Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

russell jones

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by russell jones

  1. Can I jump in here for a minute? Excuse my ignorance, but do some philosophers still hold a Hard Deterministic view, that if one knows enough information about a system and its inputs that one can predict the future? Obviously contemporary scientists do not hold that view, but rather a probabilistic view. I still think it's determinism though.


    Even in a probabilistic universe, free will seems to be, at best, an illusion. It seems to be an illusion that would be useful to have. Whether free will exists or not, believing that one has no free will may be impossible for one to fully accept, even if all evidence points to it. I am fairly certain that I do not believe in free will, but I cannot imagine that my thought process actually works that way.


    on a side note, MAR, did you lose your religion?


    im not really saying that...what i am saying is that most of human history children 'worked.' this is just reality. to deny is to deny reality. and they didnt work because their parents were evil or because boss men with white moustaches forced them to by putting guns to their heads. they worked to keep the family afloat. it was only when capitalism made people rich enough that one or two people in the family could work to provide for the entire family did kids not work in any way at all.



    I'm nitpicking here, but splitting hairs does make a difference. When you say that for "most of human history, children worked," you are technically correct, since "history" begins with writing. However, child labor did not happen in the human species until the Neolithic Revolution, c. 10,000-2,000 BCE. Some cultures never farmed, they are still hunter gatherers, and their children do not work.


    In the 19th century though, children worked not only on farms, but in factories as well. That was some pretty unregulated capitalism no? I don't consider it a bad thing that children no longer do that.


    I'm sympathetic to your story about the local food farmer who can't have kids work for him for pay. Regulation is always a double edge sword, child labor laws stop kids from crawling around in dirty dark places in factories, but they also deny children opportunities. I'm not saying there is a good solution for this problem, but throwing out the regulation completely doesn't seem like a good idea either.


    That being said, I worked at the church bingo as a child, and I was paid.


    The other thing you said that was quite interesting to me was that colonial times would seem like relative anarchy compared to now. I see your point, the federal or colonial government would have little influence on or power over people in 18th century America. But at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most people's lives, and the course of their lives, were far more prescribed than our lives today. Most people did what their parents did. The church had more control over their lives. Communities were smaller and closer, people were shamed out of bad behavior and encouraged into good behavior. We have much more freedom to choose our direction in our jobs, relationships, where we live, etc., because many social controls are modified or non-existent. Our freedom to choose a career is a double edged sword as well, since we are also free to fail. In 18th century America, the prodigal son would return and the community would pick him up. 20-21st century prodigal son may have no one or where to return to. We have welfare of course, but libertarians want to abolish it, even though its predecesor no longer exists and its successor is not apparent.


    To summarize, we live in a fundamentally different world than 18th century Europeans and Americans. Indeed, the opening of the 20th century was a sea change from the end of the 18th. What is freedom and what is not freedom has changed, it is never universal, and never as simple as you seem to make it out to be.


    I respect the consistency of the Libertarian ethos, but its inflexibility reveals its lack of historical context and present usefulness. I am not advocating throwing out the ideals of it, but it must be in a world that actually exists today.

    • Like 1

    A company will only outsource if it is cheaper for them to do so, foreign labour may be cheaper, less regulations in that country might make it easier for them to turn a profit, however if that company wants anything to do in my country then they will be paying a hefty tax bill because they have taken money out of the job market purely to make themselves more money.



    I agree. Outsourcing had as much to do with irrational decisions as rational ones. Some irrational decisions are:


    1. Everyone else is doing it, so it must be the best way.


    2. The numbers seem to add up (without accounting for the effect on the consumer's buying power of fewer high paying jobs), so therefore we will save money.


    3. We save money, and there is no monetary value to good will, except at the consumer to producer direct interaction point at the sale.


    4. Environmental costs are not a direct factor.


    They think they are saving money, at least in the short term, but they may actually not be saving money in the long term, or when more costs are taken into account. Having worked for large companies, I can assure you that number 1 is a factor more often than not.


    Two examples are:


    He was saying in that CPAC talk that the US gives Mubarak aid and he implied that is what is filling his bank account (actually I think he even said it directly). This is totally incorrect as it was military aid that was being given, which means that money is then used by Egypt to by US military kit. That means the money is going in to American banks, not Mubarak's account (disregarding the more granular argument of the mil-industry and the corruption that exists there as that is separate).




    Good point. I studied International Relations and Third World countries a little in college, and that is what I found most enlightening. Foreign aid almost always means that the money comes back to us in some way, whether it is giving money to buy weapons from US suppliers, or it is investing in infrastructure so that US businesses can operate. IMF money now functions as a loan sharking operation backed by US bonds. When I hear people complain about "all the money going overseas" it makes me laugh about how ignorant they are. Everything we do, we do because it benefits us (at least in the opinion of policy makers), not because of some sort of altruism.

  5. it's an eye witness account that was excluded from the official story's conclusion on the events... the guy was literally in the buildings as they were being attacked hearing multiple explosions at the base of the building before a plane had even hit it. how can you not draw a conclusion from that? there are plenty of other eye witnesses who can corroborate that there were multiple explosions that day prior to the plane hitting the towers and afterwards as well, they are just ignored...


    There is an important point all of you are missing here. Say, for the sake of argument, that there were bombs going off in the basement before the planes hit. Then why would it take an hour for the building to collapse? Wouldn't there be a huge explosion at the moment the buildings fell? If conspirators in the government had planned the attack, then setting off an explosion as the plane hit would be colossally stupid. Unless the explosion is meant to bring down the building, there is no reason for them to set them off. Case closed.


    Try again.


    "As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 we we're chit chatting, I heard a boom. An explosion so hard that pushed us upwards, upwards, now 20 years in the building, remember that, and it came from the basement between the B2 and B3 level. At that moment I thought it was the mechanical room where they had all of their pumps and generators for the building. That maybe a generator blew up in the basement, now 20 years in the building you know if something comes from the bottom or the top. At that moment everybody started screaming, the explosion was so hard the walls cracked, the false ceiling fell on us the sprinkler system got activated, and when I went to verbalize it was a generator we heard a BOOM from all of the way on the top, the impact of the plane on the top, two different events at two different times, Later on I thought that they probably didn't syncronize it well, because it came out in he investigation that the explosion was the weaken the base and foundation of the building with the top so the building will fall automatically, but it didn't."


    This took me awhile, I'm going to do more, just be patient please.



    I don't see what conclusions can be drawn from this. I don't believe he, you or I could draw any conclusions from what he heard. But he does. He heard explosions, that's all I get. Besides, where's the corroboration?

  7. He talked about multiple explosion's happening before and after the Planes hit the buildings, he talks about where those explosion's took place, and the weird things he came across while rescuing people from the building. Things that did not occur during the 93 bombings at the WTC. For instance, the first explosion that rocked the building he says happened before either plane hit either building. Which he says happened in one of the sub basements.


    Don't know how you missed that stuff though. Watch the link I posted and the remaining parts it was split up to.


    He talks about hearing an explosion seconds before the plane hit. How he could tell this happened before the plane hit when he was inside the building I do not know. He talks about hearing explosions, he does not say he saw a bomb. As far as I can see, it's all based on his perceptions.


    Maybe your link he adds embellishment to the story, but none of what he says leads me to believe that he heard or saw anything that points to a bomb going off in the building. Him calling the explosions a bomb is his conclusion, not what he saw or heard.


    I'd rather avoid the videos. If you have his statements in writing that is quicker for me to process.

    • Like 1
  8. I looked at what William Rodriguez said about the day of the attacks. I do not see anything in his testimony that contradicts the "official" story. His conclusions are different, but I don't see how he is qualified to make those assessments. Besides, he testified that he saw one of the terrorists scoping out the building.


    I guess I'm missing something. The preponderance of evidence seems to support the official explanation. Finding problems with the official evidence that may or may not be valid does not outweigh the evidence for the official explanation. Until that evidence is available, why assume that the official story is wrong?

  9. You have no idea how deep black projects work. I know a guy that's been deep black. He was so deep that he doesn't discuss what he did, where, or how to anyone outside of his clearance level. Why? Because he did what he did for what he believes was a good cause.


    He also believes that 9/11 was at least partially an inside job.


    I'd trust this man with my life, btw. He's stable mentally, very normal, and a genuine guy.


    With all due respect, and for your own benefit, I would like to give you some advice. Amongst intelligent company, the "I know someone on the inside" argument does not look good, because the information is unverifiable, therefore, nearly useless. To be more honest, many people I have seen make this argument in a crowd get rolled eyes and lose respect. Just some advice. :) I'm not saying your guy isn't right, I'm just letting you know how this style of argument does not work on certain audiences. May be helpful in the future!

  10. Haven't you been asking be to speculate? I don't have all the answers. If I did I'd go forward to the media, but I don't. All I can really do is think something was fishy due to the circumstances of that day and point out what I think is wrong with the official story

    using the evidence available.


    There are two different theories. One is called MIHOP, which stands for "Made It Happen On Purpose" and the other LIHOP, which stands for "Let It Happen On Purpose."


    I don't really stand with either. I just know what I saw that day and how suspicious was on that day and the days since due to an overwhelming amount of evidence.


    You seem to think that major operations can't go down without someone spilling the beans. There have been bean spillers who have come forward. Plenty of evidence that something very wrong happened that day and that we are being denied the real story.

    I'm not sure if you choose to ignore it out of ignorance or if you chalk it up to "another truther spewing shit".


    I'm really trying my best to provide you with hard facts.


    BTW: 500 MPH.


    I think there is an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing toward terrorists begin responsible for the attack. I may have missed evidence out of ignorance, but I do not ignore evidence simply based on the source. That being said, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, and I tend to give little weight to non-expert interpretations of material evidence. Needless to say at this point, I believe MIHOP is the least likely scenario to be true.


    LIHOP may have some merit, but I couldn't see too many people knowing about the actual plan and date without that getting out. Instead, a plausible LIHOP scenario would work like this:


    1. Various intelligence agencies are competitive and do not share information well.

    2. Encourage competition while discouraging communication. This could be done by just a few people at the top in hierarchal organization

    3. Give some protections, subtly but not overtly, to people most likely to successfully carry out a terrorist attack and arrest those who are unlikely to do it. This is basically what the CIA did in LA with crack dealers.

    4. Sit back and wait for the inevitable.


    Something like this could be done by less than a dozen people at the top of intelligence organizations, and the results would look like poor organization rather than intentional obfuscation. In other words, deniability and lack of an evidence trail. But as the CIA example shows, even in a very tight organization, secrets tend to get out, so even this plan may involve too much risk.

  11. 1. Crates? That part was partially being remodelled.

    2. A hangar? Easily. We live in the future.

    3. Unsure. There was a witness inside who described it as feeling like a bomb went off.

    4/ If you read any of what I was talking about when I mentioned Northwoods, you'd see that the plane in Northwoods was to be filled with CIA agents. Did this happen this time? Maybe. I don't really know.


    Maybe you are. I'd be glad to flesh it out more.


    This is more speculation. Where's the evidence?


    Also, if a plane hit a building at 350 mph that I was inside of, I would imagine that would feel like a bomb, since essentially, if that is what happened, that is what it was.


    My overall point in arguing against the plausibility of the conspiracy theories is not because I would not believe that people in government and in the military would be callous enough to do such a thing, I would guess they would if they could. I am saying that it would be more difficult to pull this off than conspiracy theorists might imagine. What one would like to do is different than what one can accomplish without getting caught. Besides, faking what happened on 9/11 would be far more difficult, involve far more risks of getting caught than just waiting for the next terrorist attack, which was pretty much inevitable. Considering how incompetently the Bush administration dealt with the aftermath of 9/11, the lead up to Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan, I hardly think they could plan and execute such a complex operation as 9/11 without leaving behind any physical evidence.


    I am sympathetic to the possibilities here, but I don't see the hard evidence to support any of the conspiracy theories.

  12. I have no idea. I'd be being dishonest of I said otherwise.


    Check this out:



    "For some time, the Happy Hooligans have kept a permanent detachment with four F–16s, pilots, and crews on alert at Langley Air Force Base to provide air defense of the United States. I am not going to get into the details because it is important for national security not to reveal what they were doing, but they were very much in harm's way. I will not get into any more detail other than to say, these pilots —the Happy Hooligans, and any others who were involved in that scrambled mission to protect our Nation's Capital, and the region here in the DC area—really were willing to give their lives in a generally undefended position." -S9498, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, September 19, 2001


    ahh... Your point? That the planes could have been intercepted (assuming that is possible)?


    It seems to me, that if one was planning a conspiracy, in which one was going to be faking much of the evidence, that one would provide evidence that supports one's story unambiguously. It is a contradiction to believe that:


    A. A plane did not hit the Pentagon

    B. The faked evidence from the flight data recorder shows that a plane did not hit the Pentagon


    I'm not saying that either proposition is true in itself, but it is difficult to believe the second if one believes the first. Real evidence sometimes can be interpreted in many ways, fake evidence that is being used to cover up a conspiracy should be as unambiguous as possible wouldn't you think?

    Besides this, you are still left with providing evidence or explaining:


    1. Plane parts at the Pentagon crash site, how were they planted without anyone noticing?

    2. Where did the plane go? How were the aircraft controllers and tracking devices fooled?

    3. Did any witness see a rocket hit the Pentagon?

    4. How did they dispose of the bodies of everyone on the plane and the plane itself?


    You have speculated on the answers to some of these questions, but you cannot provide actual hard evidence to support any of these claims. There seems to be more holes in the conspiracy theory than the standard theory, but maybe I'm crazy and am missing something.

  13. Same thing they would have done with the Northwoods flight? The plan was to land it, get all the CIA agent "passengers" off, then remotely control the plane (it's been possible for a long time to remotely control airliners) to somewhere over Miami and blow it up mid air.


    I would speculate that it could have been flown right over the Pentagon (which would account for witness testimony of seeing a plane fly over, and then blast a Global Hawk or whatever, right into the side of the building. Hell, it could have even been bombs in the building with a flyover.



    NILA SAGADEVAN: 9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training








    Scroll down a little to see the pilots comments.



    This is especially interesting:


    "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

    Capt. Russ Wittenberg


    obviously there's some disagreement in the pilot as truther community about this maneuver. Some think it's possible, some don't. You didn't answer the most important question, which was: If this move is impossible, then why use it as the cover up? Also, why not provide flight recorder information that supports your case?

  14. this is right along the lines with the idea of a corporate bailout being necessary, as the corporations are "TOO BIG TO FAIL"



    keeping a secret is clearly impossible. everyone knows that. :rolleyes:





    That is a poor analogy. Go ahead and name a secret of this magnitude that had been kept for more than a decade and I will believe you. Also, think of chances of the secret being revealed, the consequences of the secret being revealed, and what that would mean for the people planning the operation. Then imagine if the planners could conceivably take that risk.


    If agreeing with Noam Chomsky means I'm feeble minded, I'll take it. :)

  15. You ever read that Operation Northwoods proposal? It was proposed to fill a plan with CIA agents acting as a college students and then "blow it up", which would be a fake plane. The idea was to get Americans so pissed off at Cuba that we would have to invade. You don't think plans like that just go away, do you?


    The only thing that's filled with holes is the official story. No pilot could pull the maneuver needed to hit the Pentagon. That's saying a whole lot right there.




    So what did they do with the plane? And all the people who were riding on it who have not been seen since?


    Just so you know, if you read the Pilots for 911 Truth site, they did not say that the maneuver to hit the Pentagon was impossible. They said that the data from the flight recorder says that it was impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles based on the altitude of the plane as it approached the Pentagon. That is their interpretation of the data. Indeed, they did not say that is was impossible to actually hit the light poles, but that the flight recorder data contradicts that possibility. They specifically state on the same page that you linked that the maneuver was not only possible, but something that any experienced pilot could do. It would take some luck on the first try, but it was possible according to them.


    Do you have any other evidence that is was impossible?


    Besides, if the conspirators knew that hitting the Pentagon with a plane was impossible, then why would they use that as their cover up story, if it could be so easily disproven? Why not hit another building? Why hit the Pentagon at all? I am aware of the insurance scam angle for the Twin Towers, but what is the angle for the Pentagon? Also, how did they get plane parts on scene without anyone noticing?

  16. That's what I'd like to know.


    Exactly, was the plane somehow disappeared by the conspirators? That is an extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about those...


    Regarding the flight data recorder: sometimes in even very controlled experiments, some results or data remain unexplained. A lack of explanation does not imply that any myriad of causes or explanations can be forwarded without supporting evidence.


    When you look at your favorite conspiracy theories, think about if a preponderance of the evidence available can support the conspiracy theory any better than the official story. I predict you will find far more unexplained holes in the conspiracies theories than in the official story.

    • Like 1
  17. So, you think the wings "melted"?







    The burden of proof is now upon you. Show me a plane hitting that fucking building.

    Oh? You can't? Why? Because only five frames of video were released to the public.



    When 75 cameras are on that side alone, and they only release five frames....something is rotten in Denmark.


    If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then what happened to it?

  18. Nope. You're wrong. A shit ton of people were involved in the CIA's drug dealing escapades.





    Those are long articles, care to point out the part that supports your argument?


    Either way, the secret got out.


    You claim that 100's of people are keeping the secret of 1000's of our own innocent people being murdered by our own government in one day. But they couldn't keep these other less important and less damaging secrets?

  19. If you are asking me to research the amount of people that could have had knowledge and some how died mysteriously before, on the day itself or shortly afterwards, I will.


    The crack thing being almost immediately?


    I'm pretty sure rumors/reports started, in the late 80's, and weren't fully revealed until the mid to late 90's. Not too sure how "immediate" that is. It was still being denied by CIA official's up until 1996. To also isolate U.S. government drug trafficing to this lone incident is naive.



    The rumors started in the late 80's, while it was still going on? Sounds pretty immediate to me. Besides, far fewer people were involved in the CIA protecting drug dealers than would need to be for most of the 9/11 conspiracies, so my point still stands.

  20. I'm not so convinced that a large plane hit the Pentagon.


    I can handle the rest of your questions at a later time. For now, research that stuff.


    I have... and found nothing to convince me otherwise.


    I guess all the plane parts were planted at the Pentagon? How many people did that take? How about the air traffic controllers who tracked it? All duped? Video evidence? Faked? How many people are we up to now that are in the conspiracy? Seriously, what's your minimum number for how many people it would take to pull the whole conspiracy off? Don't forget to include all the people from the airlines and airports. :)

  21. Evidence was ignored in the 9/11 Commission report.


    What Cheney was referring to: It was either one thing or the other and we know the plane headed towards the Pentagon was not shot down. "Do the orders still stand" implies exactly what you think it implies.


    At least you think it's a plane.


    I'm no expert on military strategy, but considering that there was only a few minutes to make a decision, and the consequences of that decision could mean hundreds of people getting killed on the ground and in the air, I cannot say what the order would be. I'm sorry but it's not that obvious. To intercept a moving target, with little hint to its destination, in just a few minutes doesn't seem like it would be too easy. That's neither here nor there though.


    The standard conspiracy theory is that the buildings were brought down by charges? What about the two planes that hit the towers? It was just a coincidence that at the same time the first plane hijacking (crashed in PA) in decades happened on the same day as the inside job? Unless you believe that the witnesses who spoke to their families on the PA plane were lying or brainwashed or in on it? Were the planes remote controlled? How many people did it take to set the charges in the towers? How many people examined physical evidence from the building that couldn't see evidence of a demolition? Dozens? How were these people converted to the cause? How many people were involved in finding evidence on the hijackers? Dozens more? They were all in on it? How about the hijackers all going to flight school? They did that for shits and giggles, or it didn't happen and all of those witnesses and records were manufactured? The airline companies, the eye witnesses at airports, the flight controllers, all of them were duped or in on it? The structural engineers, the fire experts, the materials scientists, all fooled or in on it? The security at the towers? All in on it or fooled? Everyone in the FBI? In on the conspiracy? I could go on...

  22. The order was to either a) shoot down the plane or b) not shoot down the plane.

    Which one do you think Cheney was referring to?




    It may not be that simple... How long does it take a plane to cover 50 miles? About 6 minutes.


    And I don't know what Cheney was referring to. Lack of evidence isn't evidence.


    And everyone that investigated 9/11 would have to ignore evidence it was an inside job. Hence, 1000's of people would be required.

  • Create New...