These demonstrations are all over the country and many are getting on National TV. Some examples:
Sept 8, 2007 Geraldo Live
Oct. 19, 2007 — Bill Maher Show (Maher goes nuts)
Oct. 5, 2007 At Mitt Romney Event
2
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I am sorry, but the United States is both a republic and a democracy. We are also a classical liberal society (not a illiberal one). The ability to elect individuals to office to serve us is considered a representative democracy when laid in formulation with checks and balances and a constitution would qualify as a democracy. It is not a direct democracy, which allows for tyranny of the masses but it is more than a republic.
>When is the last time Bush actually had to answer a question that wasn’t canned?
That’s how the top guys operate nowadays. It’s nice to see Obama, McCain, and Romney do things differently. Hillary is trying to copy the Bush 2000 campaign with all staged events. Bill Clinton got asked one idle question about terrorism by Chris Wallace and he flew into a violent rage.
#32 Jezcoe
On youtube you can watch the collapse for yourself. Get a stopwatch.
#29 & 33 Jeff
Re: Religion
Humanism is the worship of the “state”, which is simply a collection of people under a democratic form of government. Obedience to the dictates and mandates of the collective majority is worship. The Founding Fathers did not create a democracy, they established a Republic based on individual rights and sovereignty, not collective sovereignty.
No, obedience to the state under a social contract is not worship. You further need to separate the religion of the common man from that of the more elite (whether in business or political sector).
For the record I realize that the United States is a federalized, constitutional republic. This ideology, however, was first advocated by classical liberals.This in turn led to a spread of liberalism and the promotion of a representative democracy, which does not violate the principles of a constitutional republic under the principle of federalism. This is why we will always have states. A mixed mode government of capitalism and liberal democracy (i.e. representative governance) does not violate the original intent.
It is true that our Founding Fathers created a republic because they feared a “direct democracy” with a fear of the tyranny of the masses. A representative democracy is not a direct democracy, but is actually a republic with additional constitutional rights. There are many forms of democracy (direct, representative, social and even Christian), though it is true that in a classical definition only a direct democracy would qualify as what you term to be a democracy.
I think it is important to stress that the United States is not and never will have a final form of government until its demise. It is a governmental experiment. To this day we still are an experiment. The ability to have amendments and state rights takes us out of the realm of traditional constructionalism (i.e. not same system).
An example would be codified laws that we not part of original intent by the framers (women given the right to vote, the right to freedom of association, the right to privacy). These were rights granted by the exercise in the separation of powers and given to us by the Congress or in the last two cases the Court.
Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law.
It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man’s reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept.
Because for the Greeks mind was one being with the ultimate order of things, man’s mind was thus able to discover ultimate law (nomos) out of its own resources, by penetrating through the maze of accident and matter to the fundamental ideas of being. As a result, Greek culture became both humanistic, because man’s mind was one with ultimacy, and also neoplatonic, ascetic, and hostile to the world of matter, because mind, to be truly itself, had to separate itself from non-mind.
Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system. As Mao Tse-Tung has said, “Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people.” In Western culture, law has steadily moved away from God to the people (or the state) as its source, although the historic power and vitality of the West has been in Biblical faith and law.
In any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution. When the legal foundations shift from Biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not from Christian theism.
Guy, for just $100,000 ($Can) paid in advance I will give you the proof you want.
God and government have as their goal protection of their subjects or believers, you could say that both God and government are competitors for the affections, worship, and obedience of the people. This has been so throughout history.
The whole notion behind the separation of church and state is aimed at making this competition fair and equal between these two competing sovereigns. That is why churches are not supposed to involve themselves in politics if they want to maintain their tax exempt status and why governments may not tax churches: because taxation by government of churches or political advocacy against government by churches would destroy that perfect separation of powers.
This is the premise that has been used to support traditional natural rights proponents (i.e. without religion we have no history, meaning). I simply do not subscribe to this. It is true that most law has been ascribed by the traditions of the worldly religions, though much of the actually laws are and have always been secular in nature (added canon for political necessity).
Second, I think you are mistaking the current Western construct for religion. I do not see religion as being the same as putting trust in a political system (i.e. they are not both faith). Of more interest, the actually tenants of religion (example Christianity) are not the same as the will of the modern nation state. The exceptions might be you shall not murder, commit adultery, steal or bear false witness. The problem with this, is that these laws are generally universal and necessary for a successful society.
We do place faith in a system (capitalism through liberal democracy), but I am not sure if this qualifies as a religion. It is true that secular society is a substitute or an augmentation of a religious society by providing a group of additional codified laws to follow. It is not though by definition a traditional religion because of the lack of a deity and supernatural experience, though the American lexicon does contain a philosophical moral imperative and some aspects of mythology.
In more abstract terminology, religious ideology could be argued to be a creation of man, and, therefore, by an extension the social conditioned will of the people. This by the same extension is where we stand today within our current construct. We created the neolithic god and than redefined him over the centuries through the editing of so-called scared texts. The beginning of politics was through the institution of religion, more importantly, those of a single deity (cognitive dissonance and the god head). However, in the last few centuries we have moved into the natural sciences and the social sciences to explain the human condition.
Finally, I think in reality we have an affinity to confuse religion with politics of the state (and the wants of the masses). Politics in a rudimentary form likely came before religion, and that with abstract thought began the search for a divine purpose to explain our being. Religion was the first attempt (in various stages from natural elements to multiple gods to a single deity) and this was transcended by the natural and social sciences.
Once the top floors of either of the two towers started down, gravity pretty well tuned them into a good approximation of the irresistible force. Once that much mass get moving in a direction, little short of solid bedrock is going to deflect it much. I don’t doubt that the aircraft impacts and fire caused the towers to fall. Building Seven’s collapse, however, on the video I’ve seen looks exactly like a controlled demolition by explosives.
Whether or not the video clip I’ve seen is legitimate, is another matter. If it is, the problem is that it takes weeks to set a building up for this kind of operation, and you certainly couldn’t do it unnoticed by the folks that worked there. Nobody did this in the six or seven hours between the towers going down and Building Seven folding up in the middle and falling neatly in on itself. Not enough time. I’d really like to see a scientific study explain Building Seven’s collapse in a convincing way that doesn’t involve deliberate demolition. Anomalies like this feed conspiracy theories. One inconsistency calls everything else about a situation into question. That this was not the focus of the various studies and investigations has given the paranoid among us a harping point. And hey, it’s not that I particularly doubt the assholes running things wouldn’t have done this kind of thing if it suited them, it’s just I doubt THIS set of assholes could really have pulled it off.
People who think Bush planned 9/11 give him waaay too much credit.
This administration had the hair-brained scheme to bring us into this Iraq monumental disaster. They are nothing more than a bunch of keystone cops.
14. “9/11 Twoofers” is just hilarious.
Guy Fawkes,
I noticed that there isn’t a Dr. in front of your name. Can you produce your degree in physics and Chemistry for me? If not, then you are not a credible source.
Interesting how nobody wants to talk about building 7.
these are worth rereading:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=3267
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=10143
I have no doubts about the big buildings coming down from a plane crash, but why did the relatively undamaged building 7 collapse out of the blue? Was it a poorly constructed piece of crap?
I do not think it has ever been adequately explained. Has it? As long as it goes unexplained this stuff will never end.
This Guy guy must be in politics. He just rambles of forever about nothing.
#45
About a year or two ago a new video surfaced that someone had taken from their apartment. It was the best video of what happened. When the towers collapsed, they didn’t fall straight down, as is being claimed. One of the most common videos shows the top of one of the towers tilting about 15 degrees before it falls, then it goes straight down. In the Video, man I wish I could mind a link, you can see a big 10 story gouge in the side of wtc 7. I was skeptical of the official wtc claims until I saw that video, with the HUGE multi-story gouge in the side of wtc 7.
On a different matter, Guy Fawkes is a coward. If he truly believes what he is saying, and his only response is to blog it, he is worse than worthless, he is part of the problem. At least he should be setting up for direct action against the US government. By direct action I mean violence of course. He needs to learn how to build IED’s and start blowing up cop cars, and the national guard units when they come later. Look your government is trying to murder you and all you are gonna do is blog it??? I of course think that is an insane course of action, however it would make for good television on the nightly news.
Loonbats
I dont really like watching tv, because of this useless shit thats out there – but i gotta give kudos to Bill Maher for knowing where the word audience comes from
that guy knows his stuff
#45 John…. You are a smart guy. Just look into the collapse outside of the conspiracy. WTC 7 was constructed over an existing power distribution station that the architects solved by building a trussing system that transfered the loads of the building to the south. The collapse of the North Tower ripped a fairly good sized chunk out of WTC 7. Add to that a few thousands gallons of deisel fuel adding to a building fire THAT WAS NEVER FOUGHT. Sign of the building collapsing were known hours in advance. It was not a surprise to most people. Hence news outlets getting the wrong information about the WTC 7 collapse before it did. They knew it was coming down. For more info http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Thankfully we don’t hear about these losers much down here in Australia. Although sometimes our censors slip up and let crap like “In Plane Sight” infiltrate our airwaves. I feel for you intelligent Americans that have to put up with this crap on a daily basis.
#24, Guy,
If you read the actual letter instead of the troofers account you might learn that NIST corrected ONE minor textual comment. All the other inconstancies in the troofers letter were denied through the use of sound science.
#37, 39, & 42
Guy, don’t drink and type.
# 47 GregA
What you suggest would be counter productive, not to mention, a true crime. The pen or in this case keyboard is mightier then the IED. All I’ve said is we need more investigation and the response has been Pavlovian in nature.
#52 Not Lauren
Thanks Fish Lady, I think you hear a bell.
#53 If you truly believe that the government is criminal why do you talk about it from the comfort of your chair. At least the loons who got onto Bill Maher’s show have some balls. They may be wingnuts but I do respect them for living up to their convictions. Monks in Myanmarr are really fighting tyranny. They are dying for what they believe in. So what are you waiting for? You believe that they… I mean THE “THEY” killed people in the world trade center and the pentagon for god knows what. So live up to the name that you chose. Or is only because V for Vendetta was kinda cool.
It would be nice if these people would spend as much time protesting things like “enemy combatants,” American citizens being thrown in military jails for years without being charged with anything, no bid contracts, warrentless wiretapping, or any of the other things that current administration admits to doing.
#57 jccalhoun
It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.
The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
“Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall”.
The second, feeling of his tusk,
Cried, “Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear”.
The third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Then boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake.”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
I can not help you if you will not see.
56. Guy Fawkes
You’ll first have to get your stories straight as to whether the demolition happened before the jets hit, during or after. Timing is everything. And no one else reports hearing such “massive explosions” prior to the first jet collision. Maybe they were busy.
“Pull” is not used in demolition. It is used in regards to pulling wires attached to buildings and pulling people out of buildings about to collapse. All the documented and corroborated evidence is here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
‘Course you’d rather believe, after all the meticulous planning, Silverstein is going on public airwaves to order his building demolished.
Your cherry link is a bit rotten unless you’re trying to say something about an investigator who drinks too much. Assuming you meant to show little puffs of smoke coming out of windows… where do you think the air goes when a floor collapses on another?
Really, as you know, it’s all been completely debunked. Go and ask your questions at jref if you don’t believe me.
RBG
#56 Guy Fawkes… Where to begin….
Lets begin with some fo the easy ones. “WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures” The link you posted to was a letter by Kevin Ryan who had absolutely nothing to do with the certification of the construction of the WTC. Kevin Ryan worked at UL as a WATER TESTER.
The famous Silverstein “pull it” quote is beyond stupid. If you beleive in the whole quote then you must believe that the NYFD was in on in some manner or another the conspiracy that killed so many of their brothers.
So that leaves William Rodriguez. There is no doubt that what he heard that day was real. But look at the events rationally. Why would there be an explosion before the plane hit? What would be the point of setting a bomb off in the basement of a building an hour before a top down demolition? The two events are the same. The explosion he heard in the basement can be explained by the fact that the sound wave can travel through the building faster than the air. It would make sense that he would have heard a double explosion. It would also make sense that fire from jet fuel from the impact would go down the elevator shaft burning anyone in the elevator.
Guy Fawkes take your own advice about the elephant parable. Look at the whole picture. And if you believe that there is a government conspiracy do something more about than anonymous postings on the internet.
#57 jccalhoun… AMEN…. my problem with da twoofers exactly.
#59 RBG
“NIST’s own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NIST.”
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4539
To say nothing of the added bonus of physical destruction wreaked by a 767 weighing 280,000 lbs loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel flying into a building at 500 miles per hour.
2/3 of the fuel from the plane was exhausted in the initial fireball and the degree of smoke emanating from the towers indicated that the fire was in distress, not burning at a high temperature.
The majority of the fuselage was ejected from the towers. The fish lady pointed that out in #52
Aluminum sheets metal vs. steal beams
Where did all the molten metal emanating from the towers originate? And why was molten metal found during cleanup efforts weeks after the towers fell? A: Thermite
#61 Jezcoe…
Regarding your vicarious lust for violence. It’s a Prozac nation, citizen do your part. Either that or get laid. God knows you need both.
Anonymous posting has always been used to protect the individual behind the idea. Ben Franklin wrote under the name Benevolus during the American Revolution, and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton did similarly. How would you like to post on here and find a crazy on your family’s porch at 2 am?
62 GF. I’ve already shown you graphs of steel losing almost 50% of it’s strength at that temp. That should do it. But I’ve already shown you typical office fire temp research. And if you want, I’ll even show you the room high up in the tower that housed the huge battery bank that melted and dripped out the side of the building at the exact right floor.
You can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts. Go show me otherwise.
RBG
#64 RBG
The steel never reached “that” temperature. Celsius is not Fahrenheit! Your facts are not relevant to 9/11. The facts I present are 100% relevant because they originate from the NIST’s study regarding 9/11. The site your reference is unrelated to 9/11. Don’t let me confuse you with the facts.
65 GF. Ha. I assumed that was just a simple error on your part. Now this should get kind of interesting. My oven does 500 degrees Farenheit. And you quote burning jet fuel and furniture, burnables, etc only got to 500 F against everything that is known about jet and office fire. That translates into 260 C. “Steel weakens dramatically above 230 C.” So we know weakening is already occuring, regardless, on already structurally damaged steel.
That said, I now ask you to provide the NIST reference for that info.
RBG