Recent Activity

Trump lies as global warming’s victims…


And in the eyes of those who deny human caused global warming, those of us who raise valid red flags are just complainers and weaklings who can't stand the thought of a little rough weather in the future. Too bad that green energy is enjoying a surge in usage and popularity around the world, and could soon create more jobs, while eliminating hundreds of billions of costs needed to cope with the damage from future mega-storms.

Politicians often try to make their constituents focus on the "give me what I what I want now" syndrome. So if we get a small tax break, that justifies letting the top .1% get massive tax breaks, while they ignore the environment and send our education system back to the stone age, simultaneously tossing millions off of health care---and all the while trying to make us believe that those necessities make no difference at all?---err so let me say that again---hundreds of billions in aid for ahhh, environmental catastrophes happening today.... everywhere...errr no health care for 15 million, privatising public education and errr potentially raising the national debt by.... even more trillions in taxpayers errr dollars? Errr...what I mean is if...I mean why? Errr I'm getting so confused!

In the next elections Republicans are aiming to screw an incredible number of middle and lower people, most of whom have worked all their lives, and have always played by the rules. But this time the obscenity of their plans are far too devious to benefit any of us at all. So when we get into our voting booths lets not forget to kick the suckers in their big behinds and not fall for yet another devious illusion! Bill Clinton said it best at the 2012 Democratic convention--the Republicans screw things up, we fix them, and then they convince people to vote for them because WE are fixing their mistakes too slowly. What might bring us short term satisfaction is guaranteed to bring the Coke Brothers and other billionaires to the land of perpetual milk and honey--right after they pull the rug out from under us again!

I wish we could echo the attitude of the many people in European countries who earn much less but don't really care, because they get free health care, and the opportunity to use good affordable health care, etc. As Bernie Sanders said in this recent debate with Ted Cruz--"You've got to see the whole picture--If you have to pay $2000 a year in Health care costs, but save 15thousand in actual health care and health services, have a future guaranteed to include a much more affordable education, but still pay only an affordable tax burden, you'd errr....err. maybe you'd be screwed by errr.... Ahhh? What did Bernie say?

Let's not let the Republicans pull their devious illusions on us again--saying that Democrats are trying to make us fear losing money while painting common sense measure to bring real (net prosperity) to us all---as being bad advice. i.e. Even though many Europeans pay very high taxes, but don't care about their pay simply because they are guaranteed of having free or low income access to healthcare and the opportunity to obtain a real higher education? If we just quite saying "I want what I want when I want it," or want to take teh easy road now that will eventually become the hardest road we could really make some progress that might help us all.

9/11 and the Repression of Dissent Through…


The following is a very long comment which refers to several of the “indisputable,” claims made by 911 conspiracy theorists, Gary Kohls, who presented them as absolute proof of a conspiracy in his article in the September 7th issue of the Duluth Reader. Let me see if I can debunk them?
“On the morning of 9/11/01, 19 Arab Muslims outwitted the most sophisticated military defense system in the world – FOUR TIMES.”

Some of the claims made about the attacks included disbelief that a military might like America could be successfully attacked by a few Hi Jackers. However, by the time the military became aware of what was happening and scrambled jets to intercept the hijackers, they had turned off the radio signals in their planes, making them hard to spot out of hundreds of planes on our radar that morning. Pilots couldn’t just jump in their planes and 2 minute later shoot down the highjacked jets, or persuade the attackers to stop. As much as we’d like to believe it couldn’t happen it did—on the morning of 9/11 in 2001! The hijackers were also able to smuggle on small weapons that were undetected (like Box cutters and small knives) and they had also been trained hand to hand fighting. And just as General Custer never anticipated what would happened next. Our means of detecting suspicious passengers was much less effective and by comparison way too lax.

About steel columns and the Tower’s collapses;
“The laws of physics were suspended in New York City, with three high-rises, massively steel-reinforced skyscrapers all collapsing at free-fall speed directly into their footprints.”
“In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building, but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.”
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.”
The World Trade Center towers, each of which were designed to easily tolerate such impacts were allegedly brought down by two airlines. (the following paragraphs are from the Debunking 911 myths website).
“The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.”
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually.

From this website:

“To many who witnessed the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center last September, it might appear obvious why the Twin Towers fell: They were struck at blinding speed by two massive aircraft carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel, whose ignition generated a fire so searing that it weakened steel beams to the point of collapse. Standard skyscrapers of the day had support columns that were spaced evenly throughout the width of the building. Robertson decided instead to keep the columns in a main inner core (housing the elevators, emergency stairs, and other building services), and move the rest of the support columns to the exterior walls. This difference allowed the interior to have more open space.”

“Like all the steel in the building, the trusses were protected from fire using a fire-retardant foam. But according to the findings of some of the forensic engineering teams -- which included researchers supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- each plane's impact blew the foam away. The naked steel was weakened by exposure to the intense heat of burning jet fuel. This could have caused the floor trusses to sag and fall.” Likewise, there may have been a similar problem with fire-protection for the emergency stairwells and elevators in the inner core. Those areas were surrounded by drywall -- a kind of Sheetrock that is especially fire resistant. But the drywall was so lightweight that the impact of each plane blew it away, exposing the stairwells and inner core supports to the intense fires. It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time.

“There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse.”

Then there is this bugaboo;
None of the names of the 19 alleged hi-jackers were mentioned in the passenger manifest lists. At least five of the alleged hi-jackers have been found to be alive and well and living in the Mid-East. Some of them have been interviewed by the BBC.
“Among the human remains painstakingly sorted from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites of Sept. 11 are those of nine of the hijackers.
“It's a unique situation," said Dr. Jerry Spencer, a former chief medical examiner for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who worked 30 years as a Navy forensic pathologist. "The terrorists are usually not in our possession in the United States like this. The other issue is, will the families want them back?
We don’t actually subscribe to these ideas, but without any official documentation it’s hard to prove a point, one way or the other. Which is why we were very interested to see a photo of what looked like a passenger manifest in the Terry McDermott book, Perfect Soldiers. We emailed the author, and he said yes: apparently these were amongst a bunch of investigative files he obtained from the FBI while researching his book. 24 hours later we had copies, too. So, what would they tell us?”
“One immediately obvious point is that our lists show the alleged hijackers on each of the four planes. Another indication that the “hijackers weren’t on the manifests” claims are false.
“t’s worth bearing in mind that these aren’t the only reported documents to show alleged hijackers on the planes, though. The Boston Globe published the seat numbers of the suspects on the two planes hijacked locally to them, and provided the complete seating plan for Flight 11. These lists do nothing more than confirm what we already identified by the hijacker’s families.”
“Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).”
“The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms. Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.
"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms. Borakove said.
"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.”
About those impossible phone calls;

My words: (in order to destroy the idea that passengers on the hijacked planes engaged in a brave fight with hijackers, apparently, conspiracy believers found it necessary to destroy the idea that several doomed passengers made cell phone calls alerting loved ones of their situation.) So, this is the theory they circulated;
“In 2001, it was impossible for commercially-available cell phones to transmit messages from planes that were flying higher than 2,000 feet of altitude or at speeds exceeding 230 MPH. (Flight 93 was flying at 30,000 feet and at 500 MPH when calls were allegedly made. The calls were clever hoaxes, particularly the infamous “Let’s Roll” call.”
But, according to an article written by Simon Romero in the Sept. 14th, 2001 issue of the New York Times;

“Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.”
“It is still not clear, except perhaps to investigators, whether the various calls placed from the hijacked planes were from cell phones or air phones, the wireless pay phones built into some aircraft seats that are operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE operation of Verizon Communications. (Air phones communicate with ground-based antennas that do not interfere with cellular networks.)
“But at least one of the calls appears to have come from a passenger in a bathroom outside the reach of the air phones, suggesting that a cell phone was used in that case. Wireless carriers declined to say whether the calls were made on their systems, citing privacy concerns and the investigation by the federal authorities.”
To bolster their 911 conspiracy theory Truther tried to circulate the myth that passenger using cell phones could not possibly have used them to contact loved ones. And they conjured up speculations about some amazing electronic device that could not only imitate the voices of loved one who mighty call from the plane, but also immediately match their response to any word or phrase, in English (and possibly other) languages, so that they could give the impression of hearing and responding to whatever was said. In other words, if the loved one said, “Uncle Don heard about it on the news,” then the device would have been able to identify and instantly craft a congruous response? Of course, such a device has never been invented and/or commercially used, and so 911 truthers who use it as a hypothetical explanation lean more on science fiction than anything in the real world. However, this is an absurdly inventive attempt to provide speculative answers, which are way to bizarre for more rational truther to accept! This science fiction concoction is way too bizarre than other arguments made by truthers, and it’s amazing that Gary still clings to it?

“The laws of chemistry were suspended in New York City when dozens of massive steel girders, whose melting point is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit, were simultaneously and explosively melted by burning aviation fuel, whose maximum achievable temperature (even when burned in 100% oxygen) is 1517 degrees F”
However, this question has already been proved irrelevant regarding why the twin towers fell. If one visits a metallurgical website it doesn’t take long to find out that, although Steel does need to be heated to very high temperature in order to melt, in order to seriously destroy the Towers’ stability, all that needs to happen is for the steel to weaken, then bend and snap while trying to cope with 10 stories above the impact area in one tower and about 25 floors above the impact zone in the other. Each floor took up about an acre of horizontal space and weighed thousands of tons. They also contained furniture, like desks chairs, tables, and filing cabinets, plus copious amount of office supplies, like printing paper, ink and uncountable thousands of papers documents, as well as all the chemicals in paint, printers, and all the things with various minerals and chemicals from hundreds of computers in the impact zone, which all contributed to the blaze! Experts have determined that when all this “fuel” burned (more than an hour in one tower and at least half an hour in the other) so, the resulting heat was able to raise temps up to 1000 degrees, F. This was enough to make the Tower’s structural steel become half as strong, until it could no longer hold up the hundreds of thousand tons in the floors above that came down in response to gravity and acceleration. If one really looks at just about any of the videos of the towers falling, one can see that the large portions of steel beams and huge clouds of dust particles being ejected were falling faster than the tower itself, and in actuality, the time it took to fall has been estimated as 40 seconds by some investigators—well above free-fall speeds

About the myth/ rumor that 5 of the Hijackers are alive and living in the middle east, the BBC has updated the article that discussed that story;
Here is some of what they said in the 2006 update;
“The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy…. We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years, we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.”

Now about the claim that The BBC reported the fall of WTC tower 7 a half hour before it happened—Here’s an article by Mark Rudin, published 9:00 Wednesday 2nd on July 2008 which should put that mistake to rest;

“It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day. So, is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning, I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.
What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.
The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?" It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen." I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?" He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie." And the reason the interview with the BBC correspondent, Jane Standley, ended so abruptly? The satellite feed had an electronic timer, which cut out at 1715 exactly.
As Dylan Avery, the maker of “Loose change” said, “Of course not, that’s ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?”—why indeed? Could it be that we will next be expected to believe that all the entire world was in on the alleged plot?
One more thing about Tower 7 (which many new studies have now explained) when observers claimed that it showed very little structural damage, they were not looking at the side of the building closest to the Towers. Building 7 was severely damaged on that side, since the building was half as tall as the Twin Towers, and large pieces of debris such as heavy steel columns had been raining down on it for many hours.
These are merely a few of the arguments which truthers claim are indisputable and which leave no doubts. Yet if one is not so eager to jump on the band wagon of those who want to see a conspiracy, one will find that there are a great number of ways to cast doubt on and/or prove that a conspiracy has never happened. Anyone willing to engage in genuine critical thinking should see for themselves just how the many supposed smoking gun fallacies have been explained. And I am not talking about those few mentioned in this long comment—virtually every suspicious anomaly ever mentioned by truthers, has been disprove or debunked as containing misinformation or as coming from faulty or poorly informed sources—really! Every last one!

Start reading some of the debunking sites, which a vast number of scientists and Engineers have clearly explained before you allow someone else to tell you what is true and what is false!

Nuff Said?
Peter W. Johnson,
Superior, WI.

“Just Get Your Damn Shots”


I only wish that Gary would share more links to corroborate the many quotes and figures he references. I see plenty of quotes but no links to their sources in his comments above.

An Honest Look at the Historical Evidence…


If one checks actual websites that deal with infectious diseases and which contain facts and figures about the incidence of say, Diphtheria or Measles during a certain year, one finds that Dr. Kohls is either not being honest about the affects of vaccines, or else doesn't know that what he say's is just not the case.

If one visits the CDC website which has stats relevant to the incidence of certain infectious diseases, and how many death from resulted during certain years, as well as after the introduction of vaccines. The website also lists the cases and the number of deaths caused each year, which all began to diminish around the times these vaccines were first introduced. By examining them, one can clearly see that in most, or all cases, many infectious diseases have begun to decrease. However as DR. Kohls says, the numbers of infectious diseases has decreased, not just because of modern inoculations.

However, Kohls graphs exaggerate the notion that, many years ago other factors were already causing favorable outcomes---like improvements in sanitation, the supply of healthy foods and medications, along with the use of penicillin and antibiotics which dealt the first blow.

In actuality though, the vaccine for Measles was first introduced around 1962 or 1963, and after one small upturn, disease rates of the measles began to plummet. However it wasn't until the use of DTP vaccination became widespread, that the very low incidence of Measels began to diminish even further, and would soon become almost non-existent,

Kohls's graphs are misleading because he deliberately emphasizes the fact that, in many cases, the incidence and number of deaths began to rapidly decline, not just with the introductions of modern vaccines, but also many years before, when penicillin and antibiotics became wildly used. It was during those years that kohls claims the numbers of cases dropped by about 90% before those modern vaccines were even widely used.

Here are the reasons for that contradiction:

It was not just that, say, that eliminating diseases like diphtheria and the measles have helped safeguarded our collective health?--It's also that many years before vaccines, death rates also plummeted long before vaccines were used to help treat these diseases, without serious of negative consequences. But if one does a little detective work one will soon wonder what the attacks against vaccines are motivated by? Diphtheria began its decline in the 1930s, polio in the 1950s, measles in the 1960s, chickenpox in the 1990s and rotavirus in the 2000s--all after the new vaccines became available? And if better sanitation, nutrition, and healthy practices are almost completely responsible for the the positive results concerning Pre-vaccine infections illnesses, then why would all of the above diseases not begin to diminish at the same time? Our increases in health and sanitation happened in a linear fashion, so when those in Maine benefit from new health practices, that knowledge should also be passed along nationwide, in a relatively short period of time.

Even though all these facts testify for he safety of vaccines, I can't say that I too, wouldn't be very anxious and up in arms, about anything that might threaten the life of my child. However, when complications follow in a very small number of cases, let's not forget that in every drug and inoculation that our Doctors might prescribe, there are going to be risks involved. So, whatever course we choose to take, we should not loose sight of the fact that one sick child can infect hundreds of other children just by going to school. Therefore, it would seem logical that any parent who chooses not to vaccinate, should arrange for some kind of home schooling instead.

One final point, what does Dr. Kohls mean by this statement?:

"8] Let’s focus on another infectious disease—measles. Keep in mind that by 1963, almost no one died from measles. During this year, the whole of New England had only five deaths (Maine: 1, New Hampshire: 0, Vermont: 3, Massachusetts: 0, Rhode Island: 1, Connecticut: 0) that were attributed to measles."

The fact is that any of us who are over 60 years old knows better, because during the 1950s and 60s we received vaccinations for a number of transmittable diseases--One of them was the measles. I remember standing in a in a line in a school gym for more than an hour until we had all received shots, including what was infamously feared as a "booster" shot. We were all a little scared because we could hear our classmates ahead of us screaming and crying during what seemed to be a very traumatic event. But the shots were sorely needed because all of us, and virtually everyone we knew, had at least one child who became sick with the measles. And thanks to those vaccinations, what had been an epidemic, soon plummeted and is now is almost unheard of.

Its also strange that DR. Kohls would cherry picked the measles death rates of a few states like, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island, Those few states can hardly represent measles cases in our entire country. And anyway, even though these states experienced only a small number of deaths in 1963, that does not rule our the fact that many active cases may still have been occurring while just a few people actually died. It's surprising that someone like Kohls who frequently calls out others for their devious and dishonest actions should try to cherry pick data and use red herrings ot make his points?

Here is a mainstream website which contains tables filled with teh figures and stats concerning common infectious diseases and how the have been diminished throughout time. We all have a right to be informed and to protect our children, but we needn't become overcome with fear until it clouds our judgments. There are many other children involved,not just our own!

Here is a good link to a chart with facts and figures compiled by the CDC: