Emotional Plea

I'm discovering more and more that, mixed in with what may or may not be well-done research and reporting of the events of 9/11 are various counter-claims to such information.

Most of this seems to be of the emotional plea variety, that is, defamation of the source, vilifiaction of anti-american thinking, standing behind the memories of those lost, etc. That's likely because despite all of the time, effort and money dumped on the problem, the 9/11 comission could not come up with any kind of story which might even remotely be the truth- and nobody else who is trying to deny foul play will be able to either.

These entries, when dispersed amongst possibly useful, factual or informative entries about what was lied about will serve to mislead and dissuade fence-sitters.

The surge recently in the media of 9/11 theory and the polarization of the audience is going to push the media pay more and more attention to it in the near future, and then...

I believe this is what will happen:

Slowly, across the course of a few months, the 9/11 truth movement will gain ground and an audience in the press. It won't ever be presented as the truth, but it will appear more and more in the mdeia- just enough to make people who'd never thought about it much stop for a second.

And then, at a crucial point in this progression, the government (or someone paid by them) will step forward with testimony, video footage, paper evidence, bodies, whatever is needed- to fatally crush the advance of the 9/11 truth movement. The evidence will even possibly seem to validate some of the claims while refuting others, which will serve to cause anyone who tries to pay attention and include that evidence to feel reluctant to trust any of it.

The government will have 'won' in the media, the 9/11 truth movement will suddenly be dropped in the press and nobody will want to pay attention to it.

Viola, problem solved.

So here's my emotional plea- show the Loose Change video to everyone you know, and do it soon.

Penn and Teller: jerks

Well, I used to think I liked Penn and Teller.

They have a show, 'Bullshit', where they investigate claims and debunk them.

However, their tactics are on par with those used in political campaign advertising and are nearly content free. They serve only to further solidify the opinions of those who already agree with them.

In their clip on 9/11 conspiracy theory, now widely distributed on the internet, they bring absolutely no evidence forward- as if what you already know is enough.

They bring forth some 9/11 conspiracy theorists who are not particularly well-spoken and select choice statements from them to angrily bash in an emotional ploy towards swaying viewers undecided about the possibility of conspriacy theory, not an intellectual discussion or dissection of the possible validity of their statements.

The interview a fire chief who admits in his interview that when he arrived there was already inches of ash and debris on everything- he arrived quite late to be much of an expert on what happened that day. Further emotional plea.

Another fire official is interviewed, as if he is anauthority on steel-framed skyscrapers, and he insists, (as does the government's official story) that the 'very high heat' from the fires 'caused by jet fuel' had weakened the structure and caused it to collapse.

A professor of something-or-other at some-college-or-other comes forth to promote the idea that people who seek out their own factual and rational explanations for something which does not seem right are somehow misguided or ill in the head.

...neither of these 'officials' were asked about WTC7, it wasn't even brought up.

A glossy and beautiful 8x10 of a lie will always be more convincing than a polaroid of the truth- unless you know better.

-The collapse of WTC7, attributed to a diesel fuel fire, which is not apparent from any footage and could not possibly have caused the free-fall collapse of the structure

-straight-down and free-fall speed collapse of all 3 buildings

-that no hydrocarbon burns hot enough (outside of a lab environment, and then only maybe) to melt the kind of steel which was used to build the towers

-reporters, police, firemen, people on the street- all telling of explosions all over in the buildings- day of, and live on camera

-Larry Silverstein had leased the taxpayer-owned WTC complex from the government in 7/01 for 99 years and insured it for 3.4 billion dollars- with a specific clause covering acts of terrorism

-The president's brother ran the security company which covered the towers, but whose bomb sniffing dogs were withdrawn on 9/06

-Three huge steel-framed buildings falling fairly neatly to the ground as a result of fire, an even which has never taken place before or since

-Norad failing to address 4 stray aircraft, allegedly because a DOD training drill of the same theme was occuring at the same time, and further failing to address 3 when they knew that it was no longer a drill

-seismic data from a nearby college

-the piloting skills of the alleged pilots

-foreign press has found several of the alleged hijackers alive in other countries

-The complete lack of plane debris at the pentagon and flight 93 'crash' sites

-the video footage from hotel, gas station, and state traffic cameras near the pentagon, which was confiscated by the FBI almost immediately and has never seen the light of day

-the flight recorders which were never found

-the secrecy around the flight recorders which were found, the recordings on them, and the fact that they were never released to the public

-the cell phone calls allegedly made from the flights, when such was quite physically impossible with existing technology

-the lack of any kind of forensic examination of the tower grounds

-the destruction of the evidence from the WTC complex, and the hasty cleanup of all sites involved, including the mystical 'blue tarped box' from the pentagon

-the melted pools of steel found in the basement substructures of the towers 5 weeks after the attacks

-the hole allegedly made by the plane striking the pentagon, the intact cable spools next to the building, the official story being the whole plane was vaporized, and the lack of engines or marks where they hit anwhere

-the roughly $50 million spent on thoroughly and quickly investigating Clinton's blowjob, compared to the paltry $15 million spent very slowly and hesitantly investigating the most fantastic attack on the USA ever- and purposeful stalls on such imposed by our highest leaders

--- the list goes on and on and on and on

Whether you are completely for or against the idea that our government was complicit in the events of 9/11, you should watch Loose Change second edition. There are more facts and compelling evidence there than can be ignored- translation, unless you are a stubborn fool, there is no way you can watch the entirety of this video and not have an appreciation of the fact that you are being lied to, more than you may have been aware, about something very large and important.

The New Freedom: Look up my skirt

In my months of looking for work, I have come across quite a few curious things.

Many companies ask questions which go far and beyond effort to find out if you can do the job.

Criminal History
Drug Testing
Credit History

So, these things seem fairly obvious to ask about in certain situations- you don't want a past bank robber working in the vault of your bank, you don't want a heroin user driving your steamroller, and you don't want someone who is irresponsible with their finances working in your accounting department...

Or do you?

Back in the day-- last week, maybe-- we held the idea that having served time for your crime, you had paid your debt to society and were on the level again.

Drug use is illegal, and by forcing people to submit to testing is to imply that they might do this illegal thing- prove your own innocence. Drug use is obviously illegal, and it might pose a threat in certain work environments, but many industries would go out of business permanently if they had to screen their workers this way. The problem is that some companies test all workers by default- whether they drive a semi or a desk chair. Translation? Regardless of your perfect attendance at your last job, your perfect resume, your shining reviews from past employers- if you do something illegal in your free time which may have no bearing on your work, we will not hire you.

Having bad credit is a self-perpetuating cycle. Having bad money management skills is not uncommon. Forgetting to pay a few bills, or having a bankruptcy- I do not know the threshold where a company's red flag goes up, but my credit is my business.

Overall, there is an increasing trend of employers feeling they have implicit permission to look up your skirt, so to speak, before employing you. I feel this is leading towards yet further infringement of a person's ability to have privacy.

I'd just like to pause here and insert some vicious, seething, throat-slashing angst aimed at this type of activity, among all the other worthy-of-a-slow-painful-death behavior out there. (see also: horrible splattery doom)

[sigh]

We, as job-seekers, are put in a postion which requires careful balance.

On one hand, most of us are not independently wealthy, so we can't just refuse to work for a company when they offer us work- but with the degrading, humiliating hoops we have to jump through beforehand. I suspect most people just set aside all of their moral outrage, grin and bear it, and just get on with making money and paying the bills.

If you decide, instead, to stick it out and work for someone who shows respect for their employees, then you may have a long hard wait. You may ruin your credit, have gaps in your work history- and suffer in other ways due to your 'lofty' ideals.

Essentially, if you fail to comply with the system which is in place, the system punishes you, such that when you decide to comply, it is obvious that you did not comply at some point. All very handy from the system's point of view.

As database-driven information systems become more and more common, and technologies to weed you out for this reason or that become cheaper and more widespread, companies will continue to adopt them and 'protect' themselves from the 'bad' people in the world. AS Orwellian as it may seem, life not unlike that in the movie Gattaca may not be far away for us.