In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I could type a dozen paragraphs here but I don't have the time. Do any of you "truthers" have any idea how long it takes to prep a skyscraper for demolition? Not to mention the amount of people needed? How about the literal MILES of det cord that would be required. Thats when you're doing it in the open with the cords running down the middle of hallways. To do it all hidden with nothing exposed? It's not like hollywood where you just slap an explosive on the wall. There are thousands measurements to be made. Also alot of cutting.
Don't you think it's weird that the collapse of both towers began exactly where the planes impacted? Hmmm? How would the "demo experts" know exactly where the planes would hit?
The only "weird" thing I find in the whole affair is where are the "black boxes"? I find it hard to believe they weren't recovered.
quote:Originally posted by wpage
Buildings collapsed down because that entire area is built over a major NYC subway transfer link. There is a cavernous junction of two major New York subway systems that junction under ground 0...
When it went down it keep going and going and cratered some other things including the foundations of building 7 with it.
Pure fantasy that not even the official coverup artists would try and slip by us.
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
I could type a dozen paragraphs here but I don't have the time. Do any of you "truthers" have any idea how long it takes to prep a skyscraper for demolition? Not to mention the amount of people needed? How about the literal MILES of det cord that would be required. Thats when you're doing it in the open with the cords running down the middle of hallways. To do it all hidden with nothing exposed? It's not like hollywood where you just slap an explosive on the wall. There are thousands measurements to be made. Also alot of cutting.
Don't you think it's weird that the collapse of both towers began exactly where the planes impacted? Hmmm? How would the "demo experts" know exactly where the planes would hit?
The only "weird" thing I find in the whole affair is where are the "black boxes"? I find it hard to believe they weren't recovered.
Jev.....Can you tell me one way it could be done without detcord?
Having been to ground zero be assured its no fantacy that what we saw with our own eyes is what happened. The monday morning quarterbacks and unquiet minds can conjer up false images for gulible minds...
Boeing 747's loaded with real American citizens and full payloads of fuel were delibritly crashed into the towers. The subsequent inferno caused structural failures that crashed it down.
Tremendous physical forces effected underground and nearby structures.
Take a trip to NYC and see for yourself. Its not rocket science.
While you are there take the subway downtown and visit the totally rebuilt station under ground zero. You will begin to understand the scope of the situation. In real time.
[/quote]Jev.....Can you tell me one way it could be done without detcord?
[/quote]
Are you hinting at remote detonation? The logistics (and dangers) would be even more complicated. Even without det cord you would still be required to cut numerous holes in the walls to get to the load bearing supports. Even after that there is more to it then just slapping an explosive to it. There are measurments and each charge would have to be specifically tailored for the individual support it was attached to. Plus, in order to make it somewhat appear as a plane took the building down you would need to know where the EXACT point of impact was going to be. That is where the buildings collapse began. Even with all of that there would be dozens if not hundreds of quite visible explosions as the supports blew BEFORE the building came down. These explosions would be throughout the entire building and on all sides.
Watch a video of a controlled demolition. The entire building just slides down. It doesnt start in the middle the way the twin towers did.
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by wpage
Having been to ground zero be assured its no fantacy that what we saw with our own eyes is what happened. The monday morning quarterbacks and unquiet minds can conjer up false images for gulible minds...
Boeing 747's loaded with real American citizens and full payloads of fuel were delibritly crashed into the towers. The subsequent inferno caused structural failures that crashed it down. They were not 747's
Tremendous physical forces effected underground and nearby structures.Bldgs 3,4,5,and 6 were closer and were more severely damaged and yet they did not suffer an abnormal global and symmetrical collapse.
Take a trip to NYC and see for yourself. Its not rocket science.
While you are there take the subway downtown and visit the totally rebuilt station under ground zero. You will begin to understand the scope of the situation. In real time.
I spent 8 days there and my neice was a first responder and I am not satisfied with the official coverup.
I'm gonna take a break till after christmas. Some things you can look up about this topic are Ace Elevator Company who had access to the core columns beginning in march of '01. The security company that posted men on every accessable floor, and who was on the chairman of the board of said security company. Each to his own gentlemen but I for one do not believe that 2 planes took down 3 buildings. Something was afoot that day and it still stinks.
I am with you on this steve, there are just too many suspicious circumstances surrounding the whole 9/11 towers incident that leaves too many serious un-answered questions.
However if others really want to arbitrarily dismiss them then that's their prerogative although some of us know better and aren't going to settle for another 'warren commission' style bunch of nonsense as the sheeple do.
Its this same tried and true tactic of the gov-beast of course which is how they attempted to smoke screen their way through this and every other suspicious incident explaining it away, including but definitely not limited to such tragedies as twa-800, the USS Liberty and a host of other occurrences.
Another part of this same playbook are the smear campaigns that they run against those that don't get in line with their will; persons such as Gordon Kahl, Randy Weaver, David Koresh as well as others.
quote:Originally posted by StoBtruppen
I am with you on this steve, there are just too many suspicious circumstances surrounding the whole 9/11 towers incident that leaves too many serious un-answered questions.
However if others really want to arbitrarily dismiss them then that's their prerogative although some of us know better and aren't going to settle for another 'warren commission' style bunch of nonsense as the sheeple do.
Its this same tried and true tactic of the gov-beast of course which is how they attempted to smoke screen their way through this and every other suspicious incident explaining it away, including but definitely not limited to such tragedies as twa-800, the USS Liberty and a host of other occurrences.
Another part of this same playbook are the smear campaigns that they run against those that don't get in line with their will; persons such as Gordon Kahl, Randy Weaver, David Koresh as well as others.
Fully understand, StoBtruppen, though also fully disagree regarding the events of 11 September, 2001.
There are many of us with a technical background that seeing upon seeing what you saw, did some research, read the reports, and came to the considered conclusion that it was in fact two 767s flying a 400+ knots with a fuel load that would take them to California that caused the damage to and eventual collapse of the structures in question. The collapse of the two towers is an obvious cause and effect, and the design of the structures dictated the collapse sequence in exactly the manner as determined. Building 7, though entirely different in structure and in the manner in which it collapsed, remained a question in my mind until after the NIST Report. Upon reading that report, there was no longer any questions.
Indeed something was afoot. A failed intelligence system, and an attempt to cover-up the institutional failures is a given. The stench remains regarding the cover up and diversion from this simple fact and the enormous amount of time, money and effort our government invested in the distortion/diversion.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I realize all of that as well as the technicalities and the nomenclature involved here including but not limited to the physics of high impact projectiles, fuels and explosives.
I know that this whole thing seems like and sounds like a stretch of the imagination however so did some of the other occurrences.
I also understand that we have a very underhanded government that will stop at nothing to control, dominate, and manipulate as many as they can and wouldn't put this or anything else past them to twist in a malevolent way to make it look like this was nothing more than a terrorist action.
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
Truthers = BS!!![;)]
Correct me if I am wrong Jim but IIRC you are also the man who thinks Palin has what it takes? You are on shaky ground to be accusing others of BS.
The 9/11 naysayers also believe that there was no advanced warning of Pearl Harbor, that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, that the USS Liberty was an accident, that TWA-800 was an accident, that the Clinton Body Count is a coincidence. That we are not in the Middle East for oil, that Gordon Khal, Randy Weaver and David Koresh were not innocent, that the 9/11 terrorist attacks had absolutely no government involvement and that these people acted alone; and this is to name just a few, however all of this couldn't be further from the truth.
These same individuals also believe that they are Patriots to the Constitution and the Republic and that the nra and the government support our rights; that is whats bs.
I believe that HighBall has identified and labeled these individuals enough for all to see and so everyone knows who they really are.
quote:Originally posted by StoBtruppen
The 9/11 naysayers also believe that there was no advanced warning of Pearl Harbor, that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, that the USS Liberty was an accident, that TWA-800 was an accident, that the Clinton Body Count is a coincidence. That we are not in the Middle East for oil, that Gordon Khal, Randy Weaver and David Koresh were not innocent, that the 9/11 terrorist attacks had absolutely no government involvement and that these people acted alone; and this is to name just a few, however all of this couldn't be further from the truth.
These same individuals also believe that they are Patriots to the Constitution and the Republic and that the nra and the government support our rights; that is whats bs.
I believe that HighBall has identified and labeled these individuals enough for all to see and so everyone knows who they really are.
No,
Probably,
Maybe,
Yes,
Probably,
No,
No,
Yes,
Try to Be,
and,
No.
For anyone to come down on the establishment side of all of or none of the items in your list suggests a predisposition vis-a-vis government that supersedes independent thought, discernment, and analysis of the individual events or concepts.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by StoBtruppen
Hmm, well that is disappointing to say the least, but to each their own I guess...
All I am saying, StoBtruppen, is that I believe you to have painted with too broad a brush. Government is corrupt, and those involved in it are corrupt, but not every result of its actions necessarily corrupt.
What was done to Weaver and Koresh should have resulted in Jail time instead of promotions, Pearl Harbor was expected though not specifically forewarned. TWA-800 was an accident, though would have been prevented had the FAA, TWA, and Boeing insisted upon replacing the fuel pump wiring as was done with AF-1, and thus was also expected, but they all gambled with the lives of citizens, and those citizens lost. The cover up and distortion of the USS Liberty incident, and the cover up of failures leading up to the 11 September, 2001 attacks do not necessarily bestow premeditation by the Israelis or the the U.S. Government respectively, but they do serve to reduce what little trust in government may remain.
Yes, to each his own. To suggest that anyone who does not subscribe in lock-step to one's beliefs is an addle-brained big-government sychophant is missing the mark. Likewise, I would not suggest that a person who has researched all of these incidents and come to conclusions that differ from mine are always blinded by distrust.
My point, I guess, is that an all-or-nothing result generically will suggest a closed mind, though it is certainly not definitive. Skicat, for example is, in my mind, a person who has looked at the results of the 11 September attacks, did his homework, and arrived at a different conclusion than did I. I believe him to be wrong, but I also believe him to have studied the issue. From the tone of your postings to-date, I would assume you to be in that same category.
All the best,
Don
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
I'm gonna take a break till after christmas. Some things you can look up about this topic are Ace Elevator Company who had access to the core columns beginning in march of '01. The security company that posted men on every accessable floor, and who was on the chairman of the board of said security company. Each to his own gentlemen but I for one do not believe that 2 planes took down 3 buildings. Something was afoot that day and it still stinks.
Steve, enjoy your break and the holidays. Look forward to future posts, those listed here have sparked much debate and forced many to do some research.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
Truthers = BS!!![;)]
Correct me if I am wrong Jim but IIRC you are also the man who thinks Palin has what it takes? You are on shaky ground to be accusing others of BS.
Do you personally know Palin?????? If not you are the one who who lacks the credibility to comment on any of this!!!! So the BS is from you, not me. How much demolition experience do you have??? Once again, the BS is from you not me.
If I am wrong about your experience in these areas enlighten me please![;)]
There is much corruption and lots of BS. The Easter Bunny seems as likely a suspect as our Gov in taking down the Towers and other downtown NYC structures...
Like the Kennedy killings and other conspiracy theories. Hollywood psycho's and other scary dreamers will come up with nightmares from bad trips to fool theirs & other simple minds.
The only individuals that believe otherwise that NO conspiracies have taken place are those that are besotted and nescient liberal antis that willingly serve the government and are completely closed minded and unaware of what goes on around them and I want nothing to do with that.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
Truthers = BS!!![;)]
Correct me if I am wrong Jim but IIRC you are also the man who thinks Palin has what it takes? You are on shaky ground to be accusing others of BS.
Do you personally know Palin?????? If not you are the one who who lacks the credibility to comment on any of this!!!! So the BS is from you, not me. How much demolition experience do you have??? Once again, the BS is from you not me.
If I am wrong about your experience in these areas enlighten me please![;)]
Jim I don't need to know Palin personally. I have listened to her speak in public forums where everybody does their best and strives to put their best foot forward. She repeatedly falls short of even my meager expectations of political credentials. I did not bring this up to hijack this thread into another rundown of Palin's qualifications or lack thereof.
Opinions are next to useless which is why I assiduously stay away from them when addressing the events of 9-11. My sarcastic reference to Palin was to serve to remind you that your "opinion" of the validity of the arguments objecting to the official conspiracy theory is no more concrete than your subjective opinion of Palin.
Jim You are not alone in your objections to the theory that controlled demolition was utilized to bring down the three buildings on 9-11. You are in the group who has some technical knowledge and an understanding of the complexity involved in pulling off an event like this. You and others like you limit your examination and stop looking for answers at the first unanswered stumbling block. You want to know how the crime was committed before the investigation starts. You would make a very poor detective. You are also pathetically unaware that many of your objections have been explained to the point where a reasonable person would conclude there is merit in continuing the examination.
If you can tell me what the importance of the testimony , given by Meneta to the 911 Commission ,regarding Dick Cheney's irregular behavior in the bunker that morning was then I will revise my opinion of the amount of "homework" you have done. For extra validation of your expertise in deciding that no further investigation needs to be done on the events surrounding 9-11 perhaps you can tell me what testimony and evidence was NOT included in the 911 Commission Report and why.
The way the buildings came down that day is only one of the clues that more than some terrorists in hijacked planes were in play that day. You have to look at the whole picture and then tell me what you think. I am sorry if I come across as "pissy" in some of my responses but I came into this as a skeptic and I will not be belittled or dismissed by people who I know,by the level of their responses, have not done even minimal research.
Sky,
My resonances to your opinions are bases in reality, not speculation. I am one who looks at the probability, NOT THE POSSIBILITY. Possibility is for idealists and conspiracy theorists.
You think you can make a better assessment about the character and abilities of Palin than someone who knows her personally. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of her from what LITTLE you know of her. I am simply informing you of your fallacy.
As for the probability of the attack being an inside, pre planned, demolition job, it is off the charts improbably, but that does not stop people from trying to make something out of nothing.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Sky,
My resonances to your opinions are bases in reality, not speculation. I am one who looks at the probability, NOT THE POSSIBILITY. Possibility is for idealists and conspiracy theorists.
You think you can make a better assessment about the character and abilities of Palin than someone who knows her personally. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of her from what LITTLE you know of her. I am simply informing you of your fallacy.
As for the probability of the attack being an inside, pre planned, demolition job, it is off the charts improbably, but that does not stop people from trying to make something out of nothing.
Jim you have still offered no concrete objection or verification that you have probed the events of 9-11 past the regurgitated official sound bites. I suspect the same care and consideration was given to your endorsement of S. Palin. What I know of Palin is what she chose to offer to the public. In the words of Jed Clampett........piiit...eeee....fulll!
Originally posted by Jim Rau
Sky,
My resonances to your opinions are bases in reality, not speculation. I am one who looks at the probability, NOT THE POSSIBILITY. Possibility is for idealists and conspiracy theorists.
You think you can make a better assessment about the character and abilities of Palin than someone who knows her personally. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of her from what LITTLE you know of her. I am simply informing you of your fallacy.
As for the probability of the attack being an inside, pre planned, demolition job, it is off the charts improbably, but that does not stop people from trying to make something out of nothing.
Jim you have still offered no concrete objection or verification that you have probed the events of 9-11 past the regurgitated official sound bites. I suspect the same care and consideration was given to your endorsement of S. Palin. What I know of Palin is what she chose to offer to the public. In the words of Jed Clampett........piiit...eeee....fulll!
A safety drill at a Warner Springs school intended to prepare students and school administrators for a gunman on campus is causing some concern for parents.
The active shooter drill will take place this week at Warner Springs School while students are in class. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department wants to make the drill as realistic as possible, which is why parents are so worried.
"I'm sure [the drill] is going to terrify them," said mother Tawnya Pitman, She has a 3-year-old son named Zayden at Warner Springs School.
A Sheriff's deputy told 10News that a former law enforcement agent will pose as a gunman running through the campus, which has students ranging from preschool to high school.
The agent will also fire several shots from a cap gun or starter pistol. Pitman and her husband believe that's where the drill goes too far.
"You don't need to have someone running around the school with a gun," said Pitman, who learned about the drill in a voicemail from the Warner Springs School District. "What kid needs to see that? There's enough drama in most of these kids' lives, [so] why go to school and make it worse?"
The Sheriff's Department said the drill is to prepare student for real-life shootings like the one in September at Kelly Elementary School in Carlsbad.
Pitman said she feels her 3-year-old is too young to be exposed to gunshots.
"Hear gunshots? That can't be a comforting sound," she said.
She said she planned to keep Zayden home the day the drill took place, but she said because the school district won#146;t tell her exactly when the scenario will happen, she plans to keep him home the rest of the week.
Pitman showed 10News a Facebook post about the drill with messages from more than a dozen other parents also worried and angry about the school shooting simulation. She believes the drill can be just as effective without a weapon
Copyright 2010 by 10News.com. All rights reserved.
The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.
The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:
Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?
These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."
Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.
Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"
Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.
Youtube has admitted to freezing the viewcount on a viral video of Vice President Joe Biden that highlights the hypocrisy of the Obama administration as it engages in military aggression against Libya.
The video (below) dates from 2007 and shows Biden, then preparing for a presidential run, appearing on the Chris Matthews show on MSNBC.
In the video Biden is asked if he sticks by comments that bombing Iranian interests without Congressional approval would be an impeachable offense, to which he replies he absolutely does.
The video was posted at the top of The Drudge Report earlier today, a website that conservatively receives 36 million visits per day, making it the most highly ranked news website on the web.
Under the headline Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden, the video has been drawing thousands of hits as viewers have drawn the comparison to the subversion of Congressional authority by Biden and Obama via US involvement in UN sanctioned attacks on pro-Gaddafi forces and buildings.
While such activity would normally send the video to the top of searches and to the front pages of Youtube.com, where many millions more would see it, the viewcount on the video is stuck firmly at just 301 views.
Suspecting foul play, CNS News contacted Youtube to seek an explanation and received the following reply:
"YouTube employs proprietary technology to prevent the artificial inflation of a video's viewcount by spam bots, malware and other means," said the statement. "We validate views to ensure the accuracy of the viewcount of all videos beginning with the first view. This validation process becomes publicly visible when the viewcount reaches 300."
"At this point, the viewcount may slow or temporarily freeze until we have time to verify that all further views are legitimate," said the statement. "Rest assured that the views system is working as intended, and that the viewcount will update as soon as the system has verified the legitimacy of the views."
Or as soon as the link on Drudge is removed and people stop clicking through to the video perhaps?
We wouldn't want Americans to understand that the action in Libya is completely unconstitutional and represents a violation of the oath that both Biden and Obama swore to protect.
Perhaps Obama and Biden put in a call to their soon to be Commerce czar, the outgoing Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Google is, of course, the parent company of Youtube.
In another video dating from 2007, Biden explains that at the time then president Bush was considering military action against Iranian nuclear facilities he sought expert opinion from five leading constitutional scholars. Biden says he had them draft a treatise outlining beyond a shadow of doubt that engagement in an act of military aggression without any authority from Congress is an impeachable offense: Sen Joe Biden: Iran and Impeachment
Where are those constitutional scholars and where is that treatise now?
In 2007, Obama also made the exact same comments as Biden, noting that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"
"As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law." Obama also stated.
I guess things are different when you've got an election to win.
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones' Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Lawsuit Filed To Protect Themselves from Unfair Patent Enforcement on Genetically Modified Seed
Action Would Prohibit Biotechnology Giant from Suing Organic Farmers and Seed Growers If Innocently Contaminated by Roundup Ready Genes
NEW York: On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company challenging the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.
Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States and Canada, in the past, when there are patented genetic material has inadvertently contaminated their crops.
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.
"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed or pollen should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients."
Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed can contaminate and destroy organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually impossible to grow as a result of contamination.
Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa also face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops as well.
Monsanto is currently developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.
"Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now," stated Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. "Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families."
"Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute, one of the plaintiffs. "Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington."
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the "usefulness" requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, the plaintiffs' lead attorney in the case.
"Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed - increased production and decreased herbicide use - are false," added Ravicher who is also a Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
Ravicher continued, "Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply," said Ravicher. "Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not."
The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm's Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC; Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature's Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.
MORE:
Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) said, "Consumers indicate, overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without genetically modified organisms. Organic farms, by regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers forego using them for other reasons. Yet the truth is that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point when we will be unable to avoid GMOs in our fields and on our plates. That is the inevitable consequence of releasing genetically engineered materials into the environment. To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a history of suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs. On behalf of farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty and risk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an end to this unconscionable business practice."
Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California Cloverleaf Farms said, "The devastation caused by GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation. Nature, farming and health are all being affected by GMO contamination. We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty. People must have the right to the resources of the earth for our sustenance. We must have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the environment or to other people. We must protect the environment, farmers' livelihood, public health and people's right to non GMO food contamination."
Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association based in Montrose, Colorado, said, "Today is Independence Day for America. Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice. Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families
- and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose. Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops for our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto's genetic contamination and without harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food."
Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) said, "It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation where the financial burden of GE contamination will fall on family farmers who have not asked for or contributed to the growth of GE crops. Family farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as organically certified or into the rapidly growing `Buy Local' market where consumers have overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement. We take this action to protect family farms who once again have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions by Monsanto."
David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA Vermont said, "Vermont's farmers have worked hard to meet consumers' growing demand for certified organic and non-GE food. It is of great concern to them that Monsanto's continuing and irresponsible marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE plantings will increasingly place their local and regional markets at risk and threaten their livelihoods."
Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, "For organic certification, farmers are required to have a buffer zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested from this buffer zone are not eligible for certification due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift. Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for cross-pollination contamination."
Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living Systems in Victor, Montana, said, "The building blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public domain. If scientists want to study and manipulate them for some supposed common good, fine. Then we must remove the profit motive. The private profit motive corrupts pure science and increasingly precludes democratic participation."
David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, "None of Monsanto's original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto's patented genes can blow onto another farmer's fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto's team of belligerent lawyers. Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and biologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy."
Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, "We need the court system to offset this power and protect individual farmers from corporate tyranny. Farmers have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by our species. It is outrageous that one corporate entity, through the trespass of what they refer to as their `technology,' can intimidate and run roughshod over family farmers in this country. It should be the responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland. It is outrageous, that through no fault of their own, farmers are being intimidated into not saving seed for fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the court system and potentially bankrupted."
Good question. I dug for a bit but did not find an official soundbite or statement. Guess when you're that big you don't have to respond. I will follow this for future posts. steve
Veteran broadcast journalist Lou Dobbs has scolded Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's open threat that the US may default on it's debt should Republicans in Congress refuse to raise the debt ceiling, noting that the statement is akin to financial terrorism.
Appearing on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones show last Friday, Dobbs expressed disgust over Geithner's statements to Congress last week, and called for more scrutiny from watchdog groups and the national media.
"Our Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is somewhat limited in his outlook towards the consequences of a decision that would be taken not to raise the debt ceiling." Dobbs told Jones.
"He has a relatively either limited knowledge of banking itself, or of the role of the federal government when it comes to the Treasury Department." he added.
"Default is not a requisite or a logical conclusion to not raising the debt ceiling. There are choices to be made by the administration should the congress elect not to raise the debt ceiling. None of those decisions require default, and anyone who says that it does is utterly and completely mistaken." Dobbs continued.
The trailblazing journalist, now hosting a regular nightly show on Fox Business after leaving his long running post at CNN, had more stark words for Geithner and the officials around him at the Treasury.
"Not a single person that I respect with a knowledge of finance, public or corporate, would support their view."
"I think any time a public official and a servant of the American people stands up in Washington DC and says that armageddon is the result of a public policy choice that is not the one they desire, everyone in the national media should be skeptical and point out that position and where it stands historically." Dobbs said.
During the interview, Dobbs also spoke of his concern over a move toward global governance at the expense of national sovereignty by both political parties in America.
"I make no apology for being an American who is concerned first and foremost with Americans and America, it's that straight forward." Dobbs said.
"My great concern in all of this over the years has been, aside from my position on any of these developments, to ensure my audience understands that when we make a deal with the United Nations, when we sign on to the World Trade Organization, when we're part of NATO, we are at some margin, at some level and in some cases at an extreme level, consigning away this nation's sovereignty. We are deferring national interests to a broader interest, whether it be a European interest, whether it be a global interest, or whether it be an Asian interest, it doesn't matter." he added.
"Our leaders and the elite have on too many occasions, sought to understate that reality, and to act and pretend that there is no consequence or implication for the well being of the American people or the national interest."
"So when we start talking about the elites that are, if you will, not necessarily conspiring, but acting as if they were in a collusion, in concert to create a North American Union, it's an empirical statement, it's based on fact," Dobbs added. "It's not a question of ideology, it's not a question of philosophy or partisanship."
"What we are seeing in some instances is an effort on the part of a group of elites worldwide, who wish to bring about a one world order. It may not particularly be a new world order, since the effort has been underway for some time." Dobbs stated.
Dobbs also rounded on the national media for working "as not only a willing, but an eager accomplice" to this agenda.
"We need watchdogs on our estate and not lapdogs." Dobbs said, adding, "This great constitutional Republic is utterly dependent on an informed citizenry. And an engaged and participatory citizenry. What is occurring now is a constraint of information."
"One would think that given the internet, all of the various media and all the vehicles of communication, that American citizens would be better informed than ever. But in point of fact we know less today than we did 50 years ago about what our government is doing. And the reasons for it are many, but among them has been a decision among elites, and by the way I'm talking about both political parties in one way or another being involved, in an effort to simply preside rather than to represent, and to do so with a view that they are somehow ordained to lead, rather than being dependent on the consent of the governed."
Dobbs also gave his views on the military action in Libya, the possible presidential run by Donald Trump, Ron paul and more.
follow the link at top for video.
video is an interview with Dobbs and Alex Jones, not Geithner, sorry.
I don't even know where to start this week. If I here one more mention of a wedding, I'm blowing my top. One more birther issue. I mean really, we are being inundated with some real crap lately. It would be a neat start if we "the people" took back our news channels. Just a thought. Wish I had something better than a rant. Post
Glad to see you back and posting! Remember, fighting an infowar is best done from a position of strength so take care of yourself and your family first. We are not capable of mentally digesting all the negative scheming of the elite every day without it starting to sicken us. Your family,friends, and community are your best antibiotic against that sort of ill so guard them well first. Most of my friends were sheep. Many still are, but not all of them. Small progress is good enough as none of us is in this alone.
Comments
steveaustin will believe anything he reads on the internet.
Film at eleven.
Don't you think it's weird that the collapse of both towers began exactly where the planes impacted? Hmmm? How would the "demo experts" know exactly where the planes would hit?
The only "weird" thing I find in the whole affair is where are the "black boxes"? I find it hard to believe they weren't recovered.
Buildings collapsed down because that entire area is built over a major NYC subway transfer link. There is a cavernous junction of two major New York subway systems that junction under ground 0...
When it went down it keep going and going and cratered some other things including the foundations of building 7 with it.
Pure fantasy that not even the official coverup artists would try and slip by us.
I could type a dozen paragraphs here but I don't have the time. Do any of you "truthers" have any idea how long it takes to prep a skyscraper for demolition? Not to mention the amount of people needed? How about the literal MILES of det cord that would be required. Thats when you're doing it in the open with the cords running down the middle of hallways. To do it all hidden with nothing exposed? It's not like hollywood where you just slap an explosive on the wall. There are thousands measurements to be made. Also alot of cutting.
Don't you think it's weird that the collapse of both towers began exactly where the planes impacted? Hmmm? How would the "demo experts" know exactly where the planes would hit?
The only "weird" thing I find in the whole affair is where are the "black boxes"? I find it hard to believe they weren't recovered.
Jev.....Can you tell me one way it could be done without detcord?
Boeing 747's loaded with real American citizens and full payloads of fuel were delibritly crashed into the towers. The subsequent inferno caused structural failures that crashed it down.
Tremendous physical forces effected underground and nearby structures.
Take a trip to NYC and see for yourself. Its not rocket science.
While you are there take the subway downtown and visit the totally rebuilt station under ground zero. You will begin to understand the scope of the situation. In real time.
[/quote]
Are you hinting at remote detonation? The logistics (and dangers) would be even more complicated. Even without det cord you would still be required to cut numerous holes in the walls to get to the load bearing supports. Even after that there is more to it then just slapping an explosive to it. There are measurments and each charge would have to be specifically tailored for the individual support it was attached to. Plus, in order to make it somewhat appear as a plane took the building down you would need to know where the EXACT point of impact was going to be. That is where the buildings collapse began. Even with all of that there would be dozens if not hundreds of quite visible explosions as the supports blew BEFORE the building came down. These explosions would be throughout the entire building and on all sides.
Watch a video of a controlled demolition. The entire building just slides down. It doesnt start in the middle the way the twin towers did.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
Having been to ground zero be assured its no fantacy that what we saw with our own eyes is what happened. The monday morning quarterbacks and unquiet minds can conjer up false images for gulible minds...
Boeing 747's loaded with real American citizens and full payloads of fuel were delibritly crashed into the towers. The subsequent inferno caused structural failures that crashed it down. They were not 747's
Tremendous physical forces effected underground and nearby structures.Bldgs 3,4,5,and 6 were closer and were more severely damaged and yet they did not suffer an abnormal global and symmetrical collapse.
Take a trip to NYC and see for yourself. Its not rocket science.
While you are there take the subway downtown and visit the totally rebuilt station under ground zero. You will begin to understand the scope of the situation. In real time.
I spent 8 days there and my neice was a first responder and I am not satisfied with the official coverup.
However if others really want to arbitrarily dismiss them then that's their prerogative although some of us know better and aren't going to settle for another 'warren commission' style bunch of nonsense as the sheeple do.
Its this same tried and true tactic of the gov-beast of course which is how they attempted to smoke screen their way through this and every other suspicious incident explaining it away, including but definitely not limited to such tragedies as twa-800, the USS Liberty and a host of other occurrences.
Another part of this same playbook are the smear campaigns that they run against those that don't get in line with their will; persons such as Gordon Kahl, Randy Weaver, David Koresh as well as others.
I am with you on this steve, there are just too many suspicious circumstances surrounding the whole 9/11 towers incident that leaves too many serious un-answered questions.
However if others really want to arbitrarily dismiss them then that's their prerogative although some of us know better and aren't going to settle for another 'warren commission' style bunch of nonsense as the sheeple do.
Its this same tried and true tactic of the gov-beast of course which is how they attempted to smoke screen their way through this and every other suspicious incident explaining it away, including but definitely not limited to such tragedies as twa-800, the USS Liberty and a host of other occurrences.
Another part of this same playbook are the smear campaigns that they run against those that don't get in line with their will; persons such as Gordon Kahl, Randy Weaver, David Koresh as well as others.
Fully understand, StoBtruppen, though also fully disagree regarding the events of 11 September, 2001.
There are many of us with a technical background that seeing upon seeing what you saw, did some research, read the reports, and came to the considered conclusion that it was in fact two 767s flying a 400+ knots with a fuel load that would take them to California that caused the damage to and eventual collapse of the structures in question. The collapse of the two towers is an obvious cause and effect, and the design of the structures dictated the collapse sequence in exactly the manner as determined. Building 7, though entirely different in structure and in the manner in which it collapsed, remained a question in my mind until after the NIST Report. Upon reading that report, there was no longer any questions.
Indeed something was afoot. A failed intelligence system, and an attempt to cover-up the institutional failures is a given. The stench remains regarding the cover up and diversion from this simple fact and the enormous amount of time, money and effort our government invested in the distortion/diversion.
Brad Steele
I know that this whole thing seems like and sounds like a stretch of the imagination however so did some of the other occurrences.
I also understand that we have a very underhanded government that will stop at nothing to control, dominate, and manipulate as many as they can and wouldn't put this or anything else past them to twist in a malevolent way to make it look like this was nothing more than a terrorist action.
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
Truthers = BS!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
Truthers = BS!!![;)]
Correct me if I am wrong Jim but IIRC you are also the man who thinks Palin has what it takes? You are on shaky ground to be accusing others of BS.
These same individuals also believe that they are Patriots to the Constitution and the Republic and that the nra and the government support our rights; that is whats bs.
I believe that HighBall has identified and labeled these individuals enough for all to see and so everyone knows who they really are.
The 9/11 naysayers also believe that there was no advanced warning of Pearl Harbor, that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, that the USS Liberty was an accident, that TWA-800 was an accident, that the Clinton Body Count is a coincidence. That we are not in the Middle East for oil, that Gordon Khal, Randy Weaver and David Koresh were not innocent, that the 9/11 terrorist attacks had absolutely no government involvement and that these people acted alone; and this is to name just a few, however all of this couldn't be further from the truth.
These same individuals also believe that they are Patriots to the Constitution and the Republic and that the nra and the government support our rights; that is whats bs.
I believe that HighBall has identified and labeled these individuals enough for all to see and so everyone knows who they really are.
No,
Probably,
Maybe,
Yes,
Probably,
No,
No,
Yes,
Try to Be,
and,
No.
For anyone to come down on the establishment side of all of or none of the items in your list suggests a predisposition vis-a-vis government that supersedes independent thought, discernment, and analysis of the individual events or concepts.
Brad Steele
Hmm, well that is disappointing to say the least, but to each their own I guess...
All I am saying, StoBtruppen, is that I believe you to have painted with too broad a brush. Government is corrupt, and those involved in it are corrupt, but not every result of its actions necessarily corrupt.
What was done to Weaver and Koresh should have resulted in Jail time instead of promotions, Pearl Harbor was expected though not specifically forewarned. TWA-800 was an accident, though would have been prevented had the FAA, TWA, and Boeing insisted upon replacing the fuel pump wiring as was done with AF-1, and thus was also expected, but they all gambled with the lives of citizens, and those citizens lost. The cover up and distortion of the USS Liberty incident, and the cover up of failures leading up to the 11 September, 2001 attacks do not necessarily bestow premeditation by the Israelis or the the U.S. Government respectively, but they do serve to reduce what little trust in government may remain.
Yes, to each his own. To suggest that anyone who does not subscribe in lock-step to one's beliefs is an addle-brained big-government sychophant is missing the mark. Likewise, I would not suggest that a person who has researched all of these incidents and come to conclusions that differ from mine are always blinded by distrust.
My point, I guess, is that an all-or-nothing result generically will suggest a closed mind, though it is certainly not definitive. Skicat, for example is, in my mind, a person who has looked at the results of the 11 September attacks, did his homework, and arrived at a different conclusion than did I. I believe him to be wrong, but I also believe him to have studied the issue. From the tone of your postings to-date, I would assume you to be in that same category.
All the best,
Don
Brad Steele
I'm gonna take a break till after christmas. Some things you can look up about this topic are Ace Elevator Company who had access to the core columns beginning in march of '01. The security company that posted men on every accessable floor, and who was on the chairman of the board of said security company. Each to his own gentlemen but I for one do not believe that 2 planes took down 3 buildings. Something was afoot that day and it still stinks.
Steve, enjoy your break and the holidays. Look forward to future posts, those listed here have sparked much debate and forced many to do some research.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
Truthers = BS!!![;)]
Correct me if I am wrong Jim but IIRC you are also the man who thinks Palin has what it takes? You are on shaky ground to be accusing others of BS.
Do you personally know Palin?????? If not you are the one who who lacks the credibility to comment on any of this!!!! So the BS is from you, not me. How much demolition experience do you have??? Once again, the BS is from you not me.
If I am wrong about your experience in these areas enlighten me please![;)]
Like the Kennedy killings and other conspiracy theories. Hollywood psycho's and other scary dreamers will come up with nightmares from bad trips to fool theirs & other simple minds.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by jev1969
If someone really wants to know if the twin towers were brought down by explosives here is what you do: Find a demo expert who has demolished a skyscraper before. Ask him how many hours and men it would take to bring down two 100 story plus buildings. Then tell him it would have to be done completely in secret. The buildings would be crawling with thousands of people everyday. Nobody could witness the explosives being placed. Nobody could be able to see the explosives after they were placed. There could be no cutting into walls or ceilings. The buildings would have to start collapsing from the middle at a point to be determined 20 minutes before demolition was to begin. Oh yeah and no explosions can be witnessed from outside the building.
After your demo expert responds come tell me if you think explosives brought the twin towers down.[;)]
I have never brought down a skyscraper, but I have used tons of C-4, Flex-X, and thousands of feet of det cord and you are right on. The truth is it is not possible to have brought down those buildings with internally placed charges with out any visible sighs of the material or the process. Not to mention, if there were these 'charges' in place when the planes hit the buildings it would have, in all probability:
1. Detonated on impact or;
2. Disrupted the the demolition to where the charges would malfunction.
Truthers = BS!!![;)]
Correct me if I am wrong Jim but IIRC you are also the man who thinks Palin has what it takes? You are on shaky ground to be accusing others of BS.
Do you personally know Palin?????? If not you are the one who who lacks the credibility to comment on any of this!!!! So the BS is from you, not me. How much demolition experience do you have??? Once again, the BS is from you not me.
If I am wrong about your experience in these areas enlighten me please![;)]
Jim I don't need to know Palin personally. I have listened to her speak in public forums where everybody does their best and strives to put their best foot forward. She repeatedly falls short of even my meager expectations of political credentials. I did not bring this up to hijack this thread into another rundown of Palin's qualifications or lack thereof.
Opinions are next to useless which is why I assiduously stay away from them when addressing the events of 9-11. My sarcastic reference to Palin was to serve to remind you that your "opinion" of the validity of the arguments objecting to the official conspiracy theory is no more concrete than your subjective opinion of Palin.
Jim You are not alone in your objections to the theory that controlled demolition was utilized to bring down the three buildings on 9-11. You are in the group who has some technical knowledge and an understanding of the complexity involved in pulling off an event like this. You and others like you limit your examination and stop looking for answers at the first unanswered stumbling block. You want to know how the crime was committed before the investigation starts. You would make a very poor detective. You are also pathetically unaware that many of your objections have been explained to the point where a reasonable person would conclude there is merit in continuing the examination.
If you can tell me what the importance of the testimony , given by Meneta to the 911 Commission ,regarding Dick Cheney's irregular behavior in the bunker that morning was then I will revise my opinion of the amount of "homework" you have done. For extra validation of your expertise in deciding that no further investigation needs to be done on the events surrounding 9-11 perhaps you can tell me what testimony and evidence was NOT included in the 911 Commission Report and why.
The way the buildings came down that day is only one of the clues that more than some terrorists in hijacked planes were in play that day. You have to look at the whole picture and then tell me what you think. I am sorry if I come across as "pissy" in some of my responses but I came into this as a skeptic and I will not be belittled or dismissed by people who I know,by the level of their responses, have not done even minimal research.
My resonances to your opinions are bases in reality, not speculation. I am one who looks at the probability, NOT THE POSSIBILITY. Possibility is for idealists and conspiracy theorists.
You think you can make a better assessment about the character and abilities of Palin than someone who knows her personally. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of her from what LITTLE you know of her. I am simply informing you of your fallacy.
As for the probability of the attack being an inside, pre planned, demolition job, it is off the charts improbably, but that does not stop people from trying to make something out of nothing.
Sky,
My resonances to your opinions are bases in reality, not speculation. I am one who looks at the probability, NOT THE POSSIBILITY. Possibility is for idealists and conspiracy theorists.
You think you can make a better assessment about the character and abilities of Palin than someone who knows her personally. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of her from what LITTLE you know of her. I am simply informing you of your fallacy.
As for the probability of the attack being an inside, pre planned, demolition job, it is off the charts improbably, but that does not stop people from trying to make something out of nothing.
Jim you have still offered no concrete objection or verification that you have probed the events of 9-11 past the regurgitated official sound bites. I suspect the same care and consideration was given to your endorsement of S. Palin. What I know of Palin is what she chose to offer to the public. In the words of Jed Clampett........piiit...eeee....fulll!
officer.com
A safety drill at a Warner Springs school intended to prepare students and school administrators for a gunman on campus is causing some concern for parents.
The active shooter drill will take place this week at Warner Springs School while students are in class. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department wants to make the drill as realistic as possible, which is why parents are so worried.
"I'm sure [the drill] is going to terrify them," said mother Tawnya Pitman, She has a 3-year-old son named Zayden at Warner Springs School.
A Sheriff's deputy told 10News that a former law enforcement agent will pose as a gunman running through the campus, which has students ranging from preschool to high school.
The agent will also fire several shots from a cap gun or starter pistol. Pitman and her husband believe that's where the drill goes too far.
"You don't need to have someone running around the school with a gun," said Pitman, who learned about the drill in a voicemail from the Warner Springs School District. "What kid needs to see that? There's enough drama in most of these kids' lives, [so] why go to school and make it worse?"
The Sheriff's Department said the drill is to prepare student for real-life shootings like the one in September at Kelly Elementary School in Carlsbad.
Pitman said she feels her 3-year-old is too young to be exposed to gunshots.
"Hear gunshots? That can't be a comforting sound," she said.
She said she planned to keep Zayden home the day the drill took place, but she said because the school district won#146;t tell her exactly when the scenario will happen, she plans to keep him home the rest of the week.
Pitman showed 10News a Facebook post about the drill with messages from more than a dozen other parents also worried and angry about the school shooting simulation. She believes the drill can be just as effective without a weapon
Copyright 2010 by 10News.com. All rights reserved.
ATLANTA, Nov. 13, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/
The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.
The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:
Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?
These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).
Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it all up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."
Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.
Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"
Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books."
The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.
For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.
SOURCE William M. Windsor
Copyright 2010 PR Newswire. All Rights Reserved.
i had to watch it again this morning. just too funny. guys lucky he didn't get shot.
Good to hear you stopped in time.
You can't let all this get to you.
By both Biden's and Obama's own admissions, they should be removed from office.
Steve Watson
infowars
March 23, 2011
Youtube has admitted to freezing the viewcount on a viral video of Vice President Joe Biden that highlights the hypocrisy of the Obama administration as it engages in military aggression against Libya.
The video (below) dates from 2007 and shows Biden, then preparing for a presidential run, appearing on the Chris Matthews show on MSNBC.
In the video Biden is asked if he sticks by comments that bombing Iranian interests without Congressional approval would be an impeachable offense, to which he replies he absolutely does.
The video was posted at the top of The Drudge Report earlier today, a website that conservatively receives 36 million visits per day, making it the most highly ranked news website on the web.
Under the headline Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden, the video has been drawing thousands of hits as viewers have drawn the comparison to the subversion of Congressional authority by Biden and Obama via US involvement in UN sanctioned attacks on pro-Gaddafi forces and buildings.
While such activity would normally send the video to the top of searches and to the front pages of Youtube.com, where many millions more would see it, the viewcount on the video is stuck firmly at just 301 views.
Suspecting foul play, CNS News contacted Youtube to seek an explanation and received the following reply:
"YouTube employs proprietary technology to prevent the artificial inflation of a video's viewcount by spam bots, malware and other means," said the statement. "We validate views to ensure the accuracy of the viewcount of all videos beginning with the first view. This validation process becomes publicly visible when the viewcount reaches 300."
"At this point, the viewcount may slow or temporarily freeze until we have time to verify that all further views are legitimate," said the statement. "Rest assured that the views system is working as intended, and that the viewcount will update as soon as the system has verified the legitimacy of the views."
Or as soon as the link on Drudge is removed and people stop clicking through to the video perhaps?
We wouldn't want Americans to understand that the action in Libya is completely unconstitutional and represents a violation of the oath that both Biden and Obama swore to protect.
Perhaps Obama and Biden put in a call to their soon to be Commerce czar, the outgoing Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Google is, of course, the parent company of Youtube.
In another video dating from 2007, Biden explains that at the time then president Bush was considering military action against Iranian nuclear facilities he sought expert opinion from five leading constitutional scholars. Biden says he had them draft a treatise outlining beyond a shadow of doubt that engagement in an act of military aggression without any authority from Congress is an impeachable offense: Sen Joe Biden: Iran and Impeachment
Where are those constitutional scholars and where is that treatise now?
In 2007, Obama also made the exact same comments as Biden, noting that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"
"As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law." Obama also stated.
I guess things are different when you've got an election to win.
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones' Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
The Cornucopia Institute
March 30th, 2011
Lawsuit Filed To Protect Themselves from Unfair Patent Enforcement on Genetically Modified Seed
Action Would Prohibit Biotechnology Giant from Suing Organic Farmers and Seed Growers If Innocently Contaminated by Roundup Ready Genes
NEW York: On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company challenging the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.
Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States and Canada, in the past, when there are patented genetic material has inadvertently contaminated their crops.
A copy of the lawsuit can be found at:
(http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf)
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.
"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed or pollen should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients."
Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed can contaminate and destroy organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually impossible to grow as a result of contamination.
Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa also face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops as well.
Monsanto is currently developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.
"Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now," stated Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. "Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families."
"Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute, one of the plaintiffs. "Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington."
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the "usefulness" requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, the plaintiffs' lead attorney in the case.
"Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed - increased production and decreased herbicide use - are false," added Ravicher who is also a Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
Ravicher continued, "Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply," said Ravicher. "Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not."
The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm's Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC; Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature's Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.
MORE:
Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) said, "Consumers indicate, overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without genetically modified organisms. Organic farms, by regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers forego using them for other reasons. Yet the truth is that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point when we will be unable to avoid GMOs in our fields and on our plates. That is the inevitable consequence of releasing genetically engineered materials into the environment. To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a history of suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs. On behalf of farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty and risk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an end to this unconscionable business practice."
Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California Cloverleaf Farms said, "The devastation caused by GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation. Nature, farming and health are all being affected by GMO contamination. We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty. People must have the right to the resources of the earth for our sustenance. We must have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the environment or to other people. We must protect the environment, farmers' livelihood, public health and people's right to non GMO food contamination."
Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association based in Montrose, Colorado, said, "Today is Independence Day for America. Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice. Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families
- and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose. Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops for our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto's genetic contamination and without harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food."
Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) said, "It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation where the financial burden of GE contamination will fall on family farmers who have not asked for or contributed to the growth of GE crops. Family farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as organically certified or into the rapidly growing `Buy Local' market where consumers have overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement. We take this action to protect family farms who once again have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions by Monsanto."
David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA Vermont said, "Vermont's farmers have worked hard to meet consumers' growing demand for certified organic and non-GE food. It is of great concern to them that Monsanto's continuing and irresponsible marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE plantings will increasingly place their local and regional markets at risk and threaten their livelihoods."
Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, "For organic certification, farmers are required to have a buffer zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested from this buffer zone are not eligible for certification due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift. Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for cross-pollination contamination."
Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living Systems in Victor, Montana, said, "The building blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public domain. If scientists want to study and manipulate them for some supposed common good, fine. Then we must remove the profit motive. The private profit motive corrupts pure science and increasingly precludes democratic participation."
David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, "None of Monsanto's original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto's patented genes can blow onto another farmer's fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto's team of belligerent lawyers. Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and biologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy."
Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, "We need the court system to offset this power and protect individual farmers from corporate tyranny. Farmers have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by our species. It is outrageous that one corporate entity, through the trespass of what they refer to as their `technology,' can intimidate and run roughshod over family farmers in this country. It should be the responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland. It is outrageous, that through no fault of their own, farmers are being intimidated into not saving seed for fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the court system and potentially bankrupted."
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
April 18, 2011
Veteran broadcast journalist Lou Dobbs has scolded Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's open threat that the US may default on it's debt should Republicans in Congress refuse to raise the debt ceiling, noting that the statement is akin to financial terrorism.
Appearing on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones show last Friday, Dobbs expressed disgust over Geithner's statements to Congress last week, and called for more scrutiny from watchdog groups and the national media.
"Our Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is somewhat limited in his outlook towards the consequences of a decision that would be taken not to raise the debt ceiling." Dobbs told Jones.
"He has a relatively either limited knowledge of banking itself, or of the role of the federal government when it comes to the Treasury Department." he added.
"Default is not a requisite or a logical conclusion to not raising the debt ceiling. There are choices to be made by the administration should the congress elect not to raise the debt ceiling. None of those decisions require default, and anyone who says that it does is utterly and completely mistaken." Dobbs continued.
The trailblazing journalist, now hosting a regular nightly show on Fox Business after leaving his long running post at CNN, had more stark words for Geithner and the officials around him at the Treasury.
"Not a single person that I respect with a knowledge of finance, public or corporate, would support their view."
"I think any time a public official and a servant of the American people stands up in Washington DC and says that armageddon is the result of a public policy choice that is not the one they desire, everyone in the national media should be skeptical and point out that position and where it stands historically." Dobbs said.
During the interview, Dobbs also spoke of his concern over a move toward global governance at the expense of national sovereignty by both political parties in America.
"I make no apology for being an American who is concerned first and foremost with Americans and America, it's that straight forward." Dobbs said.
"My great concern in all of this over the years has been, aside from my position on any of these developments, to ensure my audience understands that when we make a deal with the United Nations, when we sign on to the World Trade Organization, when we're part of NATO, we are at some margin, at some level and in some cases at an extreme level, consigning away this nation's sovereignty. We are deferring national interests to a broader interest, whether it be a European interest, whether it be a global interest, or whether it be an Asian interest, it doesn't matter." he added.
"Our leaders and the elite have on too many occasions, sought to understate that reality, and to act and pretend that there is no consequence or implication for the well being of the American people or the national interest."
"So when we start talking about the elites that are, if you will, not necessarily conspiring, but acting as if they were in a collusion, in concert to create a North American Union, it's an empirical statement, it's based on fact," Dobbs added. "It's not a question of ideology, it's not a question of philosophy or partisanship."
"What we are seeing in some instances is an effort on the part of a group of elites worldwide, who wish to bring about a one world order. It may not particularly be a new world order, since the effort has been underway for some time." Dobbs stated.
Dobbs also rounded on the national media for working "as not only a willing, but an eager accomplice" to this agenda.
"We need watchdogs on our estate and not lapdogs." Dobbs said, adding, "This great constitutional Republic is utterly dependent on an informed citizenry. And an engaged and participatory citizenry. What is occurring now is a constraint of information."
"One would think that given the internet, all of the various media and all the vehicles of communication, that American citizens would be better informed than ever. But in point of fact we know less today than we did 50 years ago about what our government is doing. And the reasons for it are many, but among them has been a decision among elites, and by the way I'm talking about both political parties in one way or another being involved, in an effort to simply preside rather than to represent, and to do so with a view that they are somehow ordained to lead, rather than being dependent on the consent of the governed."
Dobbs also gave his views on the military action in Libya, the possible presidential run by Donald Trump, Ron paul and more.
follow the link at top for video.
video is an interview with Dobbs and Alex Jones, not Geithner, sorry.
Hope Grandpa receives his due relief.
Impeachment of the current regime would be good, but not a solution to the problem of our oligarchy.
And lastly, is Lou Dobbs the last journalist in America?
Carry on.....