-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Seismograms and "hero worship"
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:28:20 +0100
From: Michael Morrissey mdmorrissey@t-online.de
To: Gabbard, David A GABBARDD@ecu.edu , Jones, Steven steven_jones@byu.edu , Morgan Reynolds econrn@cox-internet.com , Gerard Holmgren holmgren@iinet.net.au
If you have this "geologist's" address you might refer him to http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/trying and see what he says. All the seismologists I contacted agreed that the seismogram in question does not indicate an explosion, but none could or would bother to explain why (at least not in a way I could understand it), and none bothered to explain why it looks identical to the seismogram of an underground nuclear explosion, which I included. Maybe you will have better luck than I did.
Morgan, Gerard, Steven, et al.,
I agree with what Gerard said and would have said the same a few years ago, but the plain fact of the matter is that the great majority of human beings follow leaders. They like to be told what to do and even what to believe, and if it suits whatever is rumbling around in their heads, all the better. Normally, it takes a war and a couple of hundred thousand body bags to activate a population as privileged as ours (privilege being in inverse proportion to political independence), especially after the antiwar movement is decapitated (JFK, MLK, RFK).
The first thing I said to my German listeners when Gulf War I started was pretty much what Gerard said, but the reason was different. I said don't rally behind leaders because they will get shot. That is the way dangerous dissenters are dealt with in the US, and there is a reason for it: it is spectacular. It is also obvious who the perpetrators are, for all that choose to see. Vince Salandria called this the "transparency theory," and I call it the "let's show 'em we've got 'em by the balls" theory. Those who are willing to see the truth are cowed into silence by the sheer immensity of the opposition, which is first and foremost the power to brainwash the rest of the population into if not believing at least accepting the official truth, no matter how preposterous it is.
This was true of the 60s assassinations, and it is true of 911. The difference is that 911 is much more preposterous than any of the assassination stories. It is as if "transparency" has been elevated to "blatancy."
The truth is, Gerard, that while you are waiting for everyone to wake up, think for themselves, and then try to figure out something they can do about things, it will be far too late. We have had 53 years of JFK research; the majority of the population has never believed the Warren Report, and according to a Newsweek a few years ago, the majority also think it was a military/intelligence op, which of course it was. Nevertheless, it has not made a damn bit of difference. The same thing can be said of any number of other "scandals" (to put it mildly).
Our manipulators understand this much better than you do, or than I once did. Or than Noam Chomsky does, because he says more or less what you say when asked (as he inevitably is), "What can we ordinary folk do?" He says, "What the Bolivians did to elect Evo Morales. Grass roots organizing, day by day, little by little." I wish this were the way things were. But there are two problems: Americans (and Australians and Europeans) are not Bolivians, and we have no Evo Morales (yet).
In short, I share your idealism, but it is idealism. In the real world, people need leaders. We cannot change that. What we can do is try to get leaders of our choice at least into the running. After reading this, Morgan will be more than embarrassed; he may think that I am trying to get him killed. I am not, but I admit that electing him point man would be doing him no personal favors, and yes, it would be dangerous. Robert Bowman, who is also in our group and apparently is already running for public office, would be another candidate.
So I think there is an absolute necessity for personal leadership, given the weakness of human mentality. However, since we also know that our oppressors know this better than we do, we have to go a step further. We need to have 1) a group of leaders, organized in an order of succession so that should one fall, another will promptly take his/her place with no interruption of the program, and 2) we need to make the reasons for this clear to the public.
This last point is the same one I was trying to make with the preamble I suggested for the petition. We need to tell people, quite plainly, that we are afraid our leaders will be assassinated just like JFK etc., and we are afraid of another phoney 911 and subsequent imposition of martial law. We need to tell people this so they can get their heads around it and work upu the courage to do something about it. I think we have the arguments for that already, and another 50 years of research will not help. If people are rational and receptive, they have to agree with us. That is not the problem. The problem is psychological and political. Again, it's a matter of leadership. Your guy in the street needs somebody credible to stand up and say what he already thinks or suspects, but is afraid to say.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Gabbard, David A
To: Jones, Steven ; Morgan Reynolds ; Gerard Holmgren
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:12 AM
Subject: RE: Hero worship
Steven,
Just pulled this down from a blog (Daily Kos).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/23513/8539
What do you make of it?
Let me just say this:
I am a geologist, with experience in seismic experiments.
Earthquakes emit characteristic seismic waves - vibrations of the earth that are caused by the shifting and sliding of blocks past one another.
Explosions emit DIFFERENT characteristic seismic waves, with entirely different signatures as recorded on seismographs. These seismographs are sensitive enough to determine the difference between an earthquake and an explosion. In fact they are sensitive enough to detect the difference between a chemical explosion and a nuclear explosion, so much so, that they were and are used in the verification of nuclear test ban treaties. A seismograph can reveal whether a 5 kiloton explosion in central Russia was the result of a nuclear test or a chemical test.
The seismic records from the morning of September 11, 2001 are freely available from Harvard, Lamont-Doherty (Columbia), the USGS, and a wide variety of academic, US government, foreign government (like canada), and other sources.
There is NO, repeat NO evidence for any pre-WTC collapse explosions of the required power to demolish the buildings.
Period.
THAT aspect of the 9-11 conspiracy theories is bunk.
As to the forewarning, and the rest, there is scant evidence for or against, and what evidence there is regarding forewarning is very equivocal in terms of the specificity of any warnings.
Regardless, I am specifically addressing the "explosives brought down the WTC" theory, and it is crap.
And let me add that I absolutely understand what you are saying in your diary - you are not actually pushing any of those conspiracy theories directly, rather, you are talking about the conspiracy theory phenomenon, and how they take root and grow, and it is a good diary.
David Gabbard, EdD
Professor
Dept of C&I
College of Education
East Carolina University
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, Steven [mailto:steven_jones@byu.edu ]
Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 7:18 PM
To: Morgan Reynolds; Gerard Holmgren
Subject: RE: Hero worship
I agree with Morgan and Gerard here.
At the same time, we can support initiatives like that of Senator
Feingold, who has called for a censure of the President-I sent him a
letter of support and urged him to consider that the investigation of
9/11 has never been resolved (etc.) This was also stated eight days ago
on ABC's This Week by Gen. Wesley Clark, and I sent a supportive email
also. Such efforts DO merit our support. Steven Jones
-----Original Message-----
From: Morgan Reynolds [mailto:econrn@cox-internet.com ]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:10 PM
To: Gerard Holmgren
I was busy this afternoon and Gerard beat me to the punch. Michael means
well, I give him that, and I appreciate the plug for my writings but no
one should rally around Morgan. For one thing, Morgan is embarrassed
(!?). More to the point, all this "unity" stuff is bilge intended to
suppress research beyond WTC demolition, and to paraphrase a friend , "I
reject the very term 9/11 truth movement." Why is centralization
(central control!) so great versus decentralization? If my work is good,
minor though it may be, defend the analysis as you see fit, I welcome
the help, though I'm a big boy and can do pretty well on my own. Leaders
imply followers. We don't need followers, but people thinking and doing
something peaceful, sincere, active and truth-loaded to bring the
perpetrators to justice. Effectiveness is especially welcome too, but
that's often hard to gauge, isn't it? All the more reason to favor
decentralization and competition, and reject forced centralization. If
we can develop a large showing at ground zero on the fifth anniversary
of 9/11, for example, that would be great but it's not about rallying
around "leaders" momentarily or permanently. There is room for all kinds
of skills and contributions.
Morgan
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Gerard Holmgren wrote:
Michael Morrisey writes
[[The "truth" movement is so much in need of leadership. Can we
not rally around this man? ]] {Morgan Reynolds]
I like Morgan's work and have supported it. However, I have a
philosophical objection to "rallying around " or accepting the
"leadership" of anyone,,no matter how good their work might be.
I support Morgan's work because of what it says, not because of
who he is. And to put in perspective - this is not a snipe at Morgan -
its simply stating the facts, Morgan is really only rehashing and
refining similar work which has been around for a long time. And his
output is modest compared to many others. This is not a complaint, it's
just the way it is.
This must not turn into a hero cult. The facts, and arguments
must stand for what they are, not for who puts them forward. The true
challenge is to get good information to the public, and even more
importantly, to re-empower the public to be able to think critically, to
work things out for themselves, not to have them chanting the name of a
hero and endorsing some particular POV just because their hero says so.
That's how bloodthirsty dictators get overthrown to be replaced
by another just as bad. If you've read "Animal Farm", you should know
what I mean.
IMO, if there is a true hero amongst us, it is Rosalee Grable -
the Webfairy. She first noticed that there no planes at the WTC back in
Mid 2002, the most stunning evidence of all - one which should have the
whole operation busted in a week if people had been prepared to listen.
For an entire year, she was almost totally ignored. Then for the
next year, only a handful of supporters, of which I was one of the
first. She has suffered the most sustained slime attack of anyone - for
years. I started getting the same slime as soon as started supporting
her work. I went from hero to villain in a matter of months, once I
started supporting her work. She got bashed up, had her computer
smashed, forced into homelessness, detained for 5 days, not knowing if
it was homeland security or whether or whether they were going to force
into a metal asylum, had her apartment raided by the feds...and while
all of this was going on, subject to the most vicious torrent of
misrepresentation, ridicule, lies and vitriol by the so called ":truth
movement", the people who are supposed to be on our side.
Somehow she's survived it all and managed to bring her work to
us. I am very glad for any new person who jumps on board and that
includes Morgan, but lets keep it in perspective.
I strongly object to personality cults or hero worship of
anybody. Let's just concentrate on the quality of the information.
That's what it's all about. Let's rally around good quality work.
We don't need titles, or reputations to tell us what to think.
We can work it out for ourselves. I wont support any notion that
someone's reputation or title enables them to state with more authority
than someone else the simple facts that the law of gravity still works,
that things still look closer when they bigger, that plane wings can't
slice through steel columns at the same time as having the fuselage
destroyed, while still leaving a cartoon type shape of themselves, that
125 ft wingspan cant fit into a 16 ft hole, that kero can't vaporize a
plane or melt steel...etc.
If we need "qualifications" to be able to work out and argue
those things , then we might as well give up.
I reject any notion that the truth should be determined or
promoted on the basis of an individual's reputation or title. I reject
any notion that we should "rally around" anyone. All we should do is
find out the truth as best we can, and speak it as widely as possible.
Disagreements are fine, as long as everyone is supporting what they
personally believe to be the truth.
I will not recommend or accept anyone as "leader".
From: Michael Morrissey [mailto:mdmorrissey@t-online.de ]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 8:53 AM
To: Morgan Reynolds; Gerard Holmgren
Subject: Re: The information the Scholars apparently don;t want
released
I want to express my respect and admiration for Morgan Reynolds.
Here is a man from inside the power structure who of all us has probably
gone the furthest and has the most to lose in terms of "rep." His
website http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=home coverage of 911 is
lucid and comprehensive. Think of what it must have taken a Bush
appointee to come to where he is now.
The "truth" movement is so much in need of leadership. Can we
not rally around this man?
Michael
Subject: Seismograms and "hero worship"
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:28:20 +0100
From: Michael Morrissey mdmorrissey@t-online.de
To: Gabbard, David A GABBARDD@ecu.edu , Jones, Steven steven_jones@byu.edu , Morgan Reynolds econrn@cox-internet.com , Gerard Holmgren holmgren@iinet.net.au
If you have this "geologist's" address you might refer him to http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/trying and see what he says. All the seismologists I contacted agreed that the seismogram in question does not indicate an explosion, but none could or would bother to explain why (at least not in a way I could understand it), and none bothered to explain why it looks identical to the seismogram of an underground nuclear explosion, which I included. Maybe you will have better luck than I did.
Morgan, Gerard, Steven, et al.,
I agree with what Gerard said and would have said the same a few years ago, but the plain fact of the matter is that the great majority of human beings follow leaders. They like to be told what to do and even what to believe, and if it suits whatever is rumbling around in their heads, all the better. Normally, it takes a war and a couple of hundred thousand body bags to activate a population as privileged as ours (privilege being in inverse proportion to political independence), especially after the antiwar movement is decapitated (JFK, MLK, RFK).
The first thing I said to my German listeners when Gulf War I started was pretty much what Gerard said, but the reason was different. I said don't rally behind leaders because they will get shot. That is the way dangerous dissenters are dealt with in the US, and there is a reason for it: it is spectacular. It is also obvious who the perpetrators are, for all that choose to see. Vince Salandria called this the "transparency theory," and I call it the "let's show 'em we've got 'em by the balls" theory. Those who are willing to see the truth are cowed into silence by the sheer immensity of the opposition, which is first and foremost the power to brainwash the rest of the population into if not believing at least accepting the official truth, no matter how preposterous it is.
This was true of the 60s assassinations, and it is true of 911. The difference is that 911 is much more preposterous than any of the assassination stories. It is as if "transparency" has been elevated to "blatancy."
The truth is, Gerard, that while you are waiting for everyone to wake up, think for themselves, and then try to figure out something they can do about things, it will be far too late. We have had 53 years of JFK research; the majority of the population has never believed the Warren Report, and according to a Newsweek a few years ago, the majority also think it was a military/intelligence op, which of course it was. Nevertheless, it has not made a damn bit of difference. The same thing can be said of any number of other "scandals" (to put it mildly).
Our manipulators understand this much better than you do, or than I once did. Or than Noam Chomsky does, because he says more or less what you say when asked (as he inevitably is), "What can we ordinary folk do?" He says, "What the Bolivians did to elect Evo Morales. Grass roots organizing, day by day, little by little." I wish this were the way things were. But there are two problems: Americans (and Australians and Europeans) are not Bolivians, and we have no Evo Morales (yet).
In short, I share your idealism, but it is idealism. In the real world, people need leaders. We cannot change that. What we can do is try to get leaders of our choice at least into the running. After reading this, Morgan will be more than embarrassed; he may think that I am trying to get him killed. I am not, but I admit that electing him point man would be doing him no personal favors, and yes, it would be dangerous. Robert Bowman, who is also in our group and apparently is already running for public office, would be another candidate.
So I think there is an absolute necessity for personal leadership, given the weakness of human mentality. However, since we also know that our oppressors know this better than we do, we have to go a step further. We need to have 1) a group of leaders, organized in an order of succession so that should one fall, another will promptly take his/her place with no interruption of the program, and 2) we need to make the reasons for this clear to the public.
This last point is the same one I was trying to make with the preamble I suggested for the petition. We need to tell people, quite plainly, that we are afraid our leaders will be assassinated just like JFK etc., and we are afraid of another phoney 911 and subsequent imposition of martial law. We need to tell people this so they can get their heads around it and work upu the courage to do something about it. I think we have the arguments for that already, and another 50 years of research will not help. If people are rational and receptive, they have to agree with us. That is not the problem. The problem is psychological and political. Again, it's a matter of leadership. Your guy in the street needs somebody credible to stand up and say what he already thinks or suspects, but is afraid to say.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Gabbard, David A
To: Jones, Steven ; Morgan Reynolds ; Gerard Holmgren
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:12 AM
Subject: RE: Hero worship
Steven,
Just pulled this down from a blog (Daily Kos).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/23513/8539
What do you make of it?
Let me just say this:
I am a geologist, with experience in seismic experiments.
Earthquakes emit characteristic seismic waves - vibrations of the earth that are caused by the shifting and sliding of blocks past one another.
Explosions emit DIFFERENT characteristic seismic waves, with entirely different signatures as recorded on seismographs. These seismographs are sensitive enough to determine the difference between an earthquake and an explosion. In fact they are sensitive enough to detect the difference between a chemical explosion and a nuclear explosion, so much so, that they were and are used in the verification of nuclear test ban treaties. A seismograph can reveal whether a 5 kiloton explosion in central Russia was the result of a nuclear test or a chemical test.
The seismic records from the morning of September 11, 2001 are freely available from Harvard, Lamont-Doherty (Columbia), the USGS, and a wide variety of academic, US government, foreign government (like canada), and other sources.
There is NO, repeat NO evidence for any pre-WTC collapse explosions of the required power to demolish the buildings.
Period.
THAT aspect of the 9-11 conspiracy theories is bunk.
As to the forewarning, and the rest, there is scant evidence for or against, and what evidence there is regarding forewarning is very equivocal in terms of the specificity of any warnings.
Regardless, I am specifically addressing the "explosives brought down the WTC" theory, and it is crap.
And let me add that I absolutely understand what you are saying in your diary - you are not actually pushing any of those conspiracy theories directly, rather, you are talking about the conspiracy theory phenomenon, and how they take root and grow, and it is a good diary.
David Gabbard, EdD
Professor
Dept of C&I
College of Education
East Carolina University
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, Steven [mailto:steven_jones@byu.edu ]
Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 7:18 PM
To: Morgan Reynolds; Gerard Holmgren
Subject: RE: Hero worship
I agree with Morgan and Gerard here.
At the same time, we can support initiatives like that of Senator
Feingold, who has called for a censure of the President-I sent him a
letter of support and urged him to consider that the investigation of
9/11 has never been resolved (etc.) This was also stated eight days ago
on ABC's This Week by Gen. Wesley Clark, and I sent a supportive email
also. Such efforts DO merit our support. Steven Jones
-----Original Message-----
From: Morgan Reynolds [mailto:econrn@cox-internet.com ]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:10 PM
To: Gerard Holmgren
I was busy this afternoon and Gerard beat me to the punch. Michael means
well, I give him that, and I appreciate the plug for my writings but no
one should rally around Morgan. For one thing, Morgan is embarrassed
(!?). More to the point, all this "unity" stuff is bilge intended to
suppress research beyond WTC demolition, and to paraphrase a friend , "I
reject the very term 9/11 truth movement." Why is centralization
(central control!) so great versus decentralization? If my work is good,
minor though it may be, defend the analysis as you see fit, I welcome
the help, though I'm a big boy and can do pretty well on my own. Leaders
imply followers. We don't need followers, but people thinking and doing
something peaceful, sincere, active and truth-loaded to bring the
perpetrators to justice. Effectiveness is especially welcome too, but
that's often hard to gauge, isn't it? All the more reason to favor
decentralization and competition, and reject forced centralization. If
we can develop a large showing at ground zero on the fifth anniversary
of 9/11, for example, that would be great but it's not about rallying
around "leaders" momentarily or permanently. There is room for all kinds
of skills and contributions.
Morgan
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Gerard Holmgren wrote:
Michael Morrisey writes
[[The "truth" movement is so much in need of leadership. Can we
not rally around this man? ]] {Morgan Reynolds]
I like Morgan's work and have supported it. However, I have a
philosophical objection to "rallying around " or accepting the
"leadership" of anyone,,no matter how good their work might be.
I support Morgan's work because of what it says, not because of
who he is. And to put in perspective - this is not a snipe at Morgan -
its simply stating the facts, Morgan is really only rehashing and
refining similar work which has been around for a long time. And his
output is modest compared to many others. This is not a complaint, it's
just the way it is.
This must not turn into a hero cult. The facts, and arguments
must stand for what they are, not for who puts them forward. The true
challenge is to get good information to the public, and even more
importantly, to re-empower the public to be able to think critically, to
work things out for themselves, not to have them chanting the name of a
hero and endorsing some particular POV just because their hero says so.
That's how bloodthirsty dictators get overthrown to be replaced
by another just as bad. If you've read "Animal Farm", you should know
what I mean.
IMO, if there is a true hero amongst us, it is Rosalee Grable -
the Webfairy. She first noticed that there no planes at the WTC back in
Mid 2002, the most stunning evidence of all - one which should have the
whole operation busted in a week if people had been prepared to listen.
For an entire year, she was almost totally ignored. Then for the
next year, only a handful of supporters, of which I was one of the
first. She has suffered the most sustained slime attack of anyone - for
years. I started getting the same slime as soon as started supporting
her work. I went from hero to villain in a matter of months, once I
started supporting her work. She got bashed up, had her computer
smashed, forced into homelessness, detained for 5 days, not knowing if
it was homeland security or whether or whether they were going to force
into a metal asylum, had her apartment raided by the feds...and while
all of this was going on, subject to the most vicious torrent of
misrepresentation, ridicule, lies and vitriol by the so called ":truth
movement", the people who are supposed to be on our side.
Somehow she's survived it all and managed to bring her work to
us. I am very glad for any new person who jumps on board and that
includes Morgan, but lets keep it in perspective.
I strongly object to personality cults or hero worship of
anybody. Let's just concentrate on the quality of the information.
That's what it's all about. Let's rally around good quality work.
We don't need titles, or reputations to tell us what to think.
We can work it out for ourselves. I wont support any notion that
someone's reputation or title enables them to state with more authority
than someone else the simple facts that the law of gravity still works,
that things still look closer when they bigger, that plane wings can't
slice through steel columns at the same time as having the fuselage
destroyed, while still leaving a cartoon type shape of themselves, that
125 ft wingspan cant fit into a 16 ft hole, that kero can't vaporize a
plane or melt steel...etc.
If we need "qualifications" to be able to work out and argue
those things , then we might as well give up.
I reject any notion that the truth should be determined or
promoted on the basis of an individual's reputation or title. I reject
any notion that we should "rally around" anyone. All we should do is
find out the truth as best we can, and speak it as widely as possible.
Disagreements are fine, as long as everyone is supporting what they
personally believe to be the truth.
I will not recommend or accept anyone as "leader".
From: Michael Morrissey [mailto:mdmorrissey@t-online.de ]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 8:53 AM
To: Morgan Reynolds; Gerard Holmgren
Subject: Re: The information the Scholars apparently don;t want
released
I want to express my respect and admiration for Morgan Reynolds.
Here is a man from inside the power structure who of all us has probably
gone the furthest and has the most to lose in terms of "rep." His
website http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=home coverage of 911 is
lucid and comprehensive. Think of what it must have taken a Bush
appointee to come to where he is now.
The "truth" movement is so much in need of leadership. Can we
not rally around this man?
Michael
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
