wanttoknow.info - Spread The Word ...

Good Morning All

A good friend last night sent me the link to the following site and I have just begun to study it.

I admit I was not previously familiar with the name Fred Burks, and am more cautious of anyone who has been close to any administration, but I think the quality and content of WantToKnow speaks for itself.

Enjoy ... and let me know what you think !
_______

For those who want to know what goes on behind the scenes in national and global politics, this is essential reading. These articles come from a comprehensive database of nearly 1,000 highly revealing news articles arranged by category. To access the entire, empowering database, click here.
- http://www.wanttoknow.info/indexnewsarticles

The database also includes a number of inspiring articles to balance all of the secrecy and darkness. By educating ourselves and spreading the news
- http://www.wanttoknow.info/spreadtheword

...to friends, colleagues, and to our media and political representatives, we can and will build a brighter future:
- http://www.wanttoknow.info/brighterfuture

With very best wishes to all,
Fred Burks for PEERS:
- http://www.peerservice.org/

and the WantToKnow.info Team:
- http://www.wanttoknow.info/aboutus

Fred Burks is former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton
- http://www.wanttoknow.info/fredburksresigns

.

individuals have amazing capacity to create ...

The following piece generally, not exactly, reflects my own personal view ... illustrates why I do not see OWG ever being successful.

" ... individual people have an amazing capacity to create their own destiny
- and to thwart and subvert whatever plans someone else may be dreaming up."

What is important in my view is an ability to distinguish between "master conspiracy" fears ...

... and the very real acts which are in some way *justified* at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Such acts are the product of groups or agencies which become more violent ...

... proportionate to diminishment of their power, as they more desperately seek to control others.

At the same time, however sovereign each of us may be, there IS one "valid external authority" always.

No earthly *sovereign individual* is yet *self-created* nor is master or controller of any other.

We can remove ourselves from earthly limitations to the best of our ability, but ...

All human schemes are of short duration.
_______


Monday, January 22, 2007
Conspiracies And Freedom

You can't be on the internet without knowing about conspiracies.

Whether it's the NWO (New World Order), the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderbergers, the Council for Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Reptilian Overlords - or just plain Jewish Bankers!

In fact, I would say that since the arrival of the internet the word "conspiracy" has become a much-used keyword.

The basic conspiracy theory goes something like this:

There is an elite group who are bent on world control. They have the means and the power to achieve their ends.

From this basic description there are many variations - including the fact that such a conspiracy has been going on for hundreds of years (or even longer). Millions of words, in tens of thousands of pages, in hundreds of books, have been written on the subject.

One of the most enduring conspiracies involves secret societies like the Bavarian Illuminati, founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776. The Great Seal (on US one dollar note) has been the source of much speculation - as has the significance of that date!

Conspiracies abound on all matter of things - and not all conspiracy theorists tie everything together into one grand one.

The thing is, does a grand conspiracy exist? Do conspiracies exist?

Let's answer the second question first. Certainly conspiracies exist. 9/11 was a conspiracy. People conspired to destroy the twin towers. The question is not whether it was a conspiracy, but who were the conspirators?

There was the JFK assassination - still the talk of conspiracy theorists worldwide. There are those who believe the killing of John Lennon was a conspiracy. And let's not forget the tragic death of Princess Diana - which until this day is a prime subject of conspiracy talk.

There's been speculation about a conspiracy to force down the price of gold. There's evidence that a secret group, known as the Plunge Protection Team, conspires to bolster the US Stockmarket, should it become wobbly at the knees.

There are even conspiracies in literature - like in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand - where the hero, John Galt, conspires to remove all the productive people from society, so it will implode.

Certainly, conspiracies exist. People do conspire to achieve specific ends. However, the existence of specific conspiracies does not of necessity prove the existence of an overall, all-encompassing super-conspiracy.

For the layman, coming to any sort of conclusion is a daunting task - as there is a wealth of apparently well-documented material on the subject. In fact, this material can be so "impressive" as to literally make converts of people - once read!

So what is one to believe?

To answer that, I want to give you a personal story. Back in 1982 I read all the conspiracy books around - I just soaked them up. I even read the forbidden Protocols of Zion. And I can tell you, I was convinced of a super global conspiracy at the time.

I read The Illuminati Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson, now a cult classic - which both ridicules and embraces the ideas on conspiracies.

I read John Robison's "Proof of a Conspiracy Against All Religions And Governments ....", and a lot more besides.

Much of the conspiracy literature has a religious tone - involving, as it does, such concepts as the Anti-Christ and the end times etc. And some of it attempts to tie in aliens as part of a super-duper-conspiracy.

To cut a long story short, I ended up rejecting a master conspiracy theory. Why? The answer has to do with the psychological effect such beliefs can have on a person. To believe in such a master conspiracy is to give away your power.

I know that when I was reading this sort of material, I could feel my sense of power draining from me. Why? Because if such a super-conspiracy existed, then it would have to be so all-powerful, that there was no escape; no point in leading one's life in a normal way.

In fact, once initiated into the belief syndrome, one has no choice but to go on a crusade to expose the conspirators! And you soon find yourself leading a life of strangely unreal proportions - where all your energies are devoted to telling others about this conspiracy thingy! You get all evangelical on everyone.

On realising the psychological impact these ideas were having on me (back in the early 80s), I immediately found myself withdrawing as a protective measure - to rethink the whole thing.

Well, many years passed. Much more reading was done. And clearer opinions were formed.

I do not believe in a master conspiracy. I do not believe that such all-encompassing planning on behalf of some highly-placed individuals can accomplish what they set out to achieve.

I believe that even if such organisations/individuals exist, their plans are continually being thwarted. Why? Because individual people have an amazing capacity to create their own destiny - and to thwart and subvert whatever plans someone else may be dreaming up.

I believe the world is becoming less controllable, not more. I believe that the psychological mindset required to fully believe the idea of a master conspiracy is also the mindset of a victim, and therefore totally unproductive. In other words, even if such an assertion were true - believing it to be true would undermine one's sense of personal power - and therefore undermine one's capacity to do anything about it. Like being between a rock and a hard place!

The offshore mindset is completely different world view in my opinion. It is the genuine belief that you have the power to live as sovereign over your own life - that governments, powers-that-be, churches, family, society, hangers on - yes, and even aspiring master conspirators, have no ultimate power over an individual who has realised the truth - that there is no valid external authority.

Being sovereign means just that. It means having the power and the wherewithal to live your life on your own terms. The whole concept of the offshore or international life is based on using strategies to thwart and avoid the various restrictions that others try to impose on you.

Yes, there is one conspiracy worth devoting all your energy to - your own one, the one where you conspire to set yourself free.

- David MacGregor
- http://www.sovereignlife.com/blog/2007/01/conspiracies-and-freedom.html
.

skewering the numbers - opinion poll shishkebab ...

Sent Mr. Zogby a polite note letting him know I could not finish his latest poll ...

One question assumes respondents approved invading Iraq.

Since I never did, I could not answer that question.

Online questionairres require response to all questions, so ...


Now I think since the majority of Americans did approve the U.S. invasion of Iraq, that poll will have sufficient response so it will seem as if results are good and fair read of opinion.

That some of us could not be sampled will go by the way.

Likely some others who disagreed with invading Iraq prior to the fact might feel silly to object answering one question, for which it will then appear that one more American did approve occupation, and that is just one way numbers get skewed ...

.

global war on terror direction will be determined ...

Good evening, Mr. P Resident

The direction of the global war on terror will be determined by making so-called "terrorists" - and by making terror itself - so repulsive to the human psyche that anyone committing an act of terror will be immediately and permanently removed from civilized society to be held apart and treated humanely for the rest of that person's natural life - assuming that person survives the act itself ... and that includes American "terrorists"

The direction of the global war on terror will be determined by civilized citizens doing what is right for everyone - not for their own "good" ahead of others ... will be determined by a consciousness which, without exception, puts availability of education ahead of profits - puts provision of basic human needs for all people in all lands, without exception, ahead of profits.

The direction of the global war on terror will be determined by moral individuals who create and maintain a sustainable environment in which all human beings may live together and prosper peacefully, so there is no more need for anyone to resort to violence in search of simple justice.

Whatever "new strategy" you may propose at this hour or any other is meaningless as long as United States troops occupy any sovereign soil or territory which is not directly governed by the laws of, and by The People who authorize the actions of, the government of the United States of America.

The safety of United States - American - citizens will not be secured as long as United States forces occupy territories outside the proper jurisdiction of the authorized, legally elected and appointed, government of the United States of America; will not be secured until U.S. forces cease to marginalize, oppress and / or threaten peoples of territories outside the proper jurisdiction of the authorized, legally elected and appointed, government of the United States of America.

That 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation would be laudable if it was an action prompted by and for their own best interests - which it was not, but instead, something imposed on them by you and your ilk.

While I might agree with you that violence in Iraq during 2006 - particularly in Baghdad - may have overwhelmed political gains Iraqis had made, if I could assume they, themselves, had made such gains, it is my gut feeling, based on known history of the actions of those who control the occupying forces in Iraq, that destruction to the Golden Mosque of Samarra was caused not by al Qaeda or Sunnis as you suggest, but was done by contractors paid by those same controllers with the purpose of denying "political gains" to Iraqis and to ensure their division so as to prolong and continue profits from the fiasco.

My gut feeling may very well be wrong, but my read of history and my personal experience both tell me what I feel is correct, and until you can prove to me otherwise, I will assume I know who are the perpetrators of that specific violence in Iraq.

Without hesitation I agree with you that the situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and if it is unacceptable to you, then do as quickly and determinedly as you possibly can END that situation, and set in place what is necessary to ensure that such outrageous and reprehensible behavior cannot ever occur again.

Until and unless you are able to accomplish that mission, understand that I will not support you in any way, nor will I support the illegal actions that you and those around you have taken in the name of the American people.

James M Booth
Redmond OR USA

Andy Griffith vs. Patriot Act ...

.

"Due Process of Law"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CvoC551i2E

.

shabby treatment ...

You likely hear things every day which you find "out there" ...

When you do, can you honestly answer whether what has been said,

is TRUE or FALSE ?


If you cannot, if you do not really know whether it is true or false ...

If you cannot honestly put into a few words what is most nearly truth.

... then I submit to you that you are failing in your duties as citizen.


You are treating yourself shabbily, and may be governed shabbily.

Just a thought ...
.

victory means exit strategy ...

... Sounding an awfully lot like U.S. Sen Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who in August [of 2005] suggested that it was time to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Texas Governor George W. Bush told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999:

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

What about "stay the course"?

No way, said Bush the candidate. "Victory means exit strategy," he told the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999, "and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

- http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=24148

ABC / Disney Shuts Down Blog Exercising Fair Use

" An anonymous reader writes:

"A blogger named Spocko had his blog shut down by ABC/Disney lawyers because he had posted clips from an ABC Radio-affiliated program and commented on their content, as well as informed show advertisers of what exactly they were paying for. Spocko merely pointed out the content that station KSFO was broadcasting, and as a result Visa pulled their advertising from the station. More companies were reportedly considering pulling their ads. A YouTube video summary is available. From the Daily Kos article: 'How'd he do it? He did it the way it's always done - by working within the law, identifying points of weakness, exploiting them and being absolutely tenacious ... It appears to me as if Disney is attempting to bully a little guy in an unethical manner. Any media lawyer worth the air she breathes knows that Spocko's use was well protected.'" "

- http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/1750216&from=rss
_____

"THE MOUSE IS ROARING AGAINST a blogger named "Spocko" who has been waging a one-man campaign against ABC Radio. So far, Disney has managed to get Spocko's Internet service provider to take down his blog--but Spocko isn't giving up the fight just yet.

The conflict stems from Spocko's criticism of a right-wing talk show airing on KSFO-AM in San Francisco. Even by notorious talk-show-standards, the comments on KSFO stand out as particularly venomous. Consider, this summer, host Melanie Morgan called for New York Times editor Bill Keller to be executed for having okayed the paper's expose on governments' attempt to suss out financial records of suspected terrorists. "I really do believe that anybody who publishes classified information that results in a charge of treason should be fried! Fry 'em! Trial, conviction, death penalty!" she said this summer, according to Salon.

Spocko posted several audio files on his site, so visitors could hear the hosts for themselves. He also began writing letters to the station's advertisers, condemning their support of KSFO; he says that some of the advertisers have stopped promoting on the station.

ABC responded with a cease-and-desist letter, sent to Spocko and his ISP. In the letter, the network claimed that Spocko's embedding of audio clips violated the KSFO copyright.

Spocko argues that his posting of the audio files--which mainly range in length from several seconds to almost five minutes--constitutes a fair use of the material.

But his ISP apparently didn't want to risk a trial on the issue and gave him one week to remove the material. When he declined, the ISP took down his blog.

For Spocko, however, the fight's not over. He has been in contact with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and apparently intends to do whatever he can on the legal front.

Meantime, Disney's heavy-handed attempt to silence its critics is already backfiring, as Spocko takes his fight public. "

- http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_167Blog
_______

Additional details and correspondence:
- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/3/202110/2838

.

in search of John McCain's soul ...

‘We will win this conflict. We will win it easily’
Posted 12:05 pm

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, reading a Think Progress post nearly word for word last night, reminded me that it’s time to update the list of John McCain’s flip-flops. From last night’s Countdown:

The winner [of the daily Worst Person in the World] is Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, [who] told us today that he knew that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough,” and that he was “sorry” for anybody who voted it thinking it would be “some kind of an easy task.”

Sen. McCain on CNN on Sept. 24, 2002: “I believe that the success will be fairly easy.”

Sen. McCain on CNN on Sept. 29, 2002: “We’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.”

Sen. McCain on this network on Jan. 22, 2003: “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.”

What’s that’s called again? Flip-flopping? Senator, we keep all the tapes of these interviews. C’mon!

Of course, you know what this means — it’s time to update the list of McCain’s biggest flip-flops as he transforms himself from maverick hero to right-wing hack. We’re up to 13 now.

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

And now McCain has gone from insisting that the war in Iraq would be easy to insisting that he’s always said the war in Iraq would be hard. And yet, you’ll still find most of the political establishment arguing that McCain’s strength as a candidate is his credibility. "

- http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9541.html

how does your world peace proposal measure up ... ?

In my view, it is folly for humankind to assume everlasting dominance over this planet called earth, or over anything.

Humans, like any other species, will continue to live and thrive on earth only as long as natural universal forces allow.

One may view such change as "Will of God" or as balance of Mother Nature or Health of Earth Mother Gaia, inevitable result of Karma, or as from any of a number of other "causes" - all good to my way of thinking, since "conscience of spirit" resides within the individual's *private sphere*

For me, a *perfect world* is one within which different belief systems reside peacefully together; in which alternative systems of organizing and administrating societies work cooperatively.

There is no *perfect* society except as it is "perfect" to the individual human being who chooses to be a part of it.

I hold it is a construct of men's (women traditionally "rolling with" (so to speak) men's foolishness until women tire of it) thinking that anything is necessarily *one thing as opposed to another*

- that in fact, all natural systems, of which humankind is but a part, are in constant flux and renewal; that change is the only constant.

"Adapt or die" being the rallying cry of any species or individual organism with a mind to continue its existence.
_

Calls for a "personal plan for world peace" are, I believe, worthy; in other words, we are healthy as we exercise our ability to seek solutions which allow and enhance our adapting to the changes we inevitably and without fail encounter.

... however, to be of a mind that there is any specific plan that would be somehow "good for everyone everywhere for all time" is folly, and most likely detracts from real solutions that can be provided to near-term challenges; wishful thinking and delusion.

There is also, I believe, a warning within the Christian belief system of an entity which will appear on the world stage offering some promise of comfort to everyone equally - that warning accompanied by admonishment not to follow such a "leader" who is foretold to be a *deceiver*
_

The story of the boy who "cried wolf" is that of someone who sought to gain personal attention - his alarms based on no threat which could be perceived by anyone hearing them.

Within some "civilized" modern societies, no longer is there much connection to "natural dangers" for people who take for granted being warm, or not too hot; having enough to eat, a wide variety of choices when considering a purchase, and so on ...

... yet to live as if no danger exists is simply "adapting to extinction"

The individual who, when an alarm is sounded, simply ignores the alarm, is less likely to survive in the long run, which for humans goes "relatively" unnoticed since none of us live forever anyway - a prevailing attitude among some being that there is no need to heed any alarms at all.
_

Health is generally a product of balance - excess leads to "unhealth" whether eating too much, or not enough, for instance.

There is no "restoring" to health a body which has been starved or glutted for too long.

Just as sleep is a rhythmical renewal process in which "enough" is required in each cycle (no way to make it up), when systems of government or overall health of a planet are allowed to progress uncontrolled, at some point there will be a convulsive "adjustment"

So a "plan for world peace" has to start with each and every individual being *informed* and aware - maintaining a healthy state of existence, fully able to interact and perform as needed no matter what "crisis" presents itself.

Garbage must be removed daily - not when we get around to it.
.

A Declaration of Rights for the 21st Century

Thom Hartmann's Ten Steps To Restore Democracy To America

Source:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/tencommandments.shtml

These ten common sense articles are posted individually in reverse order, to accomodate your comments, which are invited and appreciated.

Thank you very much.

1. Human rights are for humans.

Corporations are not persons. We must update the 14th Amendment to insert "natural" before the word "persons" so corporations can no longer claim the "right to lie," the "right to hide their crimes," the "right to buy politicians and influence elections," and "the right to force themselves on communities that don't want them." Corporate charter laws should be amended on a state-by-state basis to reinstate the spirit of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by again outlawing the ownership of one corporation by another, to limit the term of a corporation, to insert Corporate Code-like language requiring a corporation to place the needs of its community above its desire for profits, and, as Teddy Roosevelt so strongly urged us, to ban corporations from political activity of any sort. Similarly, corporations are not nations and shouldn't stand on an equal footing with nations. The United States should withdraw from support of treaties and agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and its support of The World Bank.

2. We own our government and our commons.

"Drowning government in a bathtub" as the neo-cons recommend may have been a good idea in the Soviet Union, but the United States is a constitutional representative democratic republic where our government is, literally, us. It was designed to work for us, be owned by us, exist solely by virtue of our ongoing approval, and must answer to us. Government functions must be transparent, and that transparency must also apply to corporations hired by government, particularly any who handle our votes. The shared commons of our nation - including our air, water, transportation routes, airwaves and cable networks, communication systems, military, police, prisons, fire services, health care infrastructure, and courts must be held either by locally-controlled non-profit corporations or by government responsive to its citizens. Because our federal legislators represent us, any benefits, rights, and privileges they have voted for themselves must apply to all of us. Similarly, just as we must balance our budgets every year except when in a crisis, so must our governments. Finally, government must not be a stepping-stone to private profiteering. We must re-institute laws against "revolving doors," particularly with regulatory agencies and the military and those they regulate or who provide military supplies.

3. In a democratic republic, government must represent the will of the majority of the citizens while protecting the rights of the minorities.

To make American government more democratic, we must join the rest of the world's modern democracies and institute either proportional representation or Instant Runoff Voting systems at local, state, and federal levels. Similarly, human rights movements defending minorities and women against exploitation by corporate power structures or harm from paranoids, homophobes, and racists must be recognized, and the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

4. A strong middle class is vital to democracy.

In 1792, James Madison defined government's role in promoting an American middle class, "By the silent operation of the laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort." To say that somebody who earns millions a year by arbitrage "works that much harder" than a middle-class wage earner is simple nonsense. We recommend restoring inflation-indexed income tax and inheritance tax rates to those that were extant from the 1930s to the 1960s - during the golden era of the American middle class. We also recommend that government become the "employer of last resort" by taking on public works projects and supporting the arts, as it did during that era, and establishing a truly livable minimum wage.

5. Building a civilization on liquefied fossils and then thinking it will last forever makes no sense.

According to British Petroleum, world oil reserves are enough to sustain us only into our children's lifetimes, and then will run out. We must institute a Manhattan Project type of effort to create viable energy sources that are not dependent on fossil fuels, and, in the meantime, take immediate steps to reduce use of and preserve our precious stores before they're exhausted.

6. We are part of nature.

The natural world - including our water and air - is our most vital and essential commons, and therefore must be protected from those who would despoil it for short-term profit. As we poison the world, we cause human cancer epidemics and degrade our own quality of life. We - through our representative government - must take immediate steps to protect the commons we share with all other life on planet Earth.

7. Education is a human right, regardless of station of birth.

When Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, his vision was to provide a free education to every person interested in and capable of participating. The Founders knew that classroom education is a right - and not a requirement - for life in a democracy. Therefore, university education should be free to all who academically qualify, and primary school education should not be compulsory but neither should it be provided by for-profit corporations.

8. Health care is a human right and necessary to sustain freedom in a democracy.

America should join every other industrialized democracy in the world by instituting a single-payer health care system.

9. America is not a kingdom, and we don't elect kings.

To turn back from the "imperial presidency" and return the executive branch to its position co-equal with the other two branches of government, we recommend disbanding the primary instrument of presidential power - the Office Of Homeland Security - and requiring the President to meet weekly in open and public discussion with all members of Congress, as is done in the United Kingdom (“Prime Minister’s Questions”) and most other modern democracies.

10. The US Government is an instrument of secular democracy, not a religious theocracy, and has no right in our churches, homes, or bedrooms.

What we do in private, among consenting adults, is our business and our business only. Prostitution, drug abuse, alcoholism, and gambling addiction are medical problems, and thus should be handled by medical authorities, and all attempts to place these in the realm of the criminal justice system should be rescinded. Similarly, the government has no right or business using the language or beliefs of any one of our many religions, or to tell any of our religions what or how they should behave or believe.

courage to voice an educated opinion ...

I want to thank those who have it.
_

Around the time of September 11 attack, I was not tied to any television set anywhere - had decided to gather my own "news" years previously, so I was not dependent on some "analyst" to "interpret" events for me.

Because of complaints from others, I was acutely aware that television was showing images of falling towers repeatedly, and I wondered why.

At that time, I did not yet know what has been revealed in years since about so-called "intelligence failures" - without which 911 would not have occurred.

Convenient tag: "intelligence failures"

Point blame at Intelligence gatherers, tell public the Intelligence community did not do their job - they let us all down.

I only wonder in which "think tank" that idea originated.

FBI and CIA and NSA and other agencies have made it quite clear since 3000 and more Americans lost their lives, going about their business and duties on a regular work day, that there was NO "intelligence failure" at all.

The amount of money alone that was and is spent to fund those agencies would require a massive dereliction of duty among the majority of personnel for there to have been no one who knew what was going to occur September 11, 2001.

Only if one believes in coincidence (I do not) could anyone accept both a supposed "failure of intelligence" and the oh-so-perfect setup of multiple "air defense" exercises and other emergency drills, along with a never before authorized change of NORAD command ...

... not to mention other emergency drills which had been conducted in days and weeks prior at the Pentagon and other sites, specific to the very sort of attack which was witnessed by Americans on 911 (how did they know?), or the fact that something crashed into the ONLY newly reinforced section of the Pentagon.

Coincidences

Yet our Administration still wants us all to believe that "flying aircraft into buildings" was something no one considered likely to happen.
_

In those days I was still my old self, thinking America would awaken from slumber some time, object to failures in government, lack of representation, increasing corruption, etc. - still of the opinion that everything would balance out over time, that people generally would "do the right thing" and we would all survive.

Families of 911 victims wanted answers, wanted to know what happened that day, why their loved ones were lost.

How could things go so terribly wrong.

The "911 Commission" - officially the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" - was supposed to provide those answers.

When it did not, I was already noticing increasing argument primarily between Right and Left - not people debating issues, but utter nastiness.

People going after blood, tearing into each other, as if issues themselves no longer mattered - only blood lust of shredding a victim.
_

About that time I was fed up with not getting a straight story from government or "news" - unable to find others who made sense, seemed to know what happened - I was hearing too many conflicting versions of events.

Realizing people generally did not know what happened that day, what happened to their country and to their way of life, could not grasp the enourmity of it, I began reading everything I could get, buying books on a limited budget, googling every lead I came across, spending most of my time for several months reading more than I had read in years - thankful to have time to do it.

Reading and researching will continue indefinitely for me now, because I still do not know enough, and because the more I learn the more I want to know.

What I gained is ability to present an informed opinion
- with confidence.

I admit my opinion(s), in present form, about any one subject, are not perfect, and I am willing to stand corrected when someone presents more accurate detail - yet what I can tell now is often nearer truth than I hear generally from others.

Today I find very few people with courage to state an opinion based on facts they have gathered themselves.

I hear opinions which are regurgitated "talking points" or too often a "party line" explanation, but seldom a personally developed analysis or details of a particular event based on having followed the history of that event through the mind of someone who participated directly.

From one author to another, one has to be careful of the perspective presented - not enough to take everything said at face value.

Only after working through enough material relative to one topic is it possible to form a picture of who is "spinning the tale" in a particular direction, who is telling it like it happened, who is making it up ... and eventually it is possible to decide WHY an author would make something up, or spin it, as authors themselves become a larger part of the overall "tale" being pieced together.

So I have come to realize the frustration people have, because most simply do not know, cannot readily decide whether a solid opinion is factual or more deception or falsehood - no time to do the homework required.
_

Now when I present my case relative to a subject - give them my opinion - I do so with confidence I have learned enough about the topic so I can more easily fill in gaps which appear, and proceed.

What I receive in return increasingly captures my attention.

Some respond as if there is no hope left in this world, nothing can be done - problems are simply too complicated and overwhelming ... maybe best just wait for the Rapture - Let God as they say.

A variation of the "overwhelming" type of response is the "What is your plan?" question, which seems intended to subtly shift blame for others' wrongdoing to the speaker.

I am never quite sure how to answer that question until I get to know the person asking well enough to decide if they really want to know - because I do not feel compelled to tell others how the world should be.

More curious are those who want to talk about history, but disconnect it from the present - as if current events have no cause based in what happened over decades and centuries between groups which are now in conflict with each other.

Another variety of folks "respond" to opinions in a very different way:
ignoring evidence presented, this latter group attacks the presenter - character assassination, labelling, name-calling, cursing - anything goes ... which leads me to believe what is said to them must be too close to truth.

Those who attack the messenger in that way I find comical, because they seem to deny existence of real people who report real events - as if what is true could not be true since it does not fit the tidy universe they created, so they refuse to believe, want to make sure anyone who would "make up" such things is to be seen as mentally unstable or "one of them" (whoever "them" is to that person).

Rarest of all is the response I am most eager to find:
Someone who has done the homework, who can say to me,
"Yes, but this part is actually a little different than you stated ... "

I APPRECIATE individuals with courage to voice an educated opinion.

Congratulations !

Careful with whom you share that opinion.
.