Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Errors of my Ways


Len Colby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Though I'm not Christian I had an epiphany of sorts on Easter. I started think of salvation, not of me personally but rather of the planet itself and came to understand that I fought so hard against various conspiracy theories because of my inner struggle. I was really fighting my own doubts, my zeal was motivated by cognitive dissonance.

Regarding 9/11 the notions that...


  1. the CIA etc could have missed all those warnings and warning signs

  2. all the put activity before 9/11 were coincidences

  3. NORAD was unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes

  4. localized truss damage caused by fired could have lead to the global collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7
    etc. etc.

...are all absurd. Just as absurd is the notion that all the recent regime changes in the Muslim World were not somehow engineered and that the USG/MSM hate campaigns Iran and Syria are not part of that pattern.

It's hard to explain the FBI blocking a deeper investigation after the Kahane assassination or the CIA giving the “Blind Sheik” a visa and INS repeatedly letting him in unless he came here to start the war that is now called the 'War on Terror”

Sen. Wellstone's plane 'crash' was way too convenient and odd to realisticlly have been an 'accident'. I will post more on this topic tomorrow

Lest Evan get too upset I still think, chemtrails, Apollo hoax, the anti-Vaxx scare and Z-film alteration are nonsense. But who knows my positions on those topics may evolve as well.

As for the RFK and MLK jr. assassinations, I'm still re-evaluating my positions and am undecided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Venezuelan Government Announces Transition to US Style Democracy

By Tamara Pearson, Ryan Mallett-Outtrim

Miami, April 1st 2013 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – In a public broadcast yesterday the Venezuelan government announced the transition to democracy. Measures include the sale of community media to business giant Rupert Murdoch, and the privatisation of the health sector.

A Venezuelan government spokesperson told the press, “On the advice of a special US commission, the government will be expanding media diversity by selling all of its community media to Rupert Murdoch”.

“The media package includes Latin America's Telesur, which will no longer report from the ground and talk to real people, but rather read US government press releases from an autocue,” the government spokesperson said.

Further, the government announced it will be bringing Monsanto into the country to advise on food reform.

“We realised that organised communities shouldn't participate in politics, they don't know their own needs, only transnationals like Monsanto and Macdonalds really understand these issues,” the spokesperson said.

On hearing of the transition plans, Donald Trump immediately offered to buy Venezuela's Canaima National Park, in order to build a golf course. The government has accepted.

“Trump Greens will be South America's premier golfing destination,” Trump told Venezuelan media yesterday.

“Imagine taking a putt off the world's highest waterfall. This is my gift to all Venezuelans...and their caddies.”

The government will also sell its Barrio Adentro health system to Richard Branson.

The privatisations will be complemented by austerity policies, with the government hoping to deliver a budget surplus by 2015.

“We have observed the unquestionable success of austerity measures in Europe. While we have struggled to reduce poverty by any more than 66% over the last fourteen years, the rise in living conditions across Europe recently is a testament to the universal fact that free markets make free people,” the spokesperson said.

The US based Human Rights Organisation, which recently declared that Guantanamo Bay is conforming with human rights standards, commented that the latest measures were “a step in the right direction”.

“We hope that within a few years our democracy will be just as good as it is in the US. They have so many types of plastic cheese there, not to mention TV snacks. The Venezuelan economy is a disaster if we don't have that sort of choice,” said the government spokesperson.

Government officials conceded what many in the international community have suspected for some time. As Simon Hooper wrote for CNN on 6 March, Chavez relied on drawing supporters using “force of personality".

Indeed, his down to earth rhetoric, and appealing personality tricked many Venezuelans into supporting dictatorial policies such as investment in health and education.

“This day, 1 April, we have decided not to be fools any more and to start taking the international mainstream media seriously. We appreciate everything that the US has done for this continent,” the spokesperson concluded.

Venezuelanalysis.com wrote this April Fools article to make a political point. Daily the mainstream media write lies about Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution, and many readers believe those lies. One of the main ones is that Chavez was a dictator, or that there is some kind of "regime" here, yet, as we tried to make clear in this article, that is far from the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I'm not Christian I had an epiphany of sorts on Easter. I started think of salvation, not of me personally but rather of the planet itself and came to understand that I fought so hard against various conspiracy theories because of my inner struggle. I was really fighting my own doubts, my zeal was motivated by cognitive dissonance.

Regarding 9/11 the notions that...

  1. the CIA etc could have missed all those warnings and warning signs
  2. all the put activity before 9/11 were coincidences
  3. NORAD was unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes
  4. localized truss damage caused by fired could have lead to the global collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7
    etc. etc.

...are all absurd.

So seriously, since you refer to a few genuine reasons for doubt about 9/11, why have you "fought so hard" against conspiracy theories? (I wasn't even aware of some of the other theories you mention, re Kahane etc., and they may well merit being fought against.) You seem to be duty bound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I'm not Christian I had an epiphany of sorts on Easter. I started think of salvation, not of me personally but rather of the planet itself and came to understand that I fought so hard against various conspiracy theories because of my inner struggle. I was really fighting my own doubts, my zeal was motivated by cognitive dissonance.

Regarding 9/11 the notions that...

  1. the CIA etc could have missed all those warnings and warning signs
  2. all the put activity before 9/11 were coincidences
  3. NORAD was unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes
  4. localized truss damage caused by fired could have lead to the global collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7
    etc. etc.

...are all absurd.

So seriously, since you refer to a few genuine reasons for doubt about 9/11, why have you "fought so hard" against conspiracy theories? (I wasn't even aware of some of the other theories you mention, re Kahane etc., and they may well merit being fought against.) You seem to be duty bound.

Good question Ron though I jokingly described these points as "absurd" I think there are reasonable explanations for them. Do a forum search for my posts on those topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I'm not Christian I had an epiphany of sorts on Easter. I started think of salvation, not of me personally but rather of the planet itself and came to understand that I fought so hard against various conspiracy theories because of my inner struggle. I was really fighting my own doubts, my zeal was motivated by cognitive dissonance.

Regarding 9/11 the notions that...

  1. the CIA etc could have missed all those warnings and warning signs
  2. all the put activity before 9/11 were coincidences
  3. NORAD was unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes
  4. localized truss damage caused by fired could have lead to the global collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7
    etc. etc.

...are all absurd.

So seriously, since you refer to a few genuine reasons for doubt about 9/11, why have you "fought so hard" against conspiracy theories? (I wasn't even aware of some of the other theories you mention, re Kahane etc., and they may well merit being fought against.) You seem to be duty bound.

Good question Ron though I jokingly described these points as "absurd" I think there are reasonable explanations for them. Do a forum search for my posts on those topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I'm not Christian I had an epiphany of sorts on Easter. I started think of salvation, not of me personally but rather of the planet itself and came to understand that I fought so hard against various conspiracy theories because of my inner struggle. I was really fighting my own doubts, my zeal was motivated by cognitive dissonance.

Regarding 9/11 the notions that...

  1. the CIA etc could have missed all those warnings and warning signs
  2. all the put activity before 9/11 were coincidences
  3. NORAD was unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes
  4. localized truss damage caused by fired could have lead to the global collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7
    etc. etc.

...are all absurd.

So seriously, since you refer to a few genuine reasons for doubt about 9/11, why have you "fought so hard" against conspiracy theories? (I wasn't even aware of some of the other theories you mention, re Kahane etc., and they may well merit being fought against.) You seem to be duty bound.

Good question Ron though I jokingly described these points as "absurd" I think there are reasonable explanations for them. Do a forum search for my posts on those topics.

Did you intend to reply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question Ron though I jokingly described these points as "absurd" I think there are reasonable explanations for them. Do a forum search for my posts on those topics.

Yes, so-called reasonable explanations can be thought up for all kind of coincidences and everything else, but at a certain point they should just naturally start taxing credulity. It eventually becomes unreasonable for them all to wind up entirely on one side of the ledger. Unless one is bound and determined to believe that the government would simply not involve itself in such a thing. Which is naivete writ large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that everything“[wound] up entirely on [the gov't.'s] side of the ledger is begging the question even the notion everything went the hijacker's way is incorrect only 3 of the 4 planes hit their targets. And many of the so called coincidences are truther misconceptions or unsupported:

- Before 9/11 on the rare occasions it was called in to do so it took the military 1 – 2 hours to intercept wayward aircraft it took an hour or more to do so.

- I only know of one case of a Boeing or similar size jet hitting a multistory building head on, the 1992 crash of an El Al cargo 747 into an apartment building near Amsterdam. It caused catastrophic damage.

- Truthers go on and on about the militarily exercises that day but failed to show that there were more than normal or that they adversely effected response times.

- They also complain about the military leaders who were absent from their posts but once again failed to show that there were more absences than normal or that they adversely effected response times.

Etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And many of the so called coincidences are truther misconceptions or unsupported

Really? Which ones? As just one example, is it a misconception or unsupported that whatever hit the Pentagon just happened to hit it at the single spot where it would do the least damage -- a recently reinforced section not yet fully staffed (and with Rumsfeld's office on the other side of the building)?

- They also complain about the military leaders who were absent from their posts but once again failed to show that there were more absences than normal or that they adversely effected response times.

I'm not sure to whom you refer. The "military leaders" who in concert make foreknowledge fairly obvious were the president, vice president, secretary of defense, and acting joint chiefs chairman. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Myers weren't "absent," they simply hid in known locations and did nothing during the attacks (Bush in a schoolhouse, Rumsfeld in his office as if nothing was going on, and Myers holed up in Senator Cleland's office, apparently not to be disturbed under any circumstances including an attack on America). As for Cheney, I'm sure you are aware of what the Secretary of Transportation testified that Cheney was doing, testimony that the 9/11 Commission had no choice but to ignore. This is not to mention one general who was indeed absent, the head of the National Military Command Center or War Room, who just happened to take that morning off (leaving the center in the hands of a greenhorn), showing up after the attacks, about the same time that our aforementioned leaders came out of hiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And many of the so called coincidences are truther misconceptions or unsupported

Really? Which ones?

Let's not be disingenuous Ron I gave a few examples.

"As just one example, is it a misconception or unsupported that whatever hit the Pentagon just happened to hit it at the single spot where it would do the least damage -- a recently reinforced section not yet fully staffed (and with Rumsfeld's office on the other side of the building)?"

We went over that a few times years ago Ron, there's no point in doing so again.

- They also complain about the military leaders who were absent from their posts but once again failed to show that there were more absences than normal or that they adversely effected response times.

I'm not sure to whom you refer. The "military leaders" who in concert make foreknowledge fairly obvious were the president, vice president, secretary of defense, and acting joint chiefs chairman. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Myers weren't "absent," they simply hid in known locations and did nothing during the attacks (Bush in a schoolhouse, Rumsfeld in his office as if nothing was going on, and Myers holed up in Senator Cleland's office, apparently not to be disturbed under any circumstances including an attack on America).

Other than a shhot down order. There was no need for them to insert themselves in the air defense response.

"As for Cheney, I'm sure you are aware of what the Secretary of Transportation testified that Cheney was doing, testimony that the 9/11 Commission had no choice but to ignore. This is not to mention one general who was indeed absent, the head of the National Military Command Center or War Room, who just happened to take that morning off (leaving the center in the hands of a greenhorn), showing up after the attacks, about the same time that our aforementioned leaders came out of hiding."

We went over that a few times years ago as well Ron, there's no point in doing so again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than a shhot down order. There was no need for them to insert themselves in the air defense response.

That's no answer and you know it. How did Rumsfeld know what he needed or didn't need to do when he didn't bother to walk down the hall from his office to the War Room and find out exactly what was going on? Don't you think it would behoove the Secretary of Defense to "get up to speed" on an attack on America, whether or not he was needed? Victoria Clark and other top aides went to the War Room to try to educate themselves, and Clark said they went by Rummy's office for him to come along, but he said he wanted to make some phone calls. Who's lying there? According to his testimony, Rumsfeld didn't make any phone calls, he proceeded to listen to his daily CIA briefer as if nothing out of the ordinary was taking place, until the Pentagon itself was hit. (At which point he went outside to look around and play medic, so that none of his frantic subordinates could find him.)

How did General Myers know what he needed or didn't need to do when no one even told him, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that America under attack? Two of the questions that the Family Steering Committee wanted the 9/11 Commission to ask were how it was possible that Myers wasn't told of the attack, and what was the explanation for Rumsfeld's behavior, but the 9/11 Commission didn't have the guts to ask them.

It doesn't matter if, given the full picture, these men technically did not need to insert themselves in the air defense. That is not the point and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Myers was with Sen. Max Cleland, a Democrat and staunch critic of the Bush Administration, at the time. Cleland never indicated he thought the general's continued presence was in appropriate, to the contrary he said:

General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

As for Rummy, he was hardly incommunicado, he was in his office. Can you provide a citation for your claim about Victoria Clarke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Myers was with Sen. Max Cleland, a Democrat and staunch critic of the Bush Administration, at the time. Cleland never indicated he thought the general's continued presence was in appropriate, to the contrary he said:

General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

You don't get it. Cleland was presumably unaware too that America was under attack. If someone informed Cleland, why the hell didn't he tell Myers, who was sitting right there with him in his Capitol Hill office, since Myers claims that no one informed him? Neither one of these guys, we're supposed to believe, had anyone working for them who would at least slip them a note to inform them that the country was under attack, meaning that Capitol Hill itself could be bombed. Doesn't something about this smell awfully fishy?

As for Rummy, he was hardly incommunicado, he was in his office.

Yes, he was in his office, and just sitting there listening to a routine CIA briefing. Why? What he was doing (just like Myers listening to Max Cleland) was hiding in plain sight during the attacks.

Can you provide a citation for your claim about Victoria Clarke?

Clarke told WBZ of Boston that "a couple of us" went to Rumsfeld's office "to alert him" that a second plane had hit the WTC and that "the crisis management process" had been started up. "He wanted to make a few phone calls," Clarke said, so she and some other officials proceeded to the National Military Command Center without him. "He stayed in his office" ("Assistant Secretary Clarke Interview with WBZ Boston," Dept. of Defense News, September 15, 2001. The transcript of the interview was online but is no longer there).

Oh, and let's not forget Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense who like Rumsfeld couldn't be pried from his office by any "crisis management process" during an attack on America. Wolfowitz was in his office conducting a meeting when someone said that a plane had hit the WTC. They turned on the TV and saw the shots of the second plane hitting the towers. At least "this is the way I remember it," Wolfowitz told an interviewer. "It's a little fuzzy." Wolfowitz then stated, (It was no big damn deal, eh, Paul? Almost forgettable.) "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was" (Vanity Fair interview, May 9, 2003).

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...