U. of Iowa Physicist Weighs in on WTC Collapse

Perhaps unsurprisingly, even with the enormous quantity of information that is available, people still don't know the facts surrounding the World Trade Centre collapse on September 11, 2001. Crockett Grabbe, a Professor of Physics at the University of Iowa, was recently inteviewed on International News Net (INN) regarding the WTC collapse. The interview sparked some strong reactions, specifically, amidst supporters of mainstream media explanations surrounding the occurrences of the 9/11 attack.

But for those who are still unaware of the facts, there were many eyewitness accounts and corroborating video footage of several phenomena that occured just prior to the first tower collapse which look like jets of debris and dust suddenly and violently issuing from various locations on the side of the tower. According to experts, these are consistent with the effects of demolition explosions. Not only, but eyewitness fire department personel who were at the scene are recorded on camera as describing what they saw and heard—a rapid series of loud explosions coinciding with the fall of the first tower.

Interestingly, the smaller WTC 7 building also came down, but it wasn't hit by anything. The lease owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, was later interviewed regarding WTC 7, and this is what he had to say:

"I remember getting a call from the fire dept. commander, telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it'. And they made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein himself admitted WTC 7 was pulled. However, upon closer examination, the latter portion of his statement does not coincide with the facts. One doesn't wire up a building with demolition charges in a matter of a few hours. Demolition experts say that the process of preparing a building for demolition requires weeks of planning for structural analysis and selection of the proper location for demolition charges. Why is Larry Silverstein lying? And since there were demolition charges used in WTC 7, what is the possibility that they were used in the other buildings? Especially considering the eyewitness accounts of firefighters and the rapid series of loud explosions with the collapse of the first tower?

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The documentary 911: In Plane Site, is a very compelling documentary on the 9/11 attacks which goes into much more detail and supports my contentions with clear and indisputable evidence. The first 25 minuntes discuss the Pentagon attack, and the remaing 45 minutes discuss the WTC attack.

Is the Federal Reserve Legal?

It seems people are waking up as to the legality and constitutionality of the institution known as the Federal Reserve. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives congress the power to "[...] coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, [...]" not an independent non-transparent private institution. Congress is representative of the people. The Federal Reserve is not part of the government and does not represent the people. It is a private institution that operates behind closed doors. They were given the power to coin money in 1913, and this was a direct violation of Article 1, Section 8. One can reasonably conclude that those ultimately behind the Federal Reserve, in order to coerce the U.S. government to perform such an illegal and unconstitutional act, must have been quite powerful indeed, with an enormous amount of resources already at their disposal.

Also, Article 1, Section 10 states that "No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]" The abandoning of the gold standard by the U.S. in 1933 was a direct violation of Article 1, Section 10. The combination of these two violations of the constitution set the stage for unbridled debt-based spending. Prior to 1933, expensive public undertakings such as war could only be financed by taxes which was only a partial limitation on government, as high taxes to fund public projects would become unpopular rather quickly. Incidentally, prior to 1913, there were no federal income taxes. The apportionment of federal income taxes was passed as law in 1913 as the 16th amendment to the constitution, coincident with the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

The propaganda on the Federal Reserve website, (incidentally it has a .gov address which is just another deception to lend it the aura of being a government institution) indicates that the seven members of the Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. However, in reality this is a mere formality. The prospective members of the board are short-listed by the controlling interests of the Federal Reserve, which are then "selected" by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It's very much like our own so-called democratic process. As a citizen, if you are to select one of seven possible candidates for a government post, all of whom have been pre-selected by the powers that be, do you have any real choice?

For more information on this interesting topic read, "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by Edward Griffin, "A Short History of Money and Banking" by William Gouge, "The Organization of Debt into Currency" by Charles Holt, and essentially anything by Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. Also informative is the documentary entitled, "The Money Masters" by Bill Still. Slightly tangential but also related, the documentary, "America from Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo.

Congressman Ron Paul's "We the People" Act

"Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society." — Ron Paul

"The federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." — Ron Paul

As usual, there is a lot of confusion surrounding Ron Paul's political position, and specifically around his We the People Act. It's no wonder, as mainstream media and journalist hacks lacking in even the slightest analytical competency, regularly distort statements and positions beyond even the slightest recognition. For example, there are a number of people on Digg, who maintain that this Act is a removal of the rights and freedoms of individuals from certain segments of society.

This could not be further from the truth. It's easy to be misinformed about Ron Paul's position on civil rights, because so many individuals are putting words into his mouth. The interesting thing with Ron Paul is that his positions are always rooted in the Constitution. But it's not always obvious to the average person continuously barraged by mainstream media spin—often times careful thought and consideration is necessary to see precisely how. Instead of taking his position on issues based on hearsay or what others with little understanding have written, let's take it straight from the man himself.

Here is a good Q&A session that describes how Ron Paul stands on various civil rights issues. There are a couple of inaccuracies lower down (based on incorrect information on the contents of certain legislation)—but they don't affect the accuracy of the Q&A transcripts themselves. For more comprehensive information see this Wikipedia article on Ron Paul's political positions.

For example, take the gay rights / same sex marriage issues. Even though Ron Paul may not personally morally agree with these positions, he will not legislate for or against them, because that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to legislate on moral issues, and Ron Paul understands and respects that. He leaves these issues for the individual states to decide.

It is a similar case with the abortion issue and specifically, Roe vs. Wade. Yes, Ron Paul is pro-life and personally believes that life begins at conception, but he will not legislate anti-abortion federal law based on his personal moral views. But neither will he tolerate pro-abortion legislation for the same reasons—which is why he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade: he wants to repeal legislation that unnecessarily involves the government in moral issues. Again, a Ron Paul administration would leave the individual states to adjuducate on these matters on a state by state basis.

In this mistitled video Ron Paul speaks on the bill; however, detractors often try to use the video to show that his position will result in loss of freedom and liberty. The following is a brief transcript from the video in which Ron Paul speaks:

"My approach is [...] accepting the priniciple that we can, as a legislative body and as a president, [...] remove the jurisdiction of this issue [prayer in schools, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.] from the federal courts.

I have a bill called We the People's Act [...] which literally just takes it [the issues] away from the federal courts. Which means any state could pass a law, pass a prohibition, and it could not be heard in federal court."

Any state, under this proposal, has the right to pass any prohibition legislating, for example, in the case of abortion, either in the pro-life camp, or the pro-choice camp, and whatever they legislate cannot be heard in a federal court. Ron is appealing to all sides on these issues. The point is, even though he is personally pro-life, he doesn't want the federal government involved in legislating one way or another on moral issues. Leave the decision to the individual states based on the will of the people in those states.

Ron Paul is the friend of Christian, and non-Christian, pro-life, and pro-choice, gay rights and Christian values, simply by refusing to involve the federal government in any of these issues, and allowing local groups to decide the outcomes. That is an increase in freedom and liberty, not a decrease. Remember, freedom and liberty doesn't mean "getting my way and enforcing it on everyone" it means allowing for a diversity of "different ways to be gotten"—if they are in fact the will of the majority in a given community. So, convince your local constituency that "your way" is best and "your way" can become locally mandated, provided it is not unconstitutional.

From the Wikipedia summary for the We the People Act:

"If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced."

This is accurate and also supports my contention. However, the second last sentence is misleading. Yes, one theoretical effect of this bill might be that athiests could be banned from holding public office in Texas because of funky Texas state laws. However, the Constitution specifically states in Article 6, end of the third clause:

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now, if state legislators wish to contravene the Constitution on this point, (Texas, Tennessee, and probably several other states do) then it will be up to the people to take this contravening legislation as high up the state court system as possible and get it struck down for what it is—unconstitutional. But notice that the last sentence states that historically this technicality in Texas (and other states) has not been enforced. Why? Because state law makers know they would not be able to get away with it, as the federal government would be forced to intervene. And the people would surely rise up in revolution.

CBS: Will Your Super Tuesday Vote Even Count?

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." — Josef Stalin (1879-1953), Communist Tyrant and Mass Murderer

This article written for The Raw Story generated a fair bit of discussion on the Digg forums the days surrounding the Super Tuesday vote on Feb. 5, 2008.

From the discussions, there still seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the problems with electronic voting machines—even with a paper trail receipt. In electronic voting, there is simply no way of verifying that the paper trail which corresponds to one's vote actually corresponds to the digital imprint in the voting machines memory. It is relatively easy for a savvy computer programmer to hack the system so that it prints out on paper what one expects, but actually tallies and records internally in another way altogether.

These considerations aside, reams of evidence suggesting election fraud on the part of Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, and Advance Voting Solutions, have already been collected by the excellent grassroots elections watchdog group BlackBoxVoting.org. They've provided documents and video footage containing expert testimony from a number of credible individuals including security professionals, computer scientists, researchers, professors, and others.

Affiliates of BlackBoxVoting.org shot this video after the New Hampshire primary in January, 2008. The video shows evidence of tampering on ballot boxes, and a complete breakdown of the chain of custody—a clear violation of the public trust.

There is a large body of evidence to strongly suggest that individuals have already manipulated election results in Florida 2000 (Gore & Bush), in Ohio 2004 (Kerry & Bush), and again in the 2006 mid-term elections. In fact, several individuals were convicted of election fraud in Ohio surrounding the 2004 election [2,3]. There is also legal testimony [4,5] to this effect.

All this being the case, should we, in good conscience, tolerate black box technology or chain of custody which may result in the popular vote not being counted? Or even worse, changed?

References:

1. http://uscountvotes.org/
2. http://www.freepress.org/...
3. http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/...
4. http://www.bbvforums.org/...
5. http://www.electionfraudnews.com/...
6. http://www.youtube.com/...
7. http://www.BlackBoxVoting.org/
8. http://www.truthout.org/...
9. http://freepress.org/...
10. http://globalresearch.ca/...
11. http://www.harpers.org/...
12. http://www.projectcensored.org/...
13. http://www.alternet.org/...
14. http://www.iwantmyvote.com/...
15. http://coalition4visibleballots.homestead.com/
16. http://www.solarbus.org/...