions occur at high temperatures. Chemical stew.

"It's like finding weaponized Anthrax in the rubble, that just wouldn't happen unless it was put there. There is no naturally occurring Thermate and there is no good explanation on how it would just magically appear."

Nail in the coffin.

The problem with you truthers is that you're too busy trying to win the argument that you get derailed from the truth. The truth is right in front of you but you irrationally go around it. There's a reason why the movement has gained zero traction in 8 years. It's because you don't have either science or logic on your side.


twbrbzkj: OK... you win.

X-D


Me: twbrbzkj, you give up after a falsehood like "Thermate wasn't found"? There's a paper published about it being found here http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/0000 0001/7TOCPJ.SGM and Steven Jones talks about it in this lecture http://dl.prisonplanet.tv/members/video/220507report.htm.


twbrbzkj: Futurist thanks for the back up man. I just can't talk to that guy any longer.

He just wants to win, so I let him.

Yeah, that bugged me out when they found the Thermate chips, I remember when that came to light. I think they suspect micro or nano Thermate, which is also amazing because very few could pull that off.

I'm really not ready to say for sure who pulled it off but I know what direction I'm leaning to.


DropGems:I really don't care about winning a debate (which is an open and shut case in my mind) on Charlie Sheens messageboard. Not really a top priority of mine.

"Futurist thanks for the back up man."

There was no backup from Futurist. Thermate wasn't found. Steven Jones has been debunked by practically the entire scientific community. This quick little video explains Steven Jones findings in truther fashion (creepy music & moving pictures)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do If you would like a link to an extensive peer reviewed paper that debunks Jones I can provide that too.

Also, the Bentham is not in anyway, shape, or form a credible peer reviewed scientific journal. It's a pay to publish journal. Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief on said paper,

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is NOT about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. "

So the editor-in-chief* didn't even review the paper that was published in her own publication. Not to mention the fact that the editor-in-chief* stated that the paper had no scientific merit.

*She is purportedly a leading expert in nanomaterials

Nail in the coffin? Finally?

One final note on Bentham and just how reputable and rigorous the publication is:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."

Guess what happened next...

Game. Set. Match.


twbrbzkj: OK... you win.

X-D


Me:

If you would like a link to an extensive peer reviewed paper that debunks Jones I can provide that too.

I'll take Steven Jones' word over yours, I do require something that outweighs his research to believe that his findings were wrong.

I only read parts of the paper but these guys have done actual research rather than rely on common sense like the debunkers in defending such theories as the pancake collapse.

That youtube video only deals with a chemical analysis (if that's the right term) and doesn't address the later research.

Here are the highlights of their conclusions section if you didn't read it:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction.

The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon.... From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

...the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

...we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes.

The spheroids produced by the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) tests and by the flame test have an X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and
also matches the signatures of many of the micro-spheres found in the WTC dust


I should not that I'm not too keen on getting into debates on IMDB either and feel like I've made too many posts already. But you're missing the bigger picture of "false flag" terrorism throughout history (eg. the Gulf of Tonkin) and that western nations are in reality run under an oligarchical system (refer to a documentary called The Money Masters) with policies largely continuing from one leader to the next. If you prefer to think that governments have nothing to gain from staging terror events and that a wide swathe of the population is prone to believing crazy conspiracy theories then you may using your energy to defend the real terrorists.


DropGems:"I'll take Steven Jones' word over yours, I do require something that outweighs his research to believe that his findings were wrong. "

The thing is, it's not Steven Jones word over mine. You're taking Steven Jones word over the consensus of scientific community, the engineering community, and the physical chemistry community to appease your own inaccurate personal beliefs. It's very disingenuous. Can you please tell my why Steven Jones word carries more weight than the consensus of the scientific community?

"I only read parts of the paper but these guys have done actual research rather than rely on common sense like the debunkers in defending such theories as the pancake collapse."

It's true that debunkers use logic and common sense but the basis for said logic and common sense derives from studying rigorous peer reviewed scientific analysis' (something that Steven Jones knows nothing about). He's never even been published, let alone peer reviewed!

And you're right we've never done any "actual" research. The amount of research done by NIST (and even Fema), completely dwarfs anything that Steven Jones could ever produce. The NIST report is over 10,000 pages long! I'm sure you've never read through it though. You'd rather just get spoon-fed false info through sensationalized youtube videos and radio broadcasts.

I'm done here now. I've presented my facts as polite as possible. I can only debate a religious group for so long. The info is out there. Please sift through and consider it for the sake of science, logic, and mankind. Thank you sirs. Good day.


Me (2 days later): You never did give me that link did you? You're right that I'd need to read the NIST report etc. to get a better grasp of the official story, but unless you've read it yourself you're being hypocritical for criticising me for not reading it. I'm simply going from the information I've come across so far, I read the PM article and it didn't really get into detail about anything and only covered a few select aspects.

Speaking of peer review, please fill me on on to what degree the NIST and FEMA research has been peer reviewed versus the likes of Steven Jones or Richard Gage (if he wrote any papers). From what I have read the NIST/FEMA research has failed the peer review test, in that they worked the evidence around pre-concieved conslusions (like the buildings collapsing from fire and a plane hitting the Pentagon). I'm no expert on the peer review process though (and neither are you from the sound of it).

I think you're arguing from authority (government versus "crazy conspiracy theorists") rather than arguing with the facts surrounding 9/11 on their own merits.
You can selectively ignore anything not supporting the official theory (like you have done here) but that just confirms for me that the debunkers are falling short of true skepticism, in believing whatever the evidence indicates no matter how much you may dislike it.

---

AtheistRevolution: Anyone remember that study on eyewitnesses in a crime? Several people see the same thing but all have different stories of the same event. How many of these people know what a bomb sounds like? A building buckling and collapsing isn't quiet at all.So everyone had time to sit down and observe these massive buildings with people running all over the place. Loud sirens from emergency workers,people screaming. Giant debris and bodies falling. People can't even identify one event in the same way on a quiet street.

The melted columns pictures have been proven to be fake.Bombs and other devices can't just be thrown into a building this size. Plus it would take serious prep work that people would see. There would be no way to actually safely store explosive in a burning building that you can control. Demolitions go bad even when everything is done right and the buildings are clear.

If you want to say there is some conspiracy then you have to bring something to the table. Not a bunch of edited youtube videos and random pictures which is pretty much all faked or not even of the same building site. You need some Watergate evidence. Someone that was in on it or has information that a conspiracy did occur. Not a bunch of paranoid speculation that follows every historic event throughout history because people think there's always more to the story.

The truth is history happens when people are living their lives. Nobody knows when something historic will happen. So stop with the Lincoln,moon landing,pearl harbor,princess di,etc. The list is endless, conspiracy crap without any real evidence but ridiculous scenarios and speculation.


Me:

Not a bunch of paranoid speculation that follows every historic event throughout history because people think there's always more to the story.
The list is endless, conspiracy crap without any real evidence but ridiculous scenarios and speculation.


What I mentioned there is just the tip of the iceberg, you could just look at proof that the official story is fiction eg. 7 of the 19 hijackers who supposedly were on a suicide mission were found alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm) which I believe was not included in the official report. There's also the multiple drills running on september 11 2001 which tied up the military response http://www.physics911.net/pdf/jacobs.pdf, the three month period overlapping 9/11 where all shoot-down calls had to be verified through Cheney (and Cheney wasn't available on the morning of 9/11), the physics of the collapse, Bin Laden being treated at a US hospital http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_treated_us_hospital.html, so many things pointing to a story other than Al-Queda (created by the CIA by the way) single-handedly pulling off the attacks in retribution for some vague notion of American imperialism.
Not to mention the WTC rubble immediately being cleared and disposed of while investigators were kept out (and lets not forget the Pentagon absence of evidence or the two debris fields of the Pensyllvania crash kilometers apart indicating it was shot down rather than dove into the ground). Having an actual steel member from the WTC with signs of being cut by thermite would be a clincher but that kind of evidence is gone.

I'm just throwing random stuff out here but you have to ask yourself would the 9/11 truth movement be so strong if it was all based on fiction? I had no reason to believe that the official story was untrue until earlier this year when I happened to check out the conspiracy theorist media to see if peak oil expert Richard Heinberg was into kooky stuff after he slammed the official 9/11 report in an interview.

My starting point was http://www.youtube.com/user/Wakeymedia2, Zero is probably the best made documentary on the subject (helps if you have a HTPC so you can download and watch youtube videos on your TV), you should at least check out some of the material unless you are afraid it will be too convincing.

---

DrBrandonJohns: Charlie Sheen just wants to get at Republicans, he doesn't care about any Democrats who might of had something to do with it. You guys don't care anyway because you don't believe anyone was really killed or Bin Laden was involved, EVEN THOUGH BIN LADEN HAS SAID THAT HE WAS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE. What about that terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed??


Me: He didn't claim responsibility until 2004 though, and the reliability of the tapes as evidence is questionable with at least one actor portraying him (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg).

In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper in September 2001, funnily enough he didn't claim responsibility for the attacks: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm (extracts below).

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

...

The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.

...

Then there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance.

...

What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.



DrBrandonJohns: He accepted responsibility for that before that and that article was made up you whacko. Why are you excusing Bin Laden?? He is the same person who was responsible for the attack on American Embassies in Kenya in the 1990s, and who was President then?? Oh thats right, Clinton but Sheen doesn't want to touch on Clinton because he is a Democrat. FOOL!


Me:

He accepted responsibility for that before that and that article was made up you whacko.

Give me something which supports these claims.


twbrbzkj: Whacko fools, you have such a deep insight into this.

Bin ladden, Clinton and Kenya, you seem to have it all figured out.

You see the tree through the forest and are truly a Master debater.

Bravo.


DrBrandonJohns: What do you say about Clinton and those attacks and 9/11, kiddo??


Me:

What do you say about Clinton and those attacks and 9/11

Clinton was involved in his own false flag event, the Oklahoma City bombing, according to what Alex Jones has in one of his documentaries (9/11 Road to Tyranny http://dl.prisonplanet.tv/members/video/911_the_road_to_tyranny.htm). The entire ATF which had an office in the building was absent on the day, seismographs show multiple explosions, there were undetonated bombs removed from the building, there were TWO people in the Ryder Truck, one of Arab appearance, the Ryder truck was parked meters away from the building.

I haven't heard much about Clinton in connection to 9/11 except that he did nothing to apprehend Bin Laden even when the opportunity presented itself. And the 1993 WTC bombing was apparently intended to be a 9/11 type event (part of a terrorism drill that went "live"), if the truck was parked where it supposed to be one of the towers might have toppled over like a tree.

A president of either party is anointed by the oligarchy (who fund election campaigns and own the mainstream media) and is part of it, so their degree of independence probably matters more than which party they belong to. Of course if non-oligarch Presidential candidates are excluded from debates, given minimal media coverage and electronic voting machines are tampered with then what chance do they have of being elected.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Answering Father Bob

One of my dreams is to know the real nature of reality, existence, the meaning of life. To what extent is this possible trapped in 21st century Earth, when humanity is at such an early stage that we didn't know that Galaxies or neutrons existed 100 years ago and we've only just managed to finally 'conquer' the planet (for want of a better term).
I come from a bad background which unfortunately has not provided me with the development/sanity/support to learn physics and philosophy or whatever the way I might of had these academic interests been able to spark when I was growing up so this question has been on the backburner a lot of the time while my mind atrophied due to hiding away from the world I have not found myself equipped to deal with.
Have you ever wondered about those famous people who with a slight change in their circumstances would have likely never contributed anything of note, how the stars have to align for a person to fulfil a lot of their potential?

I've digressed, I very briefly summed up my thoughts on the nature of existence on a blog from an elderly (outwardly atheistic) Melbourne Catholic priest called Father Bob who co-hosts a radio show I listen to.
His question was "What does death mean?" and rather than let my response go to waste on a theologian's blog (what was I thinking) I'll preserve it here.

Maybe this can be answered by looking at the nature of existence.

If I can borrow a phrase from Carl Sagan "we are a way for the universe to know itself" i.e. the universe is conscious in the form of ourselves ("starstuff contemplating starstuff"), so in a way the universe is conscious through six billion simultaneous consciousnesses, just considering the Earth.

I've always wondered what makes me me (why am I in control of this body and not some other consciousness), and if I had never existed would the universe in fact never exist; perhaps this is true because I am the universe (one small corner of it) so for me not to exist would be for the universe not to exist. This touches upon another related question of why anything exists at all, my current answer is that that all this around us is simply so that something is here (intelligent life would be the ultimate affirmation of this) although the price is it's temporary nature. Look at the case of "virtual particles" that can arise out of nothing and collapse back but only as long as it's within an incredibly short space of time.

If we were to all ask ourselves "who am I?" we could all say "I am the universe". So if you or I die this consciousness that you and I experience will still be here as long as the human race is around, or by extension our alien friends on the other side of the universe as there has to be at least one. The curtains will finally be drawn when the last star burns out and universe can no longer support life (but we may be one of many universes).