I am going to continue in the same vein today, and keep it short. First, my thanks to Steve W, who pointed out an apparent CGI scam even in the midst of discussions about CGI scams. That will be part two.
Part one: Since, as expected, those who believe the official story cannot, will not visit the accumulated evidence from the last eleven years, I’ll bring a small part of it to them. The following are photographs from 9/11. The one below is a parking lot a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. Our boys have to explain how a pancake collapse toasted them. (The gas tanks were intact and unexploded.)
Here’s another, this time of a police car burning up, but only in part, the rest undamaged, and no gasoline explosion. However, paper underneath the car and near the tires is not burning. This was common throughout ground zero – fires that burned but were not hot. Notice also that the fire stops exactly at the door gasket. Also very common. Nothing hit this car – it spontaneously combusted. Firefighters trying to find their way out were aided by cars that combusted. Pancake collapse does not explain this phenomenon.
Now, reader can question the validity of the photos, look for CGI, and come up with explanations that do not call into question the official government story about the 19 hijackers and a laptop in a cave (apparently an amazing one). That’s what skeptics do. And when you have an explanation, contact Dr. Judy Wood, as she wants to know. She collects evidence, but if she cannot explain it, she says so. She speculates, and so labels her thoughts as just that.
The second part is the Pumpkin Video. Briefly, I have had many head-slapping moments in this long exercise when some other person explains or exposes something, and I think “Ay carumba! Why did I not see that!” I am not a “researcher,” only a skeptic. My only original thought, from maybe 2002 and which led me down this path, was incredulity at the idea that people were making cell phone calls from airliners. The official story later changed about that – they do have that power to alter the “truth” as it moves about.
So I watched this video, and it never occurred to me that I was not looking at a pumpkin. That’s all they talked about throughout in the comments, so that my susceptibility to suggestion was triggered. Steve W said “Is that a pumpkin?” and I thought he was being sarcastic, but he wasn’t. Another head-slapping moment. Just as when it was pointed out to me that airliners cannot cut through steel like butter, I instantly realized, due to someone else’s sharp perceptions, that I’d been had.
It wasn’t hard, once the initial illusion was pierced, to see a telltale black outline around the van, and realize that it has been superimposed via CGI.
Something hit something. That’s all we know.
______
I’ll embed the pumpkin video properly later when I am at my desk.
Piece of Mindful 
It was what we used to (and may still ) call synchronicity that the video your son Steve T choose to illustrate how wrong you were (in his mind) turned out to beautifully illustrate how easy it is to trick humans (all of us) into seeing what someone would like us to see.
And most humans aren’t very amicable to finding out that they have been totally conned. It’s embarrassing to admit to ourselves and to others.
For example, neither your son (who seems like a nice enough guy) nor the bigot Rob Kailey would actually cop to being manipulated into seeing a pumpkin that wasn’t there, or an event that didn’t occur. Rob was all set to start making up equations to prove to you that what didn’t occur was real. That’s because he assumed what happened first and then set out to find evidence that would support his faulty assumption. Then Rob Kailey tried to save face by lying about seeing the same clip on the Discovery Channel. Steve T posted another video of a giant pumpkin landing with pretty good velocity on a van roof and made a joke about the CIA, which was, I think, intended as a face-saving device.
Can you imagine how the people at NIST, who let the private contractors do their thinking for them vis a vis the Twin Towers, must feel? Are they like Rob? Would they lie to save face? They very well might.
The most interesting part is that the doctored video wasn’t even well done. It didn’t need to be well done. The most important part of the deception was labeling it a pumpkin, and people commenting and agreeing that it was a pumpkin. Steve T and Rob’s minds did the real work of the deception.
I’m no more immune to this than any other human. The only difference is I try to constantly stop and ask myself “What’s happening here? Does this make sense?” The first thing I noticed was the smoke/fumes coming out the far front side of the van. I wondered what that was from. It didn’t look like pumpkin smoke/fumes. And if you notice, in the second video Steve T posted there was no “pumpkin smoke.” And you could see pumpkin.
All righty then. Now we know that if you drop something that weighs 2 or 3 hundred pounds from a great enough height (or with equal velocity of dropping from a great enough height) it can bend in the roof of a van. I also noticed that the pumpkin didn’t enter the van but was on the ground around the van. The van didn’t turn to fine dust and the van didn’t disappear. And the pumpkin didn’t disappear.
So what did we learn?
1. Think for yourself
2. Pumpkins can’t punch a clean hole in steel, even thin rolled steel, let alone steel beams.
3. Pumpkins can bend thin rolled steel, if they contain enough mass and velocity
Now can we apply what we’ve learned to the WTC? Please?
LikeLike
Regarding the pumpkin video, do they admit somewhere that the video is a fake (such as the famed eagle snatching child video) or is this just yours and Marks’ opinion? I just watched the linked video i didnt see the comments to it or anything.
LikeLike
As a casual observer of this argument over the last few days (and granted maybe I missed some comments below that would provide more context) this whole thing where now you believe the pumpkin video is a fake is truly stepping into the realm of the bizarre. I get it if you’re just making a point about the power of suggestibility that you dont actually “see” the pumpkin before it was fired, so how do we “really” know it was a pumpkin other than the fact we are told it is so. But now you are suggesting the whole thing is some CGI creation? For what purpose? And if it was all CGI than wouldnt it have been much simpler to just insert a nice big clear shot of a CGI pumpkin too (to better thwart the pumpkin twoofers)? Doesnt it just seem a wee bit more logical that it was a short video and the clip of the pumpkin being inserted in the gun was not included for the sake of brevity as opposed to an elaborate hoax to trick the simple minded into thinking a pumpkin can knock the door off the van? Im really scratching my head about where you think this is going.
Just like most all of these kind of theories about 9/11 they just dont stand up to any logical scrutiny. If the “shadow govt” or whoever you would allege is responsible really wanted to accomplish the goals of permanent war in the middle east (or whatever you want to allege it to be) the fact is it would be infinitely simpler, practical and realistic to simply aid the hijackers along the way or ignore what they were doing than to create this grand and frankly bizarre set of circumstances. You are at this point claiming that the collapse of the towers was caused by a top secret space based directed energy weapon right?
I agree the whole thing smells funny and its right to have your BS meter raised by the events of 9/11. But the much more simpler and obvious path of investigation are the very public and open links between the hijackers to the Saudi / Pakistani intelligence agencies and elites of which we havent had a real investigation and airing of grievances, and then if you want to get towards actual evidence of some US complicity try to draw a line between the Pakis/Saudis to the US. There may actually be something there who knows? All of this stuff strikes me as no less of a wild goose chase as anything of the Alex Jones variety.
And no I did not watch the 2 hour video so I realize this will be dismissed by you but I really dont have time at this point. Maybe later. Like Steve T ive followed and been intrigued by all of the twoofer arguments for over 10 years at this point and have seen them all fall flat on their faces so forgive my initial skepticism of this Wood lady for now.
LikeLike
JR, The van in the video is outlined in black. Why is that? Whatever appears to be fired at the van flies rapidly away to the right after apparently striking the van. Would pumpkin do that?
If you go back over the last 2 previous threads the whole thing is there in real time. Watch the video on full screen. Stop the video. and tell me, why is the van outlined in black?
By the way, to see the comments click on the youtube icon in the bottom right corner and it takes you to the youtube page the video is stored on. the comments are there.
“[But now you are suggesting the whole thing is some CGI creation? For what purpose?} ”
How would I know? I didn’t make the video nor did I post the video. I just thought it looked weird and took a closer look. I had two questions; Why is the van outlined in black, like a greenscreen artifact?, and, why does the projectile fly to the right after impact if the projectile is a pumpkin?
I’ll leave the deep meaning and speculations up to you. I haven’t tried to logically scrutinize how, who, or why someone made that video. I know I see a black outline around the van, and I know I see the projectile appear to ricochet to the right. I know nothing about the rest of your speculation. But don’t let me stop you.
As far as 9/11 goes, I quit trying to make hide nor hair out of the disappearance of the Twin Towers years and years ago. The fighting and bickering of stupid and or incomplete or illogical “theories” drove me away and I figured all the evidence was long gone. Like you I instead put my research into the activities of the hijackers prior to 9/11 (using the 9/11 timeline and reading “Welcome to Terrorland Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 terrorists in Florida” by Danniel Hopsicker and I also read some Webster Tarpley about the actions of civilian and military officials leading up to and after 9/11.
I don’t allege anything about 9/11, except that the NIST report fails basic physics, and like Senator Max Cleland of Georgia said, the 9/11 commission was compromised. I think you and i agree about this
Then a couple of months ago I stumbled on to Dr Judy Wood, watched her presentation and realized that she had the most complete evidence and analysis I’ve ever seen of what happened at the WTC on and after 9/11.
Her conclusion is that the Towers were mostly “dustified” before they hit the ground and that it was caused by a new process that most people had never seen before, her included.
She has never said that it was a space based weapon, although their are plenty of people who attempt to call it that as a means to discredit her. She hasn’t written or spoken about How it was done. She is still working on the logical first question, What happened. She explains that pretty well I think. So do a lot of other people apparently. Her book, “Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy Technology On 9/11” has over 100 reviews on the Amazon Books site, most of them very positive.
Check it out when you have time, then let’s talk. That way we would have something to talk about in terms of facts and evidence instead of a lot of conspiracy speculation that goes around in circles. You know how that is, right? Like alex Jone. Not very productive.
In the mean time I leave you with this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n
LikeLike
Just to add to Steve W’s words, the pumpkin matter merely, and quite accidentally, highlighted how susceptible we are to suggestion. Also, they could have done a close-up afterwards and did not. It’s hokey.
I do suggest that you invest two hours in the Dr. Wood video, as I can guarantee you that it is not what you expect. She specifically says she is not a “truther,” and she would not waste her time, as I do, looking at faked up videos. She is completely about physical evidence, and perhaps the dawn of a new era.
LikeLike
I will watch it at some point out of curiousity. Since when did you and Rob Kailey become semi-civil to each other? That was a real let down.
LikeLike
Curiosity would be a good reason. Kailey got his fingers singed again, reverted to form, but it was Steve W, and not me that held the torch.
LikeLike
You got that wrong, little camper. I was trying to be civil to fruitcakes. Not a mistake I’m likely to make again anytime soon.
LikeLike
Quit insulting my intelligence, you moron.
Oh, wait! Those are your words, not mine. I do beleive that fisticuffs broke out at that point, and I suspect the word “moron” might have provoked it.
LikeLike
Rob, have you written down and submitted your “magic pumpkin stronger-than-steel theory” for a physics journal peer review? Maybe they will award you a diploma like The Scarecrow and you can sing “If I Only Had A Brain” at the award ceremony.
LikeLike
I’ll do so right after you submit your thesis on how the video is a fake to an accredited physics department, you ignorant ass. Cheerio.
LikeLike
Does anyone else get the odd feeling that this new fellow, Steve W., is trying to punk (or punkin?) Mark? It’s almost as if he’s teasing Mark, leading him deep into some labyrinth, only to spring the gag on him at some later date, after Mark has lost his last marble. I could almost believe that Steve W. is an avatar of Max Bucks, doing his most devious work yet. It’s going to be fascinating to monitor this.
LikeLike
Note to you and everyone, use of the word “Max” automatically sidetracks comments.
And no, I know Steve, he and I are very much on the same page. There are more things in heaven and earth, Kemmickio, than are dreamt of in your journalism.
Let me know when you watch the Dr. Wood 2-1/2 hour video. It’s not what you think. Then you will have the legal right to tear me a new one, but not before.
LikeLike
Ed, I first contacted Mark by phone years ago because we both share a desire to see a single payer health insurance system, and because we both found Rob to be vapid, vicious, and venal.
It was Mark who inadvertently turned me on to Dr Wood. As a result of something he wrote here i googled for info and the rest is history.
I used to post a lot on Left in The West back when it was a nice place, and I also post regularly to 4&20 blackbirds.
By the way i clicked by your blog and i wanted to mention that It was back in the Winter of 1972-73 when I was taught “Waiting for a Train” on guitar by a Montanan down on a little beach in the Southern Jalisco, MX. i still love to play that song. And it still reminds me of Montana for that reason even though I didn’t arrive until 93.
I have to second Mark’s advice. Dr Wood’s research is very well done and it’s implications go far beyond just 9/11. You can call us names if we are lying. 🙂
LikeLike
There is something to be said for unifying the stupid, and sequestering them all in one convenient location. I think I deserve a medal…
LikeLike
You’re having a family reunion?
LikeLike
The Illuminati are obviously waiting for yours to strike…!
LikeLike
You get two more chances at a good comeback, then you’re done. My family will be knocking on your door.
LikeLike
Dr. Judy Wood is not just interested in “looking at the evidence.” She says that so that she can disavow responsibility for the absurd claims she makes by saying “I’m just asking the question.” And throwing out a ton of questions without coming around to an actual hypothesis is not scientific. It’s the ravings of a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist. In other words, she’s typical. And no, I don’t need to read her 500 page book to come to that conclusion. Sorry!
Most of all, her implication that the government re-routed a hurricane with some high-energy weapon is the claim of a nutjob. Plain and simple. But any time someone asks her if that’s what she’s claiming, she can just say “I’m only looking at the evidence!” It’s a pretty effective cop-out. It worked on you guys, at least.
LikeLike
So much for a cursory glance. Right? I am glad you know her mind. I thought she said that the investigation process is to find out what happened, and from there determine how, and from there perhaps who and why. But I’ve only read her book, listened to interviews and talks. You’ve what – glanced at her website? I guess that trumps me. Crazy woman also asks anyone who looks at her stuff to think their own thoughts, as she does not have the answers.
But she does a very good job uncovering evidence. What do you think of the toasted cars above? Anything?
She says that the technology exists to bring about these effects, but she does not know how or from where it occurred. She is also very optimistic, calling it the dawn of a new age, that cheap energy can be supplied using this same technology.
I also love her line about the planes, including the fake videos – she says “Neither fake plane nor real planes could bring down those buildings, so I am not going to waste my time on it.” She instead looks exclusively at the evidence surrounding the collapses, as that is her field.
She did indeed discover that a hurricane had traversed through the Atlantic, and sat offshore on 9/11. She has tracked its path and behavior, and also recovered NYC television weather reports from that day that do not show a hurricane approaching. CNN covered it on the Internet, but not on TV. Only one weather person mentioned it, saying that a front coming in from the west would “kick that hurricane away.”
The hurricane frankly has everyone puzzled, including her. So do you think she is a nutjob because she discovered (by accident) that a hurricane was stationary off NYC on 9/11, that she reports it, that she studied its history and course and behavior, that she cannot draw conclusions and has not ruled out coincidence, and wonders why it was not reported in New York City?
You’re right, Raving lunatic.
LikeLike
There is absolutely nothing curious about a hurricane heading up the eastern seaboard and then heading out to sea. Nothing at all. This is not something that anyone who knows even a little bit about hurricane patterns would ask a question about.
What percentage of hurricanes make landfall? Where do the ones that don’t make landfall go?
Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about here. You have looked at the path of a single hurricane, and a person you trust has told you, “that’s strange,” and you’ve taken her word for it without taking a single look at the paths that hurricanes usually take.
I know something about weather – and since I know you I can confidently say that I know more than you. I’ve been a weather nerd since I was a kid, and I’m sure you remember that I used to want to be a meteorologist. I used to watch hurricanes start out as Tropical Waves and work their way over towards the U.S. I was fascinated by them and had a bit of a George Carilin-esque desire for them to make landfall and cause destruction. But most of them didn’t. After heading west towards land, they’d invariably make that northward turn to colder waters up north before heading further out to sea. The reason Sandy was unprecedented is because it DID make landfall.
Seriously. Go look at historical hurricane paths. That’s my first indication that Dr. Judy Wood has not a single idea what she’s talking about. Sure, she’s asking questions… but they’re stupid questions.
Oh and you’re totally right about those toasted cars. In every other instance of 110 story buildings collapsing, things turned out totally different. This is an unprecedented result to a very common occurence.
LikeLike
Do you even read what anyone writes? No one said that it was weird to have a hurricane head up the east coast. It was that it was not reported.
Your last paragraph, well. I hope you’re closing out you’re week with a beer. Cheers. Watch the video sometime. Funny how people are in love with opinions and avoid evidence.
LikeLike
You should watch Dr. Judy Wood. She says flat-out that it was strange for the hurricane to head east. You would be much better informed if you looked at the evidence.
LikeLike
So what? The heading east was not strange, as a western front moved it out. It’s due north course and stopping off New York on 9/11, remaining stationary, was coincidental to an event which appears to need some high energy source that dustified the towers. it’s speculation, but what happened to the towers is a new phenomenon in need of a new explanation. it leads to speculation, warranted, I think that a hurricane is a source. but that as far as anyone can go, as no ne knows how that would be accomplished. pictures of the hurricane from space show some odd structure in the middle. The Star Wars program was real, weaponry exists, the Space Shuttle program was used to install weaponry. But it’s all secret.
I do know that here have been commercial applications where, for instance, a typhoon was created to get rid of pollution In Singapore. We appear to have on hand weather control a technology.
Get used to not knowing the answers, but at least being exposed to evidence. It’s telling us something. The cars being toasted two locks away cannot be pooh-poohed. It’s a new phenomenon, not seen before, and of course, not reported.
LikeLike
I just realized this AM that you went to a debunking site and looked up Dr. Wood. shame on me for taking you seriously, thinking you had looked at the evidence.
LikeLike
You’re wrong. But thanks for the shaming.
LikeLike
How can it be then that in her massive presentation of evidence, dustification, lathering, cheetos, fires that do not burn paper, buildings that disappear, circular holes in streets and buildings and windows, preservation of the bathtub, toasted automobiles a half mile away, presentation of mathematical evidence of the impossibility of pancake collapse, impossibillity of controlled demolition or nuclear weaponry, magnometer readings in Alaska jumping at the time of the collapses, jumpers, absence of significant seismic impact, twisted and contorted iron beams, the eventual destruction of the Bankers Trust Building by some sort of degenerative process, building of new “Freedom Towers” (!!! -they ridicule us!) on stilts, fuzz balls, aluminum cladding rolled up like carpet … All you seem to know about is Erin?
Don’t kid me. you googled her. She was advised to steer clear of Erin as “debunkers” would sieze on that and thereby drown everything else at the same time. But she’s a scientist, and Erin presents a scientific mystery that needs some clarification. Too much coincidence.
You should be ashamed.
LikeLike
And you still don’t get it. I’ve immersed myself in trutherism and found it wanting. That’s my point. But you’re so sure of your opinion that you figure anyone who disagrees with you either
A. Doesn’t understand your argument (we do)
B. Is having their mind tainted by… Satan? I mean the Government.
And then you engage in the next step of any religious fanatic by making this some kind of moral issue. (“You should be ashamed.”) So not only are you the holder of absolute truth – but anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil.
See? You think you’re different, but you’re operating by a script that’s been repeated by literally billions of people across the world. You’ve substituted certainty for knowledge and then turned that certainty into a moral cudgel, accusing everyone who disagrees with you of not understanding a fundamental truth and being immoral for doing so. It’s a great script, but I’ve read it before. And it’s getting old.
I honestly wish that I could engage in the same thought patterns as you. It seems so simple and satisfying all at once. But I don’t work like that. You haven’t read the 9/11 Commission report, and I don’t give a shit. You disagree with me, but I don’t give a shit – at least to the extent that you don’t accuse of me of being either stupid or the victim of thought control. I honestly don’t think you came to your conclusions any differently than I did. It’s really a matter of how you behave after you’ve come to those conclusions.
LikeLike
I said “you should be ashamed” because you said “Thanks for shaming.” I just played off your snark.
I’ll put up a piece tomorrow about the “debunking” methods. It’s overdue, as that part of the 9/11 crime has not received enough coverage.
OK, point by point:
You think I think you don’t understand the argument. There is no argument. There is only a plea to look at evidence. This is indeed the most fascinating aspect of all of this, the refusal to look at evidence. The evidence can be unsettling.
Thought control: I’ve gone over the means and methods ad nauseum, but the only people who can see it going on are the people who have by luck or circumstance broken free of it. It has nothing to do with intellect. Our intellectual class is also our most deeply indoctrinated. No doubt if you went to Cuba or North Korea, you’d have no trouble spotting it. Even in Russia, although the Russians have always been kind of ham-handed at the game. Most people in the old USSR knew what was up, which was why such wonderful humor came out of there.
I do not hold absolute truth. You do. I am skeptical of your truth. I am not certain of anything except that the fable of 19 hijackers is false, easily seen.
I honestly wish that you could engage in the same thought patterns as me. It seems so strange and unsatisfying all at once to sit outside the bubble and see so clearly was is in plain sight. Add to the having to endure ridicule from the likes of Swede, well, you can see, it’s easier to be inside the bubble than outside.
LikeLike
Again, it is not the fact that there was a hurricane, but the timing and behavior of the hurricane, stopping as it did for one full day on 9/11. And it could be nothing, but it is odd that the New York TV stations did not report an approaching hurricane. But all of that may be normal, maybe they knew an approaching western front would knock it out to sea.
Now, stopping for one full day means nothing too, except that it was 9/11. And that would mean nothing too except that we now know that a new energy force was applied against the twin towers to turn them to dust, make them go away.
It’s all there in the evidence. And remember, evidence is not proof, and the order of events is what, how, why, who. This is part of “what” happened that day. It is how investigations are run, assembling all data and seeing what fits, what does not.
And again, if you don’t look at the whole of her evidence, and continue to harp on this, I’ll have a new nickname for you: Craig.
LikeLike
P.S. Erin is not a scientific mystery. Not even a little. You only believe that because you’ve been instructed to.
LikeLike
Aye carumba! [Gets out hammer, gets out nail, places it on forehead and begins pounding again.] That is classic straw man.
LikeLike
“Erin presents a scientific mystery that needs some clarification.”
Did I miss something?
LikeLike
Steve T, I thought the same thing. I read almost exactly the same thing you wrote on some Alex Jones or Steven Jones site.
LikeLike
Wow, that is super-convincing.
LikeLike
Well, shit, that’s just unfair, playing the Jimmie Rodgers card. How can I argue with a man who sings “Waiting for a Train”? On the other hand, now that you know that about me, we’re getting to the crux of something. If I thought the Republic would stand or fall based on my understanding of the events of 9/11 (or the truth of evolution, fluoride, etc.; see above), you bet I’d dive in.
But given that I don’t believe in the after-life or reincarnation, life’s too short, and the interests I have seem a hell of a lot more fulfilling than analyzing pumpkin videos and such. I hang out here because Mark is usually quite interesting, though I think he’s wrong on just about everything, particularly history and the unfolding of current events, but what the hell. I don’t watch TV, so I’ve got some time to waste.
I’m more vulnerable than some of the regulars here since I work in a profession that can be blamed for or implicated in all of these dark notions of how the world operates. I make no great claims for the newspaper business, much less my own work. I suppose I could be scorned for failing to devote myself to uncovering all the Giant Plots that litter the landscape of this blog, but I don’t. But then, you could criticize Jimmie Rodgers for looking at the music business as a lark, a way to make a living and make people reasonably happy to be alive, rather than being a protest singer or an activist. We can’t all be Woody Guthrie, and even Woody Guthrie had a lot in common with Jimmie Rodgers. Keep, strummin’, brother!
LikeLike
Hey Ed, I just checked out your blog for the first time too. My old man was a flying mule back in the day I probably watched some of your games. Much respect to the mules!
LikeLike
Well, this is getting stranger by the minute. I was a charter member of the Flying Mules, 1975, and played with them through 1980. If you don’t want to blow your cover by saying who your father was, send me an email.
I’m not sure we ever did anything to deserve respect, but we sure had fun…
LikeLike
As an Internet superhero I cannot reveal my secret identity. I sent you a message on fb
LikeLike
Oddly enough, I can’t find an FB message, but your dad got a hold of me. My God, what a small world. The stories I could tell you about your old man…
LikeLike
Awesome, I’ll have to get some of those stories from you one of these days
LikeLike
Ed, I’ve no problem with people who don’t like to wrestle with this stuff. You’re a small town newspaper reporter – is that demeaning? Not meant to be. So was Addison, and you seem to somehow trail in his steps. I agree life is short, and this is what I enjoy doing – solving mysteries.
As I’ve grown older, events like 9/11 are less surprising, and the real tragedy is the wars that followed where I would venture that millions have died. Life is short, right? There is among us a class of people who understand us even as we do not understand them, and who gravitate towards seats of power, and who make events like 9/11 happen, not for shits and giggles, but for real objectives. It appears that a war of civilizations was one, as that day has pitted us against the Arab world,us winning handily militarily while losing every possible heart and mind.
I have it in my mind that the job of the 4th estate is to find out what power is up to report back to us, but sometime in the 20th the job of journalism became he-said-she-said. Since you work there, comments about the profession might be taken personally. But remember Addison was CIA, Burma, smart guy, and small town journalist. It’s never personal.
On the other hand accountants do not form bands, wear funny hats or line dance, so you can say whatever you want aout us and I’ll probably agree. My profession is … What’s that word?
LikeLike
No offense taken. I don’t think you’ve solved any mysteries, at least not that I’ve seen.
And one of my heroes, as I think you know, was Mencken. He said he had no more public spirit than a cat. I’m not that cynical, but I lean in his direction. I think he knew about folks like you, haunted by an “endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
LikeLike
It just occurred to me, you thought I sent a sidewinder your way, a compliment packing an insult. that’s blogging and why we use emoticons. I was not. I think you’re all right, and think your attitudes about me and my writing are perfectly normal. I’m content to live this way.
And I thought the world of Addison Bragg.
LikeLike
N Blumberg’s site did a pretty good number on the bushes and on the under-reporting of the scheduled lunch date between Neil and John Hinckley’s brother. So it’s not exactly foreign to the news biz. My dad was a reporter and then a columnist in S. Cal and then taught journalism until he retired. And my buddy launched the Missoula Independent, so I’m OK with journalists.
Dr Wood’s book is the first one I ever bought on 9/11. I read a few others via the net, for free.
So I’m not usually this motivated, it’s just that her evidence and analysis is compelling and it led me to an epiphany about a few things kind of incidentally. I hope you see what she has say.
And yes, strummin is life!
LikeLike
You might like to know, I played guitar and sang when I was younger, and gave it up by popular demand. But like all men who like women and who have any sense, I wanted to be a musician.
In my next life I will be a bush pilot and a drummer.
LikeLike
Do you know what they call a pretty woman on a drummers arm?
A tattoo!
LikeLike
I learned some guitar in high school. One night, I don’t remember how I got there, I was in the back seat of a car and three girls, and they wanted me to play for them. So I did, perfectly lousy I’m sure, and they ate it up! I mean, I thought i was good too, and would continue to think so until I got around guys who could make real music come out of that instrument.
That night, as I took a girl home she said “Mark, would you do me a favor?” I said yeah, she said “pull over and kiss me.”
So I did. And then took her home. No smarter then than now.
LikeLike
And Steve W., do you remember who that Montanan was who taught you the song? I’ve got a couple of guesses and would love to know.
LikeLike
The guy who taught me Waiting For a Train also taught me a song he wrote called The Detroit Jewel.
He went by Flake, and his buddy was named Nate. I still have some photos of them and the other folks we were with in a box somewhere.
LikeLike
Steve T, are you claiming you became an expert by not reading the book and by not watching the presentation?
How does that work?
LikeLike
I think it’s sad how paranoid examining this stuff makes a person, myself included. I think it’s more important to emphasize the results of the post-9/11 era, like actual policy consequences of dismantling the constitution and building the security state.
LikeLike
Interesting, as I am not afraid of anything. This is just the way it works. I cannot speak to different cultures, but European and Anglo-American cultures are riddled with intrigue, as power never shows itself openly. The Brits especially are treacherous bastards, and we are their kin. I might get caught in the crossfire someday, as did the poor schmucks on 9/11, but how can you be afraid of such an unlikelihood?
In the meantime, our world is defined by 9/11. Would not understanding it help? If we understand that day, we understand mountains of things that we did not before. It’s a keyhole and can be personally transformative.
LikeLike
it doesn’t make me paranoid, it makes me hopeful. Although i will say that after watching and listening to Dr Wood on various venues I then had to spend some time verifying what the implications are of this kind of technology and that had me going back and forth for a short period of time as to whether or not i believed this technology actually exits. That is a strange and interesting phenomena in itself.
What convinced me it did was;
1 a combination of reading up on Tesla, Hutchison, Ken Shoulders, Pons and Fleischmann, et al.
2 Remembering to trust my own eyes over what people are telling me. The 80%-complete dis-association of the molecular structures of the towers and their contents is a fact. Now we have to deal with it.
We already know what the consequences of the security state are. We don’t need the security state because there is no shortage of energy. Whatever caused the low-heat, non iodizing radiation low-light low-sound molecular dis-association of the WTC, also completely disassociates the rational of the security state, ie constant shortage to spur constant conflict and a tiny pyramid top down ruling elite supported by an impoverished base.
The mental and emotional toll of 9/11 has caused a deep and lasting wound on the mental health of the world. With understanding comes the opportunity to move past.
At least that’s how I see it.
LikeLike