Thursday, April 7, 2011

9/11 Suspect to be Tried at Guantanamo

So, they are going to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in military court at Guantanamo instead of in civilian court. It's no surprise even though Candidate Obama had promised otherwise. So, why the reversal? It's to control the flow of information. You see, whatever role Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had in 9/11 was certainly not the crux of the event. 9/11 anomalies, such as the obvious demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (which wasn't even hit by a plane), the absence of plane wreckage at the Pentagon (the govt is being sued right now by a Pentagon employee who walked out through the hole in the building but saw no plane), and the crash site in Pennsylvania with, again, no plane, point to a very sinister involvement of dark government forces and lies, lies, lies. With the 9/11 Truth Movement strong and growing stronger, they can't take the chance of an open trial. It's heartening that right now Donald Trump is determined to get to the bottom of the birther conspiracy. He's sent his own private detectives to Hawaii to investigate Obama's past and the claims that have been made about it. But hey Donald: when you're done with that, why don't you tackle something that's even more important: 9/11 Truth. Come on; you're a New Yorker. They did this to your city. If you want to save America and take it back from the clutches of the globalists, start with 9/11 Truth.


  1. Thanks, Ralph, for being the first poster to this blog site other than me.

    Does 9/11 "truth" mean the U.S. government did it? I've lived for 65 years now, and I haven't found much "truth" in the world. I've found opinion, hyperbole, exaggeration, fantasy, wishful thinking, reasonable interpretations of what we percieve as reality, but "truth?"

    I don't need "truth." All I need is the beliefs I have worked very hard to find that seem to me to be reliable. Each and every one of them is subject to change when a better approximation, better research, new data and/or other things about the world people perceive as "truth."

    Give me an open mind, a good reason to research something (because it is important to me) and I will decide how much I need to look into it.

    But "truth?" I don't need or want it. If I were to discover the "truth," I'd stop looking for something better.

    Uncertainty is the beginning of knowledge.

    Certainty is the end.

  2. Craig, don't get so bogged down over a word. This isn't about semantics; it's about physics. And once you realize that the physics doesn't add up in their story, you have to reject it. 1,473 independent architects and enginners ( say that no way did it go down the way they said. Isn't that a good reason to look into it?

    You asked what 911 truth means. It means that the official story cannot possibly be true. And since the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions, it means that official, athoritative capacity was needed in order to set that up. So, yes government was involved.

    This isn't about semantics. It's about physics. Once you realize that physics doesn't allow their scenario, in all its bizarre details of a plane getting vaporized, of steel melting and buildings crashing down in perfect high-speed collapses, etc., then you know they are covering up something

  3. Every word is about semantics Ralph, but I get your point - that you have investigated the evidence, including contradictions between physical evidence and the official story - and it doesn't add up.

    I get it, and have heard all this before. It's just that this issue is not at the top of my "to do" list right now.

    I only jumped on the word "truth" because I wrote an essay on how that word is so often used to convey a sense of certainty that isn't justified.

    If the link below to my WATERWIND website doesn't work, go to, click on "Lifepower" and click on the link at the bottom of the page titled "No Absolutes."

    (I put a hard carriage return right after html. Why doesn't it work?)

    FWIW, general semantics is the most profound body of knowledge I have ever studied - more so than science, engineering, law, economics, genetics and philosophy (not just the simplistic Rand/Aristotle "philosophy"). It goes way beyond the meaning of words, but tests our most fundamental confusion between words, ideas and things.

  4. It so happens that I am very interested in the subject of words and language. I read a book once entitled "The First Word" by Christine Kenneally but I was very disappointed in it because it never addressed the subject. She said nothing about the origin of the first word. But, it is an important subject, and I adressed it head-on in my review of her book on Amazon, which I'll post below:

    This book, The First Word, said nothing about the origin of words. I wanted to know: How did a word, any word from any language, come to represent a certain thing or idea? Who decided? For a very few words, it's easy to see how they arose. For instance, "Mama" is a sound that baby's naturally make. You can imagine how some mother was looking down on her cooing baby going "ma ma ma" and thinking that he's addressing her. But beyond that mimetic stuff, it really is a mystery how words got assigned, and that's what I was hoping this book would shed a little light on. But, it never broached the subject. It dealt with the "evolution" of language in Darwinian jargon, which was useless. It covered the history of linguistics and its various intellecutal giants. But, it said absolutely nothing about the origin of words. And here the title of the book is: "The First Word." You'd think she would have said something about the origin of the first word. So, here's what I learned from this book: The author, who is obviously enthralled with academia, revealed the simple truth that academia knows absolutely nothing about the origin of the first word. Just as the origin of life on Earth is a complete mystery for which official explanations provide nothing remotely plausible, so too is the origin of human language a complete mystery. Well, rather than writing a book about it, why didn't she just say that: "We have no idea how words came about." That honest statement would have been much more appreciated than that long, dishonest book.

    I'll finish by attempting to do what she should have at least tried to do. And that is: I'll speculate on how words may have originated. And if, at this point, all we can do is speculate, then I think we should because the ability to speak isn't just about communication, it's about how we think, and the very way in which we are conscious as human beings.

    I am going to suggest that language started in small groups that were highly patriarchal. (I suppose they could have been highly matriarchal, but we'll stick with patriarchal for our discussion.) The first vocalizations were probably just emotional utterances that occurred naturally and spontaneously with no thought involved. Individuals had tendencies to make certain kinds of sounds, and it may have been a function of their anatomy, or it may have been a matter of chance, but it definitely became a function of habit. If a sound came out a certain way once, it stood a good chance of being repeated because of neurological faciliation within the human brain. Then if another person heard it and repeated it, that reinforced the application of the word- in the speaker, in the original user, and in others. So, I'm saying that word assignment started with an accidental, spontaneous utterance which registered mentally, either with the speaker or perhaps with the listener- but after the fact. What started as noise becamse a word after it fortuitiously succeeded at communicating. But again, for it to stick, I think there must have been a strong patriarchal society, an authority figure, someone to authorize the sounds that the pack would catalog and use and respond to. I'm not saying that patriarch thought of every new word, but it was when the patriarch started using a new word regularly, that it became entrenched in the group.

    Anyway, that is the kind of probing that I was hoping the author would do in her book. After all, it's a fascinating subject. But, she didn't go anywhere near it. Thanks for nothing.

  5. I think the idea of how words originated is mostly irrelevant, because their origins usually preceded written symbols. Historical researchers in law, history and some other areas are probably the exception rather than the rule.

    All words depend on circular logic - other words, ad infinitum. But, words and the ideas they imperfectly attempt to describe do not exist in reality. Only things exist.