Thread Graveyard

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

newson — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:23:00 GMT

why hazmat suits in 2007? wouldn't that be of interest to nyc residents/workers?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ3.html

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

newson — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:00:51 GMT

i find the lack of rubble perplexing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LugeYb4h4aM&feature=player_embedded#at=77

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

newson — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:52:59 GMT

i'd like someone to explain why steel is still combusting spontaneously (timber left unsinged) at the bankers trust building, why the wtc site is still fuming after so much time has elapsed, and why the subway has been rebuilt four times, and yet structural steel beams rust immediately. steel, not iron, and with the usual primer, and paint job. the bt building had been renovated, but that work is now being dismantled. it's a costly exercise to leave such prime real estate vacant without good cause.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

William — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:03:01 GMT

I really think focus must be brought to individual arguments rather than the peson making them. You can't get sucked up in judging a person as a whole. Because it is trendy to put 9/11 truthers as so crazy and off the wall, it takes that much more courage to say some of this persons' ideas are useful. The argument most people would make would be more directed at the persons' belief in 9/11 conspiricy theories than on hisl work with labor unions for example, leading to an invalid argument.

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

William — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:56:36 GMT

Isaac Newton was also an alchemist among other things, does that mean his work on gravity and calculus makes him not worth the attention? I could go on with various examples but I won't.

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

onebornfree — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:10:00 GMT

"He is a very austrian oreinted economist, whos also interested in pre-Austrian french theory. Mises.org script interview Here

From 2001-2002 he was the chief economist in the Department of Labor. Said he got the job through an old contact

Reynolds also wrote a book that destroyed the case for labor unions. But.....He's one of these batcrazy 911 truthers. His Troofer Website here *shakes head. where did it all go wrong?"

So you see Mr Reynolds and others like him as a threat to your agenda, yes?

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

Juan — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:05:51 GMT

ProudCapitalist, did you find any data to backup your theory about the frequency of plane hijackings and how they are never intercepted, etc ? Or maybe your 'theory' was something just made up ?

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

liberty student — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:19:48 GMT

Nitroadict:
On a more serious note, I think the basic assumption that all of this (what could attributed to the NWO) is due to incompetence & negligence fundamentally betrays the argument against The State in the first place, since it gives a soft-pass @ the argument of different people in different positions pulling just the right levers this time, as opposed to there being no levers of power, or means of putting people in power, whatsoever.

I understand why our libertarian leaders play this angle, but you are correct, in return for avoiding short term criticism, they risk diminishing the message.

I love when people tell me the government is too incompetent to do 9/11 when they were competent enough to fool the world into backing an attack on Iraq.

Not to mention Korea, Vietnam and so on.

Only a fool underestimates the capacity for his own government to commit unspeakable evil.

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

Nitroadict — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:27:14 GMT

liberty student:

ProudCapitalist:
And it has no motive whatsoever to "design"any such an event.

Operation Northwoods refutes this. The sinking of the Lusitania refutes this. The Gulf of Tonkin refutes this.

ProudCapitalist:
The starting point of a true conspiracy theory is the MOTIVE

This is categorically false. The starting point for any true conspiracy theory is action. We can never determine motive with 100% assurance, and we assuredly cannot determine motive for something that is secret.

ProudCapitalist:
I think that the same brick-heads who are obsessed by CONSPIRACY are also obsessed by GOLD and WAR

You're the only person displaying obsessive behaviour in this thread.

ProudCapitalist, I've waited patiently for you to post something intelligent and well founded. How much longer do you intend to keep me waiting?

Or was it your plan all along to post strawmen and make assertions, then point the finger at others and claim lunacy?

Some people just want to watch the world burn argue, methinks.

Since the inception of the internet, idle arguments & semantics transferred from the pastime of the Men of Letters to the Men of Keyboards :D

On a more serious note, I think the basic assumption that all of this (what could attributed to the NWO) is due to incompetence & negligence fundamentally betrays the argument against The State in the first place, since it gives a soft-pass @ the argument of different people in different positions pulling just the right levers this time, as opposed to there being no levers of power, or means of putting people in power, whatsoever.

It assumes far too much humanism on the part of humans who have essentially become vampires on the rest of the human race, all to justify their masturbatory views on what the course of history should look like.

Also, spend a few minutes reading up on Memetics, & one can easily see how there is an obvious motivation for oligarchies & lobbies to perpetuate disinfo over legitimate questioning, & how effective it can be to essentially launder the motivations & strategic, Machiavellian moves away into the noise of society.

Thankfully, we have Wikileaks (for now), so if anyone wants to argue the ACTA is some sort of nuttish conspiracy, hop on to wikileaks & see for yourself. For the mean time, we also have a relatively free internet to help us seek out whether or not conspiracies are true or not, at least until George H. Obama regulates it into the 3rd circle of hell with people getting fined for posting an offensive comment on a message board vis-a-vis the authority of the Grand Ol' Internets Czar, bravley defending & unclogging the internet, because the internet, after all, isn't a big truck, it's a series of tubes.

It's just a shame actual evidence to prove so called conspiracy theories come so long after the fact (for the most part, purposely, good luck with a FOIA request), or are buried beneath time & the discourse of history, that many just assume it's never true, just like how many would & will assume there was no motivation for agents of the state (perhaps specifically the administration, or the oligarchies in power) to make a strategic & tactically smart move of a perfectly timed false flag operation (i.e. 9/11).

Of course, these tactics are only for ancient empires, nowadays, we are much more evolved human beings </sarcasm>

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

ProudCapitalist — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:22:40 GMT

You totally refuse to relate to anything which I write! So you DO actually realize that you have nothing at all going for you, don't you?

The ACTIONS of the adminstration after 911 related to DOMESTIC SECURITY, WMD and IRAQ.

The *official* 911 story relates in no way at all to any of that. Why would the administration design a conspiracy focused on SAUDI, AFGHANISTAN and TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY WMD OR WEAPONS USE AT ALL???

Lucitania was an example of the many times repeated traditional multi-century conspiracy pretext-for-war model: "Germany's sunk one of our ships, so let's wage war againt Germany!" Same thing with Northwind proposal: "The Cubans attacked us, so let's attack them!" Nothing of that bears any resemblence at all to the 911 event (no American citizens, nor any Iraqis, were involved in 911 so no action against any of them were motivated by the 911 events), unless you extremely cleverly constructs some phantastic rationale for why an invasion of the wasteland which is Afghanistan would be so extremely attractive to the Bush administration!

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

liberty student — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:07:29 GMT

ProudCapitalist:
And it has no motive whatsoever to "design"any such an event.

Operation Northwoods refutes this. The sinking of the Lusitania refutes this. The Gulf of Tonkin refutes this.

ProudCapitalist:
The starting point of a true conspiracy theory is the MOTIVE

This is categorically false. The starting point for any true conspiracy theory is action. We can never determine motive with 100% assurance, and we assuredly cannot determine motive for something that is secret.

ProudCapitalist:
I think that the same brick-heads who are obsessed by CONSPIRACY are also obsessed by GOLD and WAR

You're the only person displaying obsessive behaviour in this thread.

ProudCapitalist, I've waited patiently for you to post something intelligent and well founded. How much longer do you intend to keep me waiting?

Or was it your plan all along to post strawmen and make assertions, then point the finger at others and claim lunacy?

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

ProudCapitalist — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:34:33 GMT

So, the lunies who are obsessed with analysing bricks at ground zero, argue that 911 was a conspiracy, because it gave Bush a pretext for invading Afghanistan. That is a "country" so utterly unimportant and useless, that the only motive anyone even can come to think of, is that it might be possible to some time in the future build a pipeline across it to transport the insignificant oil and gas reserves in Central Asian countries just north of Afghanistan (none of them has proven reserves above that of famous oil gigant Italy!), to the Indian Ocean (which in turn is anything but the center of the world market for oil and gas). Maybe that could be just slightly cheaper than if pipelines instead were connected to established systems through Iran or westwards towards the Caspian Sea (and further through established pipelines to Black Sea and/or the Mediteranean), or even a pipeline built eastwards to the growimg oil market #1: China.

Why would the most elaborate and strange and most bloody "fake invasion" EVER, have been designed by the Bush administration for the one and only purpose to maybe slightly make the construction of a pipeline a little cheaper???

If the administration had designed a 911 in order to maximally constrain freedom of American citizens, then of course the designed perpetrators would've been Americans, even libertarians. NOT a bunch of Saudis lead from Afghanistan. The official 911 problem could be totally controlled by harsher immigration laws toward islamic countries, and no other measures at all. The starting point of a true conspiracy theory is the MOTIVE, and that is totally absent with respect to 911.

The offical story of 911 in no way relates to the actions taken by the administration after 911 (except the hopelessly lost war against wayside bombs in the wasteland which is Afghanistan), that's why the very concept of conspiracy theory is totally inapplicable. What is instead applicable, is the fact that most people are totally uneducated and totally uninterested and that therefor ANY story which hits massmedia big, no matter at all what its actual content is, can be exploited by a US government in order to do whatever it wants. Be the pretext any random crime (like 911 was) or a natural disaster, or even a demographic trend. Gov't will use it. And it has no motive whatsoever to "design"any such an event. They arrive automatically.

I think that the same brick-heads who are obsessed by CONSPIRACY are also obsessed by GOLD and WAR (and probably cancer curing triangles and the phases of the Moon). This improductive Anhang notice that libertarianism relates to gold, and therefor they do their best to infiltrate libertarian organizations with their madness and jackass stories.

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

liberty student — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:12:16 GMT

scineram:
Which differs from the status quo how much?

The illusion that people have a democratic voice, or that their country is sovereign.

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

scineram — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:17:12 GMT

liberty student:

Anyone who is remotely aware of history, policy and current events on more than a superficial level understands that the NWO is a very real movement to create government above government which is unelected and rules completely by bureaucratic fiat.

Which differs from the status quo how much?

Re: Dr. Morgan Reynolds; nutcase or brilliant?

Juan — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:09:31 GMT

fezwhatley:

Juan:
The 911 attacks provided an excuse to further totalitarianism in the US - think "homeland security".
Therefore it was an inside jarb.

Maybe. Why not ? Do you have any compelling reason that would totally invalidate the possibility of an inside job ?

At any rate, I didn't say that the usefulness of 911 logically proves that it was inside job. Your remark sounds like a misrepresentation...

And on Iraq. The Neocons invaded Iraq for the reasons they gave, their straussian views, their incompetence. 911 truthers think PNAC somehow verifies their NWO theories. But really PNAC just shows how insane and muttled policy makers are.

Are you talking to me ? I said nothing about a NWO. But now that you mention it, I seem to recall the existence of international bureaucracies such as the imf, who, world bank, un, etc...