Friday, April 28, 2006

Welcome to the Truth

If you have just awoken to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, a warm and hearty welcome.

We will not hold it against you that credible people have been pointing this out for years with clear evidence, and yet you have ridiculed us.

We will not hold it against you that we have tried to speak, but you have gagged us.

But -- now that you DO know -- if you do not use all of your strength, creativity and passion to help prevent more false flag terror attacks, further assaults on our freedoms, and further unjustified wars -- we will not forgive you.

Now that you know, you must ACT.

Welcome to the club of those who know. Now its time to pay your membership dues by picking yourself up, dusting yourself off, wiping the shock off your face, and dedicating yourself to saving America.

There is no time to feel hopeless. Its not too late, EVEN NOW.

There's no time to be numb, or to be afraid, or to be indecisive, or to feel sorry for yourself. There is only time to act.

If you act, we will win. If you do not, we will lose. It is really that simple.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an excellent essay, GW.


7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out the news from the past couple of days. Here comes the fear assault campaign on the American public just in time to raise the publics support for Iran and further shredding of the constition. It's funny how the terr*rist just happened to be on the plane along with three well placed Secret Service Agents. Happens to me all the time. No wonder the story was run on the major news outlets almost as an afterthought.

As a side note, is the passenger identified as the terr*rist also meant to tie into the illegal alien issue? (His name is Jose Manuel Pelayo-Ortega).

11:36 AM  
Blogger Pissedoffcabbie said...

Con Smasher will now tell us why Building 7 came down.

While we're at it, would you be willing to debate Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for Bush's Dept. of Labor, on the subject of 9/11 complicity? No, I think you'll stick to name-calling and frat-boy insults, and stay away from anyone with authority.

3:19 PM  
Blogger Daniel F said...

I would like to suggest that we hire a helicopter and drop a bag of flour from the height of WTC 7 and then drop another bag of flour from the height of WTC 1 and 2. We could video tape and demonstrate to people that a building just cannot collapse as fast as dropping a rock from the roof unless someone has blown out all the girders simultaneously by a controlled demolition. I would also suggest that the bags of flour be sprayed with flourescent paint to increase visibility. If you cannot afford to hire a helicopter, you can probably find a
bridge or a cliff that could be used as a substitute.

11:30 PM  
Blogger Pissedoffcabbie said...

How about if we stop worrying about how the towers fell, which can be debated endlessly, and work on Building 7, and what happened there. The story of the terrorist drills on 9/11 is far more important, also.

The demolition debate is an empty cul-de-sac that is being used to divert attention away from the other issues, which are far more incriminating. I hope to not see the 9/11 truth movement stalled here for much longer.

1:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A must-listen audio MP3 ofa press conference of a former British intelligence officer (David Shayler) on 9/11, the Israeli embassy bombing, the London subway bombings, etc.

12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I need assistance lobbying the candidates for the 110th congress. I've gotten some contact information for the 3048 candidates registered with the the FEC, but need more information including:phone, fax, and email. I believe we can only do this by searching each candidate individually. The data is available at the yahoo group:

Please assist in informing people about this campaign. I would like to raise the money necessary to send them all 9/11 Revisited DVD. I believe that these people must have this information. They will do a variety of things with the information, but hopefully they will do the right thing. Thanks for all you do. Namaste2you

2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The site got cut off, here it is without http://---

2:47 PM  
Blogger kubasio said...

Your website bothers me but not for its content rather its presentation. In logic and philosophy there are things called formal fallacies. These fallacies are weaknesses or flaws that render an argument invalid. The system has been around for centuries as means by which to navigate information. Here are the most common examples:

Ad hominem
Affirming the consequent
Appeal to the majority
Argument from ignorance
Begging the question
Correlation implies causation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw man

I will focus my following discussion on the most common flaws in logic I see in your material.

First I will define two words:
Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
Truth: (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c : the body of true statements and propositions

As you can imagine the world is lacking in facts and truth because everything is subject to interpretation. I needn't describe the basic every day examples of witness testimony which is used as facts by some while being trashed by others. In the end, the truth lies in the middle as each of us intake and perceive things different from one another. When we read something critically, however, we should be able to find flaws in logic. That is, we should be able to find places where we substitute imagination for truth and fact.

Now to the common fallacies which I am stealing freely from Wikipedia:

Correlation implies causation -
Teenage girls eat lots of chocolate.
Teenage girls are most likely to have acne.
Therefore, chocolate causes acne.

You should be able to catch the lack of logic even though the premise sounds totally plausible. The fact is that despite how many pieces seem to fit together a logical argument does not assume they fit together.

Ice-cream sales are strongly (and robustly) correlated with crime rates.
Therefore, ice-cream causes crime.

Again, a correlation exists between two items that could lead you to believe the second statement, but the argument is invalid. The fact could be that heat increases crime and the sale of ice cream.

Ad hominem -
1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

So George W claims Social Security is going to run out but no one likes George W therefore Social Security will last forever. A person's position or standing has no weight on their argument. If, in fact, their claim is incorrect or intentionally deceitful the claim should be disputed by logical contradictions not character.

This fallacy leads to the fallacy correlation implies causation whereby a "liar is always a liar" a false and invalid assertion.

Begging the question -
"Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this, therefore, politicians cannot be trusted."

This is a circular argument where we assume facts and use those assumed facts to support our argument.

"The government would kill its own citizens to push social agendas. Social agendas can be pushed when a government kills its own citizens. The fact that governments kill their own citizens is proof of this, therefore, a government kills citizens to push social agendas."

Last one I promise...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc -
1)Event A occurred before event B.
2)Therefore, A must have caused B.

So if a rooster crows in the morning does the rooster cause morning to come? It is very tempting to assume that things happening before an event are the cause of an event, but that is not logical. Just because it happens before doesn't mean it's true, or fact.

I think there is great potential in your evidence to re-investigate events to determine facts and truth. I do not believe that the issue benefits from having conclusions drawn for us, or by having news articles presented selectively to imply correlation. It is always tempting to draw upon news articles and assemble your "facts" but rarely do people take the time to analyze their argument for flaws in logic. The day you take that step will be the day your argument moves to the next level and you have a true impact rather than being seen as a kook.

12:40 AM  
Blogger kubasio said...

I just wanted to point out examples in the accompanying posts where logic has been abandoned for emotion:

"Here comes the fear assault campaign on the American public just in time to raise the publics support for Iran and further shredding of the constition."

- This is a logical fallacy commonly referred to as slippery slope. We cannot assume things will happen and assert our assumption as fact.

"No, I think you'll stick to name-calling and frat-boy insults, and stay away from anyone with authority."

-Perfect identification of Ad Hominem, often our arguments break down to name calling instead of material.

"I would like to suggest that we hire a helicopter and drop a bag of flour from the height of WTC 7 and then drop another bag of flour from the height of WTC 1 and 2"

-This I just had to comment on, this reader needs to discover the definition of terminal velocity and then re-think the position.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You people are fu*king crazy.....

..go ahead and dismiss that as "ad hominem" if you want, but its the cold truth; you are simply out of your mind.

11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those were interesting comments by average joe.
While I agree that fallacies often encountered in emotional arguments can in no way prove or disprove the official story of 911, I believe that this site is directed at people who already suspect the official version of what happened is false. With due respect to pissedoffcabbie, a focus on demolition and physics most certainly can prove the official version false. The official version of the collapse of all three buildings violates laws of physics. One only needs to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or entropy; the kinematic equations and how to solve for time; and how a gravity driven collapse cannot account for what was witnessed during the collapses, i.e. the speed of their collapse was only slightly slower than a free-falling object in a vacuum. Please refer to this article by Dr. Judy Wood,

Of course, most people do not have a basic understanding of physics and shy away from any discussions that attempt to use equations and scientific terminology to present facts.
Appealing to people's emotional side is effective. It is not proof of an argument, but it can start the ball rolling. If you need proof, study your physics.

All arguments for and against what happened can be based in scientific terms, not emotional ones.

Please notice that I have not stated precisely how the buildings were destroyed. As Dr. Steven Jones has repeatedly said, "further investigation is needed in this matter." Yet it still can be proven that the official story is false. This statement is based on laws of physics. (See Dr. Wood's article)

Thank you GW, pissedoffcabbie and many other bloggers for promoting the search for truth.

7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone sum up for me in a paragraph why you think what we saw on tv with our own eyes isn't what really happened? This is the first day I've ever read of anyone that thinks it's an inside job. And what would be the point of it?

Real George Washington cartoons

10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home