These were some of the first articles I posted on my website. I did not put dates on my documents at that time, but they were written around 2003 and 2004.
We Need a Different Piper
I’ve complained that the public has not done anything about the killing of President Kennedy, and they did not do anything about the Oklahoma City bombing, so why should we expect them to do something about the September 11th attack? People respond to me that those earlier scams were too small to interest many people, but the September 11th attack was so big that this time people will do something.
But how could the Oklahoma City bombing be too small? People were blown up while they were inside that building, just like at the World Trade center. What is insignificant about that? And if tiny nuclear bombs have been going off for the past 10 or 20 years, how is that insignificant? And even if only a portion of what Cathy O'Brien says is accurate, how is that subject insignificant?
I suggest we stop fooling ourselves into believing that the majority of people will someday take an active role in society. We should consider the possibility that the majority of people will continue to behave exactly as they have all throughout history. We should stop fooling ourselves into believing that soon the public will start behaving in a responsible manner.
Larry Silverstein … A Sheep Herder?Larry Silverstein, the landlord of Building 7, implied on a PBS documentary that the building was demolished with explosives by the fire department. Silverstein claimed the fire department commander called him on the phone and told him that they were not sure if they could extinguish the fires in Building 7. Silverstein suggested demolishing the building. He claims the fire department commander agreed, and then arranged for the demolition of that 47-story office building that same afternoon, but without telling the tenants of the building to clear out their possessions.
I was surprised to discover that some people actually consider that maybe Silverstein is correct that the fire department demolished Building 7.
I then have to explain in detail that the fire department could not possibly arrange for the demolition of a gigantic building in a matter of a few hours. How, in only a few hours, could a demolition company figure out how to demolish a 47 story building, and deliver explosives to it, and place the explosives at the proper locations? And remember that traffic was backed up in the area, and the subway that run under the area had been destroyed, so getting explosives and people to the building would have been difficult.
If it’s possible for a demolition company to destroy a 47 story building with only a few hours notice, then why are they charging so much money and requiring so much time to demolish smaller buildings? Furthermore, why would the fire department demolish the building without telling the tenants to remove their computers, office furniture, and documents?
There are numerous accusations on the Internet that there were documents in Building 7 about crimes, such as Enron. What a coincidence that those documents were destroyed when the building collapsed. Have you noticed that none of the tenants of Building 7 are complaining that their equipment or documents were destroyed? How could nobody care?
Most people are so desperate to believe that Osama conducted the attack that they will cling to even the stupidest explanations. They would rather believe that the fire department demolished the building rather than face the possibility that the entire attack was a scam that was planned years earlier.
I was surprised that some people responded to me, “If the fire department did not demolish the building, then why would Silverstein say they did?”
So let me give you a few possible reasons as to why Silverstein would say such a thing. First of all, consider that his remark is accusing the fire department of a very serious crime. If I were the fire department commander I would consider it to be a terrible accusation. How would you feel if Silverstein accused you of demolishing Building 7? Some people might file a lawsuit to make him retract the accusation.
Furthermore, Silverstein is demanding insurance companies pay him for Building 7 on the grounds that the collapse was due to the attack by Osama. Why doesn’t the insurance company complain the fire department should pay for the building?
Silverstein is not an idiot, so why would he make a remark that could possibly get himself in trouble with the fire department and the insurance companies? In fact, his remark could be used as evidence in court that he was involved in this attack.
So why would Silverstein implicate himself in the attack? And why didn’t the fire department commander make a fuss about that remark? Actually, why is nobody in our entire government or news organizations talking about Building 7?
Perhaps the fire department commander, the FBI director, and other top US governments officials are friends with Silverstein. Perhaps they all got together after the television interview to laugh at the ease at which the American people can be manipulated.
But I suspect situation is more diabolical. I suspect some government officials were complaining about the demolition of the building, so Silverstein made that remark in order to intimidate them. Perhaps that remark was intended to show them that Silverstein and his friends control America, and American people better learn who their masters are.
If you or I were to do something as trivial as spit on a policeman or fireman, we would risk arrest. By comparison, hundreds of police and firemen were blown up on September 11th, along with thousands of other people, but the policemen and firemen just turn their heads and pretend they saw nothing.
It seems as if Silverstein is a Sheep Herder, and his remark during the PBS documentary was intended to let the PoliceSheep and FireSheep know who their master is.
We can't change the sheepI think the majority of people will always behave like sheep; that there will always be a small minority manipulating the majority.
We can’t make the majority of people become responsible, but we can change the piped piper. If we give ourselves a more respectable government, then we could lead the sheep into making nice cities, advanced train systems, and a useful educational system.
We need higher standards for government officialsSome people — especially in the San Francisco area — believe that our problems will be solved with anarchy or communism, but even if we switched to communism, nothing would improve as long as the voters continue to elect people like George Bush. We need to find some way to give ourselves better government officials. I think we need to devise higher standards for government leaders so that people such as George Bush cannot qualify as a candidate.
After Ronald Reagan was elected president, I heard some Americans boasting that America is the best nation in the world because anybody can become president here.
Imagine getting on an airplane and hearing the stewardess boast that this was the greatest airline because anybody can become a pilot; that there were no standards for the pilots.
Or a imagine a corporation boasting that they are the greatest company in the world because they let anybody become an engineer; that there are no standards for their engineers.
I would say the September 11th attack and other scams are evidence that our current attitudes towards government and voting are failing miserably. Every government in the world is terrible. When are we going to consider the possibility that our voting systems are crummy? When are we going to start experimenting to make our voting systems better? We need to try something different, not just continue following the same systems that failed in the past.