Forum Post: War on You: Choose a Side
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 30, 2011, 5:13 p.m. EST by valfather
(286)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
War on You predates OWS by years. We are a ragtag group of refugees from the controlled opposition. I am a moderate there because I was drafted, kicking and screaming. But, since I have the post, I guess I should do what I can to stir up interest.
Some of the WoY community dismiss OWS as a Soros controlled false opposition. Be that as it may at the top, there are some participants on this forum who are self-directed and well-meaning. It is you whom I seek to enlist in our tiny refuge from madness. I am not trying to rob this forum of participants. But this forum is fairly unstructured and many good ideas are washed away in the torrent of input.
Join us if you will:
! VIRUS ALERT !
I received the following message from my anti-virus upon clicking the forums link:
Category: Trojan Downloader
Description: This program is dangerous and downloads other programs.
Recommended action: Remove this software immediately.
Security Essentials detected programs that may compromise your privacy or damage your computer. You can still access the files that these programs use without removing them (not recommended). To access these files, select the Allow action and click Apply actions. If this option is not available, log on as administrator or ask the security administrator for help.
Items:
Get more information about this item online.
Have they tried to kill you yet? They did me. If you can't stave off a few minor computer glitches, we don't need you. Practice safe computing, and you won't get infected. You don't need Norton for that.
What? Your comment makes no sense to me.
I sandbox everything, and scan every day. The virus did not get into my system.
When it comes to Windoze, users are losers. I'll pass this on. I suspect it is an intentional effort to damage our site.
Well, in defense of my Windoze system, it did catch and quarantine the problem. If you look at my comment below at http://occupywallst.org/forum/war-on-you-choose-a-side/#comment-570342 , you'll see I do what I can to cope ;o)
also it could be your end, no offense of course. I had this happen to be before and it could be one of those browser hijackers or something. Just run your virus scanner on your PC or something and then see if it happens again.
Yeah this shit happens to me a lot its a real pain in ass. I'll go ahead and inform the site admin, see whats up. It could also be a fake thing as well, probably from an ad or something.
I'm an engineer, and I'm very careful with my rig (that's why I'm not afraid to click on links). I keep all my personal data on a triple-encrypted drive, use a proxy server, maintain a NAT router, run Peer-Block, have two anti-virus programs running running in parallel, scan twice a day, run the Opera browser (best for cookie privacy plus not commonly attacked), delete all cookies and java on each run, and maintain a clean-room copy of my machine I restore every week. Yea, I'm a little paranoid ;o)
I just use Linux. It's so much easier.
I know, my son uses it and I advocate it's use in my real-time products (vis VxWorks, etc), but a lot of my specialized work tools require Windows, so I'm kinda stuck. Version 7, in my opinion, is the first real version in my opinion.
just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you lol.
I happen to know some people who investigate cyber-crime, and the scared the crap out of me. I also don't like Google and others building up a profile on me that would put a 1960's FBI file to shame. I don't have anything to hide, it's just the idea of it all.
[Removed]
ker-fvckin-bump
[Removed]
Okay it's obvious that we have two people in here that are posting that have an agenda. Typical of the OWS movement I guess. Gotta keep free thinkers out! Seriously, go to our website, even if you don't want to be a full time member and debate it out with us. If you think we're disinfo, tell it to our faces, not hiding in your pathetic excuse of a forum which is being spammed half the time with WATCH THE CANUCKS VS SABRES GAME LIVE ON GAYWEBSITE.COM AT 12:45 PM and also seems to be rampant with censorship. I'm actually shocked this little post is still up but hey I guess you can't censor everything you know?
We've kept old topics from people from the prison planet forums who have come to our pokey little website to spew their psycho babble. We don't censor. That's the last thing this movement needs. Obviously christopher brown and the other guy have an agenda, giving very vague, pathetic, and seem to be using dis info sources to try to discredit us. Cute, really. Fucking space lasers? You gotta be kidding me.
[Removed]
Hey no offense but I tried to get onto your forum and my computer told me that if I proceeded my computer is at risk.
"No not at all I'm talking about conspiracy theories like 9/11 being an inside job." Well, I have my doubts as to whether Hitler actually intended to take over the world. As for 9/11 being an inside job, I have no doubt. Nothing else makes a shred of sense.
Yeah that can happen if youre using a search engine like yahoo. It's sort of annoying. My work used to block waronyou.com on and off quite frequently...
No I'm in an old version of safari. But thanks for the information
Thanks for letting us know. A federal investigation shall ensue.
Not sure on the sarcasm but glad I could help. Well I went to click on it again and nothing happened so I'm not sure whats going on.
I've approved a couple accounts in the past few days. Hope they are for people here. Perhaps yours.
now ignoring the chuck1al guy, we are indeed not a cult. places like prison planet forums are more like a cult. question anything outside the norm and you are treated as the enemy.
here are ten signs that you might be in a cult: http://www.christiancollegesonline.org/blog/2010/10-signs-youre-in-a-cult/
a cliffnote version:
We have a leader? I know there's a site owner, but he hardly ever exerts authority or acts as anything but a peer.
well i did say he wasn't alex jones.
AJ should back off the crank.
How to Start A Cult
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBK5aKOr2Fw
I got turned off by the email admin approval. Sorry.
email admin approval? Not sure what you mean. It's true that you have to wait for a mod to approve your account. I'm not even sure what the registration asks for.
Please understand that we get 99% spam bats per valid registration. We have to filter. Anything you do online is traceable to some extent. If giving up an email address is an obstacle, I suggest you get a new gmail account that serves no other purpose but to register online accounts.
BTW, online traceability applies to "al Qaeda" as much as it does to you or me. Think about that the next time Rita Katz releases a new "al Qaeda" video.
My account hasn't been approved yet ... How long is it normally supposed to take?
If you go to the main page, waronyou.com you should find a contact us spot with the main admins email. shoot him a letter and he will approve your account. hes a real nice guy so there should not be a problem.
What happened to the reply that was here? It vanished when I went to reply.
Join War on You: Choose a Side
http://waronyou.com/forums/
I hope the admins here can fix the spam bot problem. WoY manually approves accounts, and has a ~0.5% non-bot application level. I don't like censorship or tightly controlled access, but in the face of this cyber-terrorism, I guess that's what's needed.
Please come over and check out WoY. We traffic in the same kind of topics as are found here. Be honest and stick to your principles and you will survive and thrive on WoY.
[Removed]
Truth is alien and frightening to those living a life ruled by deception. I often wonder if that's why so few actually do join WoY.
I'm a member there as well. I love the forum. if you want the unfiltered truth, a chance to debate with mods who won't ban you simply because their feelings get hurt, and to spout (almost) what is on your mind, THIS is the place to be. I can't tell you how many times I've pissed off our mods there, and I'm still here. It seems to be a very rare gem, a lone lighthouse in a sea of fog and mist.
If you actually to encounter what you deem to be unfair treatment on WoY, please take us to task as publicly as you can. I, and the other mods welcome honest criticism. AAMOF, we are starving for some productive honest opposition.
You might get a cool reception at first, but if you stick to your principles and keep an even keel, you will survive, and will be accepted.
@valfather...I'm sure Cults manage their sites very strictly.
Skull and Bones has a site? If you want to prove WOY is anything but above board, why not join and expose us for what we really are?
@valfather...Your Libertarian, that's a Cult.
Why do you keep mentioning Skull and Bones?
Skull and Bones is a cult. I'm not a Libertarian. I'm an American. I like Ron Paul because he is anit-war. Has a sober view on 9/11. Thinks the war on drugs is BS. And I trust his word.
I think the Libertarian proposition is a welcome contrast to the bipolar tyranny/complacency that currently dominates. I would love to get Bill Still, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, Cynthia McKinney, Eliot Spitzer, Dennis Kucinich, Steven E. Jones, Pat Buchanan, Mike Ruppert, Alan Sabrosky and a few more such people together to really debate relevant issues.
Are all of these people Libertarian? Liberal? Conservative?
@vafather...Libertaianism is:
From proponents, you might be told
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk. In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.
To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion). But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.
Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized. Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships". In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.
Just to pick an example from one public exchange (directed to me)
Too complicated. All you need is one proposition: No person should initiate the use of force against another person.
All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."
So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions. This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.
Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.
My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism". The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ... On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.
Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic". Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept. When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".
The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.
While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business. The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business". That's what what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals. The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals. The key to understanding this, and to understanding Libertarianism itself, is to realize that their concept of individual freedom is the "whopper" of "right to have the State back up business". That's a wild definition of freedom. If you voluntarily contract to sell all your future income for $1, they then oppose all government "interference" with your "right" to do this. It's a completely twisted, utterly inverted, perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly "Freedom is Slavery".
This is not at all obvious or what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms. This point about contract and Libertarianism needs to be stressed. Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions. But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right. It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".
Good idea to organize a fight club. But there is a lot of paranoia. And web site looks shitty :) that is why people Gather together person-to-person
"Paranoia"? Please enlighten us. Is it the CIA and drugs thing? Is it '9/11 was an inside job'? Mossad is a terrorist organization? USS Liberty? MSM is a huge psyop?
[Removed]
hmmmmm.
whats "hmmm?" share your thoughts man.
Uhhh, you are trying to get "participants on this forum who are self-directed and well-meaning" to go where there is a "controlled opposition". Useful information for change will not be discussed at you forum and I was banned for trying. Brandon Dean your mod and others there were a collective of gatekeepers and are exposed. Either that are you are hopelessy deceived by your social set. There is no excuse for not using evidence in the 9-11 world. Your effort to conceal treason are documented. Uhh, but you don't use evidence there, so it won't mean much.
http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo_woy.html
People, there may censorship here at OWS, but not as bad as woy. Stay where the numbers are.
Yes let's support a movement funded by george soros, that's the way to go!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47009
everyone but your little pathetic OWS group understands this, yet your clan of hippies continues to blame wall street, which is a puppet of the federal reserve, which is owned by the rothschild family, the real enemy. Way to fail, bub.
I support Americans defending the constitution, and nothing else for the time being.
Check the cognitive distortions in the post below and stay on topic please. WOY is a part of the cognitive infiltration.
"WOY is a part of the cognitive infiltration."
Considering most of that crap is, basically, crap, you act like we're a bunch of rogue psychics or something... grade A fruit cake is what you are bub.
Check the cognitive distortions and note that valfather has not yet produced any evidence for the steel core columns that has veracity.
The steel core columns are a lie and I document it very well here.
http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html
Here is an animated .gif of WTC 1 going down and a 3-4 foot thick piece of the east concrete core wall topples into the EMPTY core area.
http://algoxy.com/conc/images/core_animation_75.gif
A scan of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Innovation stating the towers had a concrete core.
http://algoxy.com/conc/images/oxfordarchcore.jpg
valfather needs to stand by his position and produce an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area, or he will have earned his own label and you will share it.
why should he have to produce anything? why can't you do the research yourself? you too good for that? does someone ALWAYS have to do the work for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself?
WOY is disinformation.
"does someone ALWAYS have to do the work for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself?"
ROTFL!!! I've authored and maintained the ONLY web site on the planet for 8 years that has a detailed and feasible explanation for how 2 Towers went to the ground in 10 seconds apiece and this infiltrator attempts to label me "lazy", while his buddy cannot come up with ONE piece of evidence to support assertions. I do believe I may be attempting to conduct discussion with at least one moron.
I just added another page about dawkins and his disinfo cluster to my site.
http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo-dawkins.html
You've used the same source for the person who thinks space beams took out the trade towers. oh wait, it's YOUR website???? thats rich... quoting yourself using yourself as a source huh? youre as bad as alex jones....
Got at least link? If not, you are misinformation. You cannot substantiate that and all of my sourcs were public information located over the years. They are located on my website.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
I would have to say that if you are using jones like that, and I've seen it before, both of you are nwo and probably don't know it. Your moronic, unsupported posting shows you are operating largly unconsciously. MKultra,
http://www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrol
MKultra had a purpose, to create people like you and other FEMA buddies.
valfather wrote:
I'm the one who labeled you as disinfo there. Take it up with me. END-----
This is why. He said, "take it up with me" meaning he has to back his position to be accountable and he is not.
My evidence has been produced and sits online. He isn't even intelligently discussing it. He knows nothing about it.
If my reputation is compromised, then whoever is doing it is working AGAINST the constitution because I am working to defend the constitution.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/only-1-demand-includes-all-others-article-v-of-the/
http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html
If he is working to damage my reputation he is working in aid of treason. Is that okay with you?
BTW, your cognitive distortions and errors are disgusting.
so this is all about you huh? we come here to see if we can't get some people to join our forums and you think we're actually COINTELPRO trying to slander some up and coming new age thinker eh? boy aren't we full of ourselves... hey I'm pretty sure alex jones is on why don't you go listen to him tell you how to think?
That you would attempt to paint my presence here as "all about me" when I've just posted that I am all the about the constitution confirms my assertions about what you are doing. AJ won't deal with the truth either, he's sensation and you try and use him to compromise what is true.
I'm not the one with the agenda here.
Yes, I have an agenda to defend the Constitution from treason. Here is one way I do it.
http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html
My agenda is also to expose misinformation that prevents Americans from realising exactly how much treason has transpired. I do this with evidence, and you work against it with nothing. Logically, you are incredibly stupid, or acting on an agenda against the Constitution.
I'm the one who labeled you as disinfo there. Take it up with me. I stand by my position. You have gone from forum to forum peddling you "concrete core" disinfo to anybody who will let you post it. We don't want our forum to be a dumping ground for death rays from outer space and other whacky ideas that have no substance. Your ideas have been thoroughly vetted and refuted. Yet you continue to promote them.
valfather wrote:
Your ideas have been thoroughly vetted and refuted. END-------
A compete fabrication that cannot be substantiated. I wasn't at WOY long enough. I was banned before any truth corrupted your infiltration forum, squashing your lame deceptions with engineering fact and raw evidence. All at my site.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Your ideas were vetted before you ever showed up. I had already established that your concrete core nonsense was unsustainable. Move on.
Do you have something positive to contribute?
Quite frankly i would have let you have continued at WoY, only because I like to play with my prey before moving in for the kill.
That is a lie you cannot substantiate. I'm working to get justice for 3,000 murders AND defend the constitution. Why are you here??????????
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!
What, did you establish it by talking with "loose Change" producers? They behaved exactly as you do and KNOW nothing about structural concrete and steel OR high explosives.
http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11_loose-change.html
Or maybe "We Are Change" told you. They censored my information and worked against the US constitution. Your peer group are all infiltrators just like you.
http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo_wac.html
I actually provide a completely feasible and detailed explanation for each and every unique aspect of what happened at the WTC on 9-11.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html You don' like that do you?
But you have no explanation for anything. Gee, kind of curious how none of the truth movement has a feasible explanation AND rejects raw evidence and fact about the Twins. You people are a fraud.
3,000 murders AND defend the constitution. Why are you here?
I'm working to get justice for 3,000 murders, to start with. I am here for your STATED reasons. But my GOD is Reality (Nature as some will). I am here to protect Their Honour.
Prove it. Be accountable and produce evidence, or find some one that can. Or recognize evidence and facts that are before you.
Figure out WTF you are doing and how, because the nwo has you working against your purposes.
There will be no justice until AFTER we unify and defend the constitution. You are currently working against it because you have no evidence and are trying to ignore evidence.
Very good, stand by your position and produce an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area, or you will have earned your own label.
BTW, you are using too many cognitive distortions to be taken seriously, such is the sign of a cognitive infiltrator. These are used by therapists to show people how they are justifying their dysfunctional behavior. The cognitive infiltration conducted by the secret government uses them to control peoples thinking in the false social groups.
COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS
There is lots of evidence showing cognitive infiltrations are rampant.
http://politics.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/09/1024519/-Threats-from-the-Invisible-Industry?showAll=yes&via=blog_481394 http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html http://revolutionmessaging.com/2011/09/21/how-to-weed-out-astroturf-identifying-fake-public-support/ http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/16173.html http://veracitystew.com/2011/02/25/astroturfing-the-season-of-disinformation-video/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/04/25/cv-election-truthy-memes-twitter.html
Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltration paper is well known to all who are engaged. But you spewing psychobabble hardly constitutes making a case against me.
Still waiting for some evidence backing your assertion that the Twins had steel core columns like FEMA presented to the public and NIST.
I know and have proved in a filing of disclosure of treason to a US sitrict court in 2010 that the steel core columns did not exist.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html
An engineer who evaluated safety for FEMA about 2 weeks after 9-11 states the Towers had a concrete core.
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
The specific text as a part of an mail to the engineer asking if his report was mistaken about the core structure.
From: bri To: Christophera Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:28 pm Subject: !!!!!
My original email
Hello Mr. Domel. I hope everything is well with you. There is just a quick question I wanted to ask.
In this paper
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
you state that the twin towers had "concrete cores".
"Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads."
Can you explain what you meant by this? Was it a mistake?
I am researching the construction of the towers.
hope to hear back soon,
Brian
His reply:
It was not a mistake. This is a design method
Gus Domel
I responded back with more questions, requested details, and I should indeed have an answer soon.
stand by your position and produce an image of the supposed steel core columns in the core area, or you will have earned your own label.
See the Engineering News Record issue on the WTC as it was being built. I can still see it in my mind sitting on top of my dad's stack of ENR issues. You actually discussed this at length with my father. A man who actually knows about structural engineering.
Post a link to an image showing steel core columns in the core area on 9-11 or you are supporting a lie and the demise of the US constitution. Then you will be willfully concealing treason when all evidence shows that the truth movement and America was totally mislead by FEMA who misrepresented the Towers core structure.
Here is an annotated image showing the steel columns that did exist NOT IN THE CORE AREA, surrounding the core.
http://algoxy.com/conc/images/wtc1.spire.hudson.annote1.jpg
And there was a civil engineer, right after 9-11, August Domel, who made a report to FEMA about the site safety. He identifies a concrete core. EXHIBIT D from the federally filed disclosure of treason of 2010.
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
The 2010 filing in the US district court in Los Angeles of 2010 pursuant to Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html
There are 3 pages after that which detail how US district court judges conceal treason just like you do.
My citation was legitimate. If it is online find it. If not, find it and put it online. Find the ENR with a picture of the WTC being constructed on the cover. You know, kind of like the Kardashians, but in a realm that matters.
I just spoke with my father. I am far more generous than he is regarding your opinions. Have you considered treatment?
I gave you a legitimate citation. It is your charge to deliver it.
Posts are going missing or rearranged on this site. I don't like manipulation or censorship.
Dude, post your evidence. Some cover of a magazine that is misrepresented by the publicher means NOTHING.
This report to FEMA was made by a structural engineer certified in 12 states. He states the Twins had a concrete core. Get it? Not my opinion.
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
Send it to your father and explain that Guiliani took the plans from the NYC WTC room in December to enable the FEMA deception.
http://algoxy.com/psych/guiliani.wtc.documents.html
This image shows what was misrepresented as "core columns" was actually "elevator guide rail support steel".
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev_guide.rail.supp.jpg
The butt plates on the tops of the "elevator guide rail support steel" are far too weak to make "core columns". Here is an image of a portion of the WTC 1 concrete core base wall. You can see light shining through a hallway running the length of the core base wall. This one piece did not detonate.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.panel_6.html
Closup annotated.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/panel_6zoom.jpg
He knows one FEMA member from college. I could ask my father to explain why he thinks you are a loon, but I actually defended your avant-garde mentality to him. Pick your poison.
Oh, he's friends with an employee of the unconstitutional, treasonous lying group of nwo front people. WTF does that make you loyal son?
Such associations are generational. If you value our constitutional, time to get on your dads case about his decision making skills and examination of evidence that is reasonably assembled. I've noticed you have none so he sent out into the world VERY unprepared.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Our countries economy has turned to shit because of uniformed, erroneous opinions like you and your father are voicing. It is possible that he and you will have contributed to millions of deaths yet to come. Get yer ass in gear and figure out WTF you are doing.
loyal son? To my father, an 11th generation "Quaker" American? You got a problem with that?
Still waiting for evidence supporting your position based on your fathers position based on his buddy at FEMA and your buddies at loose change and we are change. I've posted facts, raw evidence that is INDEPENDENTLY verifying.
You will wait a long time. You aren't worth my effort.
Wrong.
I will wait forever because you have no evidence. You are wrong in stating I am disinfo or that the Twins had steel core columns in the core area. The steel in the core was elevator guide rail support steel.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/elev_guide.rail.supp.jpg
http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html
You are supporting treasonous misinformation. If you do not figure WTF you are doing you WILL be aiding traitors and it is documented in history.
Anyone that takes info from FEMA instead of using raw evidence is a problem. Get your father to deal with it if you can't.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
Otherwise you are supporting the demise of the constitution and working against one that is seeking to expose treason and the secret methods of mass murder and defend the constitution.
You just can't get through with these absurd conspiracy theorists can you
Did you hear the one about Nazis conspiring to take over the world?
The IMT actually used the term "conspiracy". Perhaps the real conspiracy was elsewhere. Just sayin'.
They're all over.
All over, as in coming to an end?
No as in there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there. I personally wish they would come to an end.
Are you saying that the "Nazis taking over the world" was just a "conspiracy theory"?
No not at all I'm talking about conspiracy theories like 9/11 being an inside job.
[Removed]
Posts vanishing? Happens in these parts.
This is a Libertarian front group.
What is Libertarianism?
So what is this belief-set, and why is it so popular in certain subcultures? The following is an outsiders view of Libertarianism.
From proponents, you might be told
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk. In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.
To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion). But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.
Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized. Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships". In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.
Just to pick an example from one public exchange (directed to me)
Too complicated. All you need is one proposition: No person should initiate the use of force against another person.
All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."
So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions. This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.
Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.
My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism". The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ... On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.
Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic". Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept. When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".
The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.
While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business. The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business".
you formed your opinions from the sideline. I did the same thing with OWS movement almost. I at least talked to them to find out 99% had no clue what was going on. It was like taking the streets for nothing. I asked relevant questions about the economy, politics and corruption and they failed on all accounts. Theres probable some good thinkers in this cult but I havent seen them yet.
The only candidate that was talking about taking on these issues and has a track record of it lost the caucus because only 25% of the vote was people under 49. So talk about this and that but let the 49-70 crowd keep selecting police state socialist. Protest wall st and the fed but dont vote for the guy trying to abolish it!
@rayparker ....So you talk to Them, who is them?
You say they had no clue to way they where protesting, who are they?
You asked relevant question on corruption, the economy and politics and "they" failed.
You are a libertarian who is an expert at questioning people on relevant topics.
I think your self importance is all bullshit.
Libertarianism is a cult, see my previous post, you seem to me to be an ideological dimwit.
by the way you know me so well, is that you dad? ? ? Cant be must be a govt agent with all that knowledge or maybe a facebook employee? I found Mark Zuckerberg!
not even close to being a libertarian. Im a constitutional conservative but whats that have to do with OWS people I talked to being clueless? I tried to point them to the FED but they wanted to protest BOA cuz thats whos running shit. lol
@rayparker...What the fuck in a constitutional conservative, its a libertarian that's what.
Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party. A member of the Tea Party movement, he describes himself as a "constitutional conservative" and a libertarian.
I dont like Rand either
WoY is not a "front group" for anything. As one of the most prolific contributors to that forum, I can authoritatively say that we are a collection of discontented individuals who are unwilling to bend our expressed opinions to the will of the PTB. Yes, Libertarians do get fairly favorable treatment on our forum, but we will criticize anything we question or disagree with.
You hurl epithets without engaging in dialog on out forum. That is vapid tripe.
@valfather...You read my post on Libertarianism and I stand by it.
Almost all of the sites links are to Libertarian sites or survival groups.
The site in my opinion is for conspiratorial theorists or end times believers and militias.
antiwar.com is Libertarian, militia end-time? Of the sites linked, the following are the ones I can actually comment on. They constitute over half of the links. Yes, they often talk about "conspiracies". For example the conspiracy to dupe the American people into attacking Iran by cooking up bad intel in the Office of Special Plans. But the rest of you assertions are wildly off base. Don't let you prejudices conflict with the available evidence.
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.corbettreport.com/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.rense.com/
On top of all that, I was talking about the forum. Why don't you come over and participate? Tell us the errors of our ways, if you believe such exist.
@valfather.......Antiwar.com is a website devoted to opposing aggressive war, imperialism, and assaults on freedom associated with both. The editors describe their politics as libertarian.
On February 18, 1999, Antiwar.com won the "Conservative Site of the Day" award, from Enter Stage Right. Enter Stage Right is a conservative-libertarian magazine that has been publishing online since June 1, 1996.
The Randolph Bourne Institute seeks to honor his memory by promoting a non-interventionist foreign policy for the United States as the best way of fostering a peaceful, more prosperous world. It publishes the website Antiwar.com.
Bourne was greatly influenced by Horace Kallen's 1915 essay "Democracy Versus the Melting-Pot," and argued, like Kallen, that Americanism ought not to be associated with Anglo-Saxonism. In his 1916 article "Trans-National America," Bourne argued that the US should accommodate immigrant cultures into a "cosmopolitan America," instead of forcing immigrants to assimilate to Anglophilic culture.
The site was founded in December 1995, as a response to the Bosnian war. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, operating under the auspices of the Randolph Bourne Institute, based in Atherton, California. It was previously affiliated with the Center for Libertarian Studies and functioned before that as an independent, ad-supported endeavor.
"Guilt" by association is the worst you can do? And these are associations that I am not ashamed of. I (we) take a lot of divergent opinions into account. I still don't understand why you stand outside and throw stones rather than joining and engaging us directly?
@valfather...I'm a reasonable Person, I ask you, why would a reasonable person want to be involved with a cult......The obvious answer is they wouldn't.
A cult? Like Skull and Bones? WOY is not a cult.
@valfather...If its Libertarian it is a cult.
"If its Libertarian it is a cult." define "Cult". Koresh? Google for Mt Carmel and Koresh. "Koresh" was shooting live ammo with AFT agents on his property days prior to their assault on his home. I remember how the MSM played him out to be a white supremacist right-wing wacko. Strange thing is. The people who stood by him, and whom he stood by were majority non-white.
@valfater...Here is Libertarinism:
From proponents, you might be told
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk. In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.
To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion). But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.
Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized. Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships". In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.
Just to pick an example from one public exchange (directed to me)
Too complicated. All you need is one proposition: No person should initiate the use of force against another person.
All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."
So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions. This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.
Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.
My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism". The response: Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ... On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.
Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's an "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic". Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept. When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".
The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.
While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business. The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business". That's what what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals. The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals. The key to understanding this, and to understanding Libertarianism itself, is to realize that their concept of individual freedom is the "whopper" of "right to have the State back up business". That's a wild definition of freedom. If you voluntarily contract to sell all your future income for $1, they then oppose all government "interference" with your "right" to do this. It's a completely twisted, utterly inverted, perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly "Freedom is Slavery".
This is not at all obvious or what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms. This point about contract and Libertarianism needs to be stressed. Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions. But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right. It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".
would your name happen to be sane or digg or S perhaps? you really do love to copy and paste the same thing.
Na. Too coherent for "Sane/Digg". But if the ol'boy wants to promote his Libertarianism, why not just do it overtly? I hope he doesn't expect me to jump up and don the Libertarian gauntlet. I'm a dyed in the wool anti-ismist.
@syvenn...What part of my post do you object to, or are you a random critic of methodology.
I just want to know if you're an israeli suck up from the prisonplanet.com forums. Either way you seem to have an agenda. Obviously that huge long thing is not your work, you're merely parroting what you've read. God help us if we think for ourselves, huh?
@syvenn...Exactly what part of my post is troubling to you? Is it not true in its entirety?, are some parts false?. Or is the truth hard to handle.
You easily make accusation with no facts to back them up, prove your accusations or shut the fuck up.