Diatribune - free speech - Comments

You will find a link to the

Dachsie — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:26:59 -0600

You will find a link to the audio of the Commonwealth speech here...

http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/08/indictment-of-markos-ca-moul...

Also, if you google Kos CIA, a file will come up that has a transcript of the Commonwealth speech. Kos when he was a young man was a Reagan Young Republican and "trained /worked" at the CIA for a short period of time.

This is news to me. Do you

Jacob Freeze — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:13:32 -0600

This is news to me. Do you have a link to the interview at the Commonwealth Club?

Daily Kos chooses not to

Dachsie — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:32:54 -0600

Daily Kos chooses not to discuss 9-11 and "disses" anyone closely connected with 9-11 truth search. I do not think this is wise or right, just the facts.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga ( "Kos" ) is perhaps still connected with the CIA. Many of us keep concluding "once in the CIA, always in the CIA."

This article by Kurt Nimmo elaborates.

"http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/090807_b_kos.htm
Daily Kos: CIA Engineered Controlled Opposition?
Kurt Nimmo
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Is it possible Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, leader of the “Kossaks,” that is to say followers and fawners of the Daily Kos, is a CIA operative? Francis Holland, posting on the My Left Wing messageboard, details Moulitsas’ relationship with the CIA:
“Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, owner of the DailyKos website, now admits that he spent six months in the employ of the US Central Intelligence Agency in 2001,” writes Holland. “In a one-hour interview on June 2, 2006 interview at the Commonwealth Club, Moulitsas, also known as ‘Kos,’ admitted that he was a CIA employee and would have ‘no problem working for them’ in the present.” "

The Right AND the Left are infiltrated and being steered in the same direction.

Well, I might as well take a

Jacob Freeze — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:17:56 -0600

Well, I might as well take a break from crusading against Barack Obama and tilt at a different windmill for a change.

A Zogby poll published in September 2007 indicates that most of the public realizes there are unanswered questions about 9/11. The most salient statistic is that 67% believe that the collapse of Building 7 should have been investigated instead of completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission.

Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, and yet it collapsed in its own footprint, just like the twin towers. None of the already dubious explanations for the collapse of the towers can possibly apply.

Does this call for more discussion in open forums?

Absolutely not. What it calls for is some old fashioned detective work, and when I say old fashioned, I'm talking about Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, and not another brigade of mechanical engineers.

If the twin towers and Building 7 were brought down with explosives, then dozens of people had to be involved with setting an enormous number of charges and maintaining secrecy in the meantime.

This would be a large-scale criminal conspiracy, and if the FBI isn't going to break the case, then the 9/11 Truth community should hire some hard-nosed ex-cops and ex-agents to do it for them. If this community is so feeble that it can't raise a few hundred thousand dollars to hire a platoon of head-breaking detectives, then it's too feeble to be a player on the big stage of national politics.

The last thing anybody needs is more discussion in open forums, where crazies inevitably mix in with responsible researchers and discredit the whole undertaking.

I liked your previous

Jim Fetzer — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:40:20 -0600

I liked your previous post

which was very gracious. If we want to know what happened on 9/11, we are going to have to confront the evidence and, if the evidence supports painful conclusions, we may have to deal with painful realities about our government and our history.

I tried to make it clear in

Jacob Freeze — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:21:03 -0600

I tried to make it clear in my comment that I didn't intend any disparagement of you or other responsible researchers on the unanswered questions about 9/11.

My point was simply that when the issue was discussed on Daily Kos, it went horribly wrong, with a flood of crazy comments and irresponsible speculation.

Not every issue can be profitably discussed in every forum. A trivial example: I often post on ArsMathematica.net where remarks about Gnedenko's refinement of central limit theorems in probability (http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2008/03/18/looting-the-library/#c...) arouse a certain amount of interest. The same sort of thing on Daily Kos would be pointless.

Likewise with 9/11. I respect you and Steven Jones and many other responsible researchers on the unanswered questions, but the idea of reading through another set of comments on this issue on Daily Kos inspires me with total aversion.

For what it's worth, I agree

kerry — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:36:21 -0600

For what it's worth, I agree that there are far too many unanswered questions about 9/11 and that it is a very important event in our history given the consequences. There is still much debate raging among academics about Pearl Harbor and to my best understanding the mind/body problem has not been resolved. Healthy debate should always be encouraged in a free society even if we debate the meaning of the absurd.

That is very disappointing,

Jim Fetzer — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:11:11 -0600

That is very disappointing, Jacob. 9/11 has been used to justify restricting our civil rights, placing the nation under surveillance, conducting wars of aggression in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution. If the public only better understood that what we have been told about 9/11 is a sham, we would see these acts have no justification.

I should elaborate. As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I observe that our members, building on prior research by earlier students of 9/11, have established more than a dozen disproofs of the official government account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that what we have been told--in one or another of its guises--cannot possibly be correct.

1. The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

2. The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down. If that could happen, camping stoves and lanterns would melt and jet engines would be falling off airplanes.

3. UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly at an average temperature of around 500*F--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

4. If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

5. William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the subbasements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a 50-ton hydraulic press and ripping the skin off a fellow worker, a report corroborated by the testimony of around three dozen other custodians.

6. Willie reported that the explosion occurred prior to the airplane's impact, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", which demonstrates that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds prior to the airplanes impacts.

7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which normally only occurs with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has pointed out to me.

8. The destruction of the Twin Towers in approximately 10 seconds apiece is about the same speed as free fall with only air resistance, which, as Judy Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson, has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without an extremely powerful source of energy far beyond plane crashes, jet-fuel based fires, and "pancake" collapses.

9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain. If you need more evidence to convince you of this fact, watch footage of their destruction as many times as you like.

10. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

11. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757.

12. The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757.

13. Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed black box data allegedly from the Pentagon plane and discovered that it contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude: it was 300 feet too high to have taken out the lampposts and 100 feet too high to have hit the building itself.

14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757.

15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on the first passenger manifests; they were not subject to autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at 911Scholars.org. For discussion on the Daily Kos, I cannot imagine any subject of greater urgency.

The anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement ought to be inextricably intertwined. As long as the public labors in the false believe that 19 Islamic terrorists actually hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave off in Afghanistan, we will continue to be manipulated by a crime syndicate posing as an administration.

I happen to agree with kos

Jacob Freeze — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:34:27 -0600

I happen to agree with kos about 9/11 on DK, not because I think the Commission's report is much more than a whitewash, but because it really isn't a subject that lends itself to discussion in an open forum.

It may start out beautifully with a careful presentation by someone like you or Steven Jones, but then all sorts of crazies swarm out of the woodwork and the threads fill up with garbage. This isn't speculation... it's what actually happened before the ban, and kos ended up hosting some incredibly nasty anti-Jewish comments by people who were only using 9/11 as a peg to hang their hate on.

I absolutely do not mean to impugn the careful work that you and Dr. Jones have done on this subject, but after crazies and haters swarmed this issue time after time on Daily Kos, I think it was reasonable for kos shut it down.

All the rational voices had been drowned out anyway.

I also don't mean that I think you should have been banned from Daily Kos. That site could really use a few more intelligent and deeply educated commenters like you, but I'm not sure you would have been happy there anyway, since one of your main interests is taboo.

That's a longer post that I intended to write. Apparently there's some sort of glitch in my compression algorithm!

Jacob, I quite agree. The

Jim Fetzer — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:46:00 -0600

Jacob,

I quite agree. The ban on discussion of 9/11 is absurd,
unless you already know what happened. Since THE
9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004) did not tell us,
it is difficult to understand why Daily Kos adopts
this policy, unless it wants to suppress discussions
that might lead to better understanding of those events.

Jim

You probably weren't banned

Jacob Freeze — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:17:42 -0600

You probably weren't banned for criticizing Obama and Wright... As you can see from my user's page on DKos at http://www.dailykos.com/user/Jacob%20Freeze I've written a dozen diaries very critical of Obama, and I'm still there.

It's almost certainly your association with Scholars for 9/11. kos absolutely will not allow posts on this subject, and usually bans anyone associated with it. There's a significant commitment to keeping the site open to different voices, on almost any subject, but kos drew a line at 9/11.

MyDD.com is another site besides Diatribune that might be congenial to you, and it's full of exiles from Daily Kos.