New evidence now suggests that the IRS harassed conservative organizations routinely, whether or not they already had tax exempt status.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Working for the Democratic Party: New evidence now suggests that the IRS harassed conservative organizations routinely, whether or not they already had tax exempt status.

Share

62 comments

  • R. Cotour

    Purely a function of self interest and self preservation? Does a bureaucrat have to be told to initiate such activity? Is there a culture that exists that accomplishes these tasks without being told to do so?

    Any way you look at it even if such a culture does exist, leadership is bound to lead and they set the standard that will be tolerated. Leaderships job, in an ideal world, and we all understand that we do not live in an ideal world, is to lead. So therefore the implication is that what has been going on was intended to go on, even if there are no damning, linking communications indicating it.

    This is what is obtained by the now famous leadership technique “leading from behind”. This counter intuitive term allows all participants to formulate their own “on board” “down with the cause” agenda and there by providing leadership with a kind of plausible deniability that leadership is always looking for.

    A very cynical, tenuous and practical way of “leading”. A little too practical for me.

  • Pzatchok

    Democrats interfering with republican activities has been evident for years. At least locally around here.

    Teachers bringing in liberal and democrat speakers for student assemblies but when the conservative and republicans want the same access they are turned down for any number of small reasons.

    Local government workers going just a little slower when doing work for republican organizations like processing paperwork for politics. Being helpful for the democrats and downright rude and in some ways interfering with the republicans.
    Local news stations and reporters being nice to democrats and argumentative with republicans. Spreading their propaganda in an attempt to influence the people.
    With that much working against any republican its a wonder any are elected at all.

    Finally those very same democrats have achieved employment at the national level(IRS, EPA…). What makes anyone think they would change their attitudes and ethics?

    The last thing promoting conservatism is families to children and the few face to face opportunities we have. Anything more is quickly shouted down by a hundred voices in the media before it can take hold and be understood.

    Government unions know who gives them everything they want and do many little things to bring about their elections.

    Government unions should be outlawed and replaced with guaranteed pay, raises, retirements and other benefits. And government unions should include everyone directly paid by any government. Including teachers, firemen and police.

  • Publius 2

    Something has been evident ever since the Democrats decided that they couldn’t allow George W. Bush to lead the country in the war against terror and the enforcement of the U.N. sanctions against Saddam Hussein. At that point, they chose politics over patriotism, and ever since we have been engaged in a civil war — bloodless, perhaps, but a civil war nevertheless. This long ago ceased to be a public argument, and anyone who thinks otherwise has already lost the conflict.

  • R. Cotour

    I have a question related to “the war on terror”. The Patriot act was a bill written and sitting in a draw waiting for an excuse to be executed. But how would such a bill become law? What kind of event would push law makers to enact such a law? And why? It seems that it was a solution waiting for a custom made problem. Is it just me?

  • The Patriot Act and the concept for the Department of Homeland Security were put together by a commission headed by Al Gore during the Clinton administration. The Republican Congress at that time was not interested in passing it.

    Then George Bush was elected. As we know, the Oxford Dictionary definition for RINO has a picture of the entire Bush family there. When 9/11 happened the Democrats resurrected the Patriot Act and the creation of the DHS, and Bush, along with the other Republicans in Congress, eagerly agreed to it because, like all good RINOs, they felt something must be done. It didn’t matter that the idea was odious to our country’s traditions and law. It didn’t matter that the Democrats had proposed it as another power grab. And it especially didn’t matter that the law would accomplish nothing in the fight against radical Islam.

    Something must be done! And so they did it.

  • joe

    And so there are progressive democrats and progressive republicans with virtually no difference between the two groups that are taking us down a road to serfdom that we conservatives would rather not travel, I believe this movement started in eastern Europe well over a hundred years ago by the statists there!, this is the fifth column in American politics that has also inculcated itself in academia and the bureaucracy’s of the IRS and the EPA and many other supposedly apolitical entities in the United States not to mention the media, I see no way away from this madness, anyone have any logical solutions?

  • R. Cotour

    So, what you are saying is that two party’s who wanted the same thing in the form of an all encompassing law to control a population and could not install it until something extreme happened in order to accomplish the installation.

    So would you agree that this is a preconceived agenda / solution searching for a problem? And, do you find it interesting that 911 just happened to happen as it did at the intensity that it did? And a follow up question: What is the typical symmetry signature (symmetrical or A symmetrical) of any single building that is destroyed as a result of disaster / fire etc. ? And a second follow up question: Where in your opinion is this agenda taking us?

  • Patrick Ritchie

    Do you have details on that commission headed by Gore?

    IIRC the only senator who actually voted against the initial act was a democrat…

    Similarly 3 only republicans senators voted against, while 62 democrats voted against it.

  • Now you have lost all credibility with me by implying that 9/11 was possibly planned by the U.S. government and that somehow the destruction of the twin towers by the impact of the two terrorist-piloted planes was somehow implausible.

    We don’t need foolish conspiracies to justify the power-hungry corruption of politicians. They will use any excuse to grab power, and to cite such conspiracy theories, especially when there is no evidence for them, is to play right into these politicians’ hands.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Something must be done!..

    It is amazing how folks will except idiotic, unconstitutional, “solutions” that have nothing to do with the emergency – in the name of the emergency shows “Something must be done!”.

    As one (whose name — and proximity to my home – I try to forget) never let a giood disaster go to waste.

    ;/

  • Kelly Starks

    >..so there are progressive democrats and progressive republicans with virtually no difference between the two groups ..<

    And you wonder why Tea party folks are as unpopular with Republican leadership as Democrat. They arn't niterested in the other groups games, or in paying for anyones pork programs.

  • R. Cotour

    My credibility Mr. Z. ?

    I’m just asking reasonable questions. Have you ever objectively examined the issues I am asking about? If you have not, then maybe you should examine your credibility because you are unable or unwilling to objectively examine something without your own pre conceived notions and the associated limitations. Again, I am just asking reasonable questions. If you have an objective assessment on the subject, based in science, then please enlighten me, but a reasonable question does not an un credible person make.

    Objective truth lies in only two areas, mathematics and physics, not in the opinions of man.

  • I have looked at these issues, in detail. It pains me to tell you that there is no credible evidence anywhere to suggest the U.S. government had anything to do with 9/11. To say so is to immediately make it more difficult to convince the majority of Americans that these politicians are a threat to our freedom, since your credibility with those Americans has now gone kaput.

    This accusation is as odious (and as false) as the Muslim claim that the Jews who worked in the World Trade Center all knew about the attack and therefore didn’t go to work that day, thereby proving that the attack was actually a Jewish plot.

    I prefer to deal with reality. Radical Islam routinely and daily commits atrocious mass murders. They did it on 9/11. Politicians routinely work to increase their power at the expense of the ordinary citizen. It is our job to fight both.

  • R. Cotour

    If that is the impression that I have transmitted then I retract it and apologize for the misunderstanding. I know that this is a very edgy subject so let me be specific to clarify myself. I am not saying or implying that the U.S. Government had any knowledge of or participated in anything related to the event. Am I clear on that subject?

    You say that you have looked into it “in detail”, and you have no unanswered questions as to the mathematics and physics of any of it? That’s what you are saying Mr. Z.?

    My perspective at this point is purely objectively based in mathematics and physics and the nature of materials and how they act under known stresses and conditions. I know that it is difficult but this is not about politics and the only way to have a conversation about it is to remove that natural go to element from the conversation. I am asking reasonable questions, you may not like the questions and what they may imply to some by the answers, but there the reasonable questions are.

    I will understand if you are unable or un willing to continue along this line.

  • Kelly Starks

    >>You say that you have looked into it “in detail”, and you have no unanswered questions as to the mathematics and physics of any of it? That’s what you are saying Mr. Z.? <<

    Jumping in as a bystander with degrees in mechanical engineering and physics.

    Lots of people looked into this to argue with folks who suggest there serious questions, including the folks that designed the buildings, planes, bring down buildings or deal with fire brining them down, and found all such "concerns" ludicrous.

  • Kelly Starks

    A Churchill quote about “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Comes to mind.

  • R. Cotour

    “lots of people” concluded that its ludicrous, what are your conclusions? (assuming that you have looked into it to some degree or do you just accept the conclusions of some people?)

  • Kelly Starks

    > what are your conclusions?

    The “questions” were either ignorant (I.E. the questioner just didn’t know what they were talking about, got their technical understanding out of TV plots, etc) or driven by a refusal to accept the obvious for various reasons. (Hated our gov, doesn’t want their actually to be enemies we need to defend against., etc.)

    Most commonly, its just people didn’t realize how buildings fall, and the reality doesn’t fit their preconceptions..

    Some of the scenarios are so over the top as to make UFO stories seem as solid as a physics experiment. Take one scenario that suggests that would require vast teams of folks breaking into offices, tearing open walls, loading in stunning tonnage of explosives, then cleaning up and closing in the walls without leaving a trace any of the office workers saw. Then the explosives worked perfectly after an airliner slammed into them and tore open vast holes in the building. Then left no trace either in the destruction of the buildings and all the debris that showed any discrepancy from what would be expected if nothing had been done.

  • R. Cotour

    You being an engineer, IYO, what would the symmetry characteristics be of a steel frame building that has been damaged to the point of total collapse? For me that’s a big head scratcher, its hard to find similar examples.

  • Kelly Starks

    As to similar examples, you can look at steel frame buildings so damaged, such buildings that are taken down by more directed deliberate damage (after it “falls” more than about 18 niches, it’s all about the same). And of course computer sims based on the materials.

    Bluntly, once it starts to fall the frame doesn’t matter, its just snapped out of the way by the falling mass (as you can see in the vids) – the concrete floors basically battering ram what’s ahead of them. Though they break and pulverize, their mass keeps going. That shock wave of mass slows down as it smashes through the rest, but the result falls with it. So as you see the upper segment catches up with the shockwave and shortens. Until a section gets to the shockwave it essentially is in freefall..

  • R. Cotour

    Once it starts to fall the frame does not matter?

    So if I am interpreting you correctly once a building of these proportions begins to fall there is no resistance from the untouched frame that has been holding the entire building up due to a shock wave that precedes the falling part of the building. And the falling portion of the building continues to gain energy, not loose energy as it encounters the existing frame work as it falls through the frame work as though it was not there, eventually attaining free fall speed? Is that correct?

    I would think that it would be the exact opposite from that, it seems counter intuitive. And this happened to not one building but three buildings at the same time. And one of those buildings was significantly smaller than the other two buildings. What is the cut off building size of this phenomenon? Is it a special phenomenon related to size or do all buildings fall like this?

  • wodun

    Popular Mechanics did an extensive investigation. Great place to go read about the science of what happened.

  • R. Cotour

    This analysis by Gordon Ross is probably the best of the event that I can find, just mathematics and physics. Where does truth lie? In mathematics and physics.

    http://youtu.be/ABuCO5ifeIE

    Do modern steel frame buildings really fall symmetrically to the ground without help? Has that ever happened once? Never mind three times on the same day? Think about it.

  • Kelly Starks

    >..So if I am interpreting you correctly once a building of these proportions begins to fall there is no
    > resistance from the untouched frame that has been holding the entire building up due to a shock
    > wave that precedes the falling part of the building.

    No shockwave – just inertia of the floors and the building above moving at some speed. That kind of weight falling just builds up so much momentum after falling for a foot of two the frames are laughably too weak to stop them. They splinter or just punch through the floors. So forget about the frames.

    The inertia of the next floor they impact below cuts some of the momentum, but after falling a floors worth – it at best just slows one floor down a bit until the next falling floor above rams it and acelerates it.

    All buildings are like that. Thats why demolition folk can bring down super tal buildings so cleanly, and just by blowing out 2 foot segments of the first floor columns.

    So far I think they never brought down more then a 20 — maybe 30 story building that way… but they have discused how to take down the super scrapers when their time comes up.

    >..And this happened to not one building but three buildings at the same time. And one of those
    > buildings was significantly smaller than the other two buildings.

    Why would the physics act differently on three buildings built very similarly, dameged in about the same way, exposed to the same structural damage, fire, etc?

    Generally this is how steel buildings (especially tall and thin) go unless theres a very uneven damage.

  • Kelly Starks

    >..Do modern steel frame buildings really fall symmetrically to the ground without help?..

    Towers yeah.

    How would you “help them”? When they fal, they fall.

    What were you expecting? You seriously seem to expect them to have acted seriously different. How? Were you expecting them to fall over like trees like in the movies or what?

  • wodun

    OK, I watched 25 minutes of that presentation. Not very convincing. Very little evidence. He misinterprets what was going on and doesn’t have a good grasp on the architectural features of the building.

    So now go spend 5 minutes on those links :)

  • Kelly Starks

    >. Where does truth lie? In mathematics and physics.

    Thats not going to help you a bit given you don’t know what equations or principles to use. Its like trying to storm waves when you never saw water move.

    Oh and Gordon Ross is a complete idiot in the film – far to much to point out in posts.

  • joe

    No, I fully understand why tea party conservatives are dismissed by the republican party, fully half to three quarters of the republican party are rino’s who don’t care about the constitution any more than the democrats do! in addition both sides like to load bills with all kinds of pork and stay elected, however, I don’t think the founding fathers ever envisioned a professional political class with way more power than what is needed, and stupid politicians that allow power to be ceded to courts to reinterpret laws by the supreme court! As for the twin towers falling, radical islamist fundamentalism caused that chain of events, in the end two large airliners full of fuel were seen entering those buildings and causing the initial destruction of the complex, this was not the first attempt!

  • Kelly Starks

    > He misinterprets what was going on and doesn’t have a good grasp on the architectural features of the building

    What like:
    the TV towere he said feel down into the building before the walls and roof (which didn’t happen, the whole upper floors fell to the ground as noe un distorted peace), adn this was caused by teh failure of central columns that carry the bulk of the weight of the buildnig (actually the forrest of columns on the outter wall carry the bulk of the weight), and it was actually noly the central columns accessable frmo the elevator shafts that colapsed- adn you can see they weer cut at the 44th floor (regardless of the lower floors being pulverized by the rest of the floors in the 110 story building blastnig through them).

  • R. Cotour

    If you could, please provide me with an example of a modern building that through some kind, any kind of damage or fire has fallen symmetrically as these three buildings had fallen. And IMO Mr. Ross seems very competent and appears to have studied the event and scene extensively.

    ” Where does truth lie? In mathematics and physics.

    Thats not going to help you a bit given you don’t know what equations or principles to use.”

    A simple understanding of mathematics and physics can be of no help? You need a super computer to understand what is really going on so why are you bothering? Is that what you are saying? Did the people who built the pyramids have a super computer? I don’t think so, and yet there it sits.

  • R. Cotour

    Where do I begin:

    The frame structure has kept the building up these many years, the building is way over designed and for you to promote that as the building begins to fall that the falling part of the building as it meets the untouched and whole lower part of the building gains energy to what you identified as “free fall speed” and crushes something that has been way over built to hold it is unreasonable.

    To keep it short: How will the other super scrapers be taken down? They will be dismantled at extremely high cost as the Deuch Bank was disassembled, I think it was 48 stories or so.

    There are some things that the human mind will convince itself are so incredible that it must convince itself through the creation of “reasonable” explinations (such as the apparent disappearance of the resistance of the remaining structure of the building) that fit their interpretation of reality as they know it to explain it. I accepted the official story for eight years and when I was comfortable (I refused to watch any video on the subject for eight years ) with watching the immense amount of evidence that was / is available I had to force myself to objectively assess it. Some things are just too big for the human mind to accept. Step back and see it from a different point of view that is not connected to and limited by what you are able to believe.

  • Kelly Starks

    nothing like the strength needed to stop a building that’s fallen a couple feet. The impact load of hundreds of thousands of tons traveling at 22 mph after a mere second of fee fall, and then slamming into a fixed structure (no shock absorbers here) crumples things easily.

    Its like putting a car no jack stands and taking off the tires. No problem – trivial for them to support that. Pick the car up a couple feet and drop it, and the jack stands and support points no the body/frame will crumple like nothing. They are just not built for anything like that,

    > Some things are just too big for the human mind to accept. Step back and see ..

    Now you’re just being a arrogant uninformed jerk.

    The buildings fell in the manor such buildings normally fall. They aren’t the first to fall. No one failure with such things in general, or those buildings in particular found anything surprising about it. But you, who admit and have shown no understanding of the history or physics of such find it confusing, so it must mean theirs some insanely vast conspiracy “too big for the human mind to accept” that no one else has noticed – or are part of the conspiracy.

    Reality is – you just don’t understand something simple, and are trying to justify that with a insanely convoluted alternative..

  • Kelly Starks

    >.. provide me with an example of a modern building that == has fallen symmetrically as these three buildings had fallen

    You might find this “response” to the 9-11 truther stuff showing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik

    Problem with with showing more examples is that towers this high are known to be vulnerable to that, so modern ones are fireproofed (preferably encaseing the structure in concrete where possible) and have sprinklers, rendering them virtually invulnerable to sustained fires like this. The planes obviously blasted those away as they also sliced out the bulk of the structure.

    Flater wider steel frame buildings tend to not lose whole floors to fire at once, so they collapse with a sudden drop, but the parts not yet collapsing don’t drop yet – so its more of a series of collapses.

    > Mr. Ross seems very competent and appears to have studied the event and scene extensively.

    No, he doesn’t. He looks laughable ignorant, or a lier distorting things with falsified or mis represented facts. Like the TV tower he assures everyone did, what it clearly didn’t do – but which isn’t obvious from his carefully chosen

    > A simple understanding of mathematics and physics can be of no help?

    Not when you don’t understand how any of it applies to what your looking at.

  • R. Cotour

    The majority of each of the buildings under the point of damage were untouched and whole. How did the building stand? If you review some of the video and still pictures you will notice that the top floors above the damage disintegrates and then the collapse commences. How does that happen?

  • Kelly Starks

    Where are you getting this from? Can’t yuo even get video?!

    Anyway this is dragging on for too long. All this nonsense has been torn apart thoroughly by many sources, and you seem to have a block, or refusal, to get the basics, so unless you have some real question lets call it a day.

  • R. Cotour

    I offer this video as a final comment on this subject if this is getting too tedious, I understand its a difficult subject. I tried to stay away from any formally prepared media on the subject but this has a lot of what needs to be seen in one place.

    http://youtu.be/4eKt4IJFsO4

    It is filled with highly qualified professionals (engineers, PHD’s, Architects etc.) all willing to speak publically on the subject (they are all nuts?). I know how difficult it is to get around the counter intuitive nature of the implications of the events, there IMO lies its strength. Some things are too big and uncomfortable to objectively understand. I had to force myself and that scared the hell out of me when I understood the fundamental problems. It changed how I interpret reality as it is presented after I studied it for two months straight. (Mr. Z did you spend that much time looking into this ? Too big and uncomfortable to wrap your brain around?)

    Keep in mind, you can find no examples of one modern, steel framed building falling symmetrically to the ground. Here you have three buildings all completely falling to the ground involving two very different building designs. That’s a head scratcher.

    Thank you, all the best.

  • Kelly Starks

    . I know how difficult it is to get around the counter intuitive nature of the implications of the events,
    ..

    Specifically that all common history and practice of engineering these buildings, the specifics of the design of the buildings as developed by the designers and all experts in the field, the visual evidence we’ve all seen on TV news etc, and the history and science of how buildings like this fall under such assauilts =– ALL MUST BE WRONG, EVERY BIT OF IT! Instead truther contradictory “facts” of the physical nature of the buildings, of science and structure, and distorted data and evidence must instead be taken as the truth. All to support the grand insanely complex conspiracy theory. Oh and before you get to that, you need to accept the alternate theory of the vast army of explosive experts sneeknig ni to take down the buildings without being seen by any of the tens of thousands of folks coming and going and working in the buildings.

    >..there IMO lies its strength. Some things are too big and uncomfortable to objectively understand.

    In other words – ignore reason and evidence and embrace the paranoid faith.

    >.. (they are all nuts?).

    Oh hell yeah!!

  • R. Cotour

    I once was as adamant as you as to the ridiculous nature of the thought, I refused to look at any of it for eight years. I did not even know that people were looking into it but something stuck in my head after watching it on TV for a solid week. How building seven fell. And then, I think it was in 2009 I came upon a part of the NIST report that said building 7 fell due to fire. I know what I saw was a controlled event and what stuck in my head was this question: If it was controlled as it plainly appeared to me to be, how was it rigged so fast that day? That was the beginning of following the string.

    And that illogical question that was stuck in my head forced me to begin to look much further into something that I did not want to look at. I resisted what I determined to be the facts relating to the mathematics and the physics. The who and why was eliminated from my mind in order to remain as objective as possible. And I remain objective, I point no fingers.

    I spent a solid two months reading and watching all of the videos and interviews to properly understand it and not rely on “experts” which in my research proved to be unreliable to say the least. (If this happened 10 or 15 years before there would be little to no uncontrollable video evidence floating around due to the level of technology that people were able to carry around at the time and we would probably not be having this conversation)

    You, like I was, are unable to overcome your morality model which says that it is impossible because no one would do such a thing. This is a powerful model and is a part of the psychology that makes it “impossible”. I was once you. You will remember this conversation in the future and when you force yourself to “see” the first thing you will feel is intense fear, as I did. And then you will see and understand reality and power differently.

  • Kelly Starks

    > ….NIST report that said building 7 fell due to fire. ..

    Which it and the others obviously did (with a lot of help from crash impacts and such).

    >..I know what I saw was a controlled event

    But you clearly (as our post above clearly show) don’t know what a controlled/non controlled event looks like. Virtually all your argument comes back to assuming normal (or controlled) falls don’t look like that without a huge amount of “help” by explosives blasting free the floors ahead of the falling mass, which is completely wrong for controlled or non controlled falls.

    > You, like I was, are unable to overcome your morality model which says that it is impossible because
    > no one would do such a thing.

    No, I never said or thought any such thing, and clearly 9-11 and the previous attack on the towers shows there are people who are actively trying to do that.

    What I said was
    there is no way anyone “COULD” have done them.
    1 – It would be impossible to do those collapses as a controlled event.
    – You could not set them up for it without being detected.
    – you could not do the set ups ahead of time and have your work survive the impacts and resulting effects. Much less have it related to the actual damage caused by the planes.
    – Artificially triggering the collapses would be extremely visible to observers at the time and to people looking over the wreckage.

    2 – there is nothing about the collapses inconsistent with the expected normal collapse from the damage witnessed. (Claims to the contrary like yours and Gordon Ross’ show a blatant lack of understanding of the nature of the buildings, how they would fall, how falling works, etc. As well as a utter disregard to the issues of setting up for a controlled fall, or even how controlled falls fall. As well as just distorting the facts that weer clearly seen by everyone.)

    Ergo there is nothing even marginally credible suggesting any problem with the normal explanations given by every expert in the field. Much less explaining how every expert, observer, news person, etc etc could be induced to cover up what would be obvious to them.

  • R. Cotour

    Go and personally spend some objective quality time with the available information. Flush your mind of your preconceived notions about what can and can not be. Spend some time reconciling this guy Robert Rodregueze’s version of the events, he was in the basement.

    I did not arrive at my conclusions because someone told me what was what. It is distasteful to me that I have to have this conversation. There are reasons why certain opinions are arrived at, who in a profession wants to go against what the “popular” opinion is? And by popular I mean the opinion that has come down from your superiors. Would you if you knew or even suspected differently?

    http://youtu.be/b_LlJzR2oYI

    You can find hours of him being interviewed, this is a short clip.

  • wodun

    Did you check those links I posted? You can’t just watch videos like the one you posted and claim you are doing research.

    9/11 wasn’t an inside job. There are groups of people out there who hate us. Our problems with Islamists have been going on for a long time. These are real groups made up of real people with their own motives and world view.

  • Kelly Starks

    >..spend some objective quality time with the available information. Flush your mind of your preconceived
    > notions about what can and can not be..

    ;/

    I have degrees in this stuff. I’ve spent thousands of hours looking over various videos, reading books, etc on topics of engineers – at leasty hundreds of hours on how buildings come down, structures fail etc. A significant amount on buildings coming down, or being brought down.

    So don’t give me any more crap about you and your fellow tuthers made some great new discovery o how things fall that everyone else in history overlooked (or is conspiring to conceal). Especially when your first selected evidence was Gorden Ross who first few minuttes rattled off obvious falshoods (the TV tower falling into the building) that millions of viewers and witnesses have seen the opposite of, and a basic mistake about the structural design of the buildings

    Your not being able (or willing) to understand something doesn’t mean your smarter and more knowledgable then everyone else.

  • Kelly Starks

    Hell, 9-11 wasnt even the first time these people attacked the towers.

  • R. Cotour

    I have no issue or doubt with what you say about our enemy’s, what I am saying is that there was help in getting them to fall to the ground. Buildings of that size, complexity and strength can not fall as these did. Think of a guarantee, possibly to mitigate collateral damage in anticipation of an attack, but that is just speculation. It becomes distracting to speculate as to motivation just objectively look at the math and the physics.

    I have watched most of the videos available, over and over. Like I told Starks, we are all burdened / limited by what we are able to accept based on the moral and reality model within which we live. Anything that lies outside of those parameters must be explained to match our reality model. I default accepted the explanations without looking any further, but when you begin to look further based on things that you understand are incorrect that is when you are in a very different place.

    When you see it it will chill you and then your reality model will have to be adjusted. Keep in mind that this event is probably the most extreme example ever.

  • “Buildings of that size, complexity and strength can not fall as these did.”

    This statement is simply false. The engineering and physics behind building design and demolition clearly says that these buildings fell exactly as one would expect, something that Kelly (who knows far more about this than I) has been trying to explain to you.

    As I said earlier, your credibility continues to drop as you push this line of argument, which in turn seriously hurts your ability to convince the general population of the value of our Constitution and the freedom it was meant to guarantee. It infuriates me that so many libertarians are getting trapped into this hole.

    I strongly suggest you drop this discussion, for your own sake. I also think this thread has overstayed its welcome and should now end. It has literally nothing to do with my original post about the IRS’s misuse of the tax code to harass the political opponents of the Democratic Party, a scandal that is real, and is continuing to do significant harm to our country and the rule of law. Focusing on wild conspiracy theories only serves to distract everyone from that much more important issue.

  • Kelly Starks

    Sadly – the idea the IRS has become so politisized its used to attack and knee cap political opponents doesn’t even surprize anymore.

    If nothing else it shows the IRS is to complex and powerful. There should not be enough discretion in the system to allow this kind of games. A flat tax or something is NEEDED!! I can work the design specs dor space craft but I gave up trying to figure out my taxes years ago!

    —–
    And yes – I’ve finally run out of patience with arguing with someone saying he knows more about simple engineering and phsics of builds falling then all the experts in the field.

  • R. Cotour

    And the other experts? They are all incompetent? How convenient.

  • R. Cotour

    Think of a sci fi script so unbelievable that the writer is thrown out of the producers office and then you find out that its not fiction.

    “for your own sake”, believe me it took a lot for me to lay this out and talk about it. I hear you. Let this finish it, I really don’t like talking about it.

  • Kelly Starks

    All the experts disagree with you

  • R. Cotour

    PS: Mr. Z., I am not a libertarian. You making generalizations like that should be below you but apparently its not. All I have provided was my analysis and reasonable questions. I have to question your ability to be objective. (although I totally understand that you might not want this kind of conversation to be had on your site. I can respect that)

    And Starks, you just saying that “all experts disagree with you” is on its face incorrect, uninformed and juvenile. Just saying something because it makes you feel better about something that is uncomfortable does not make it so. (but I understand it) Like I have said I have asked reasonable questions and made reasonable observations.

    I know this is unsettling but I suspect that both of you understand that I am a reasonable fairly competent and mostly serious person.

  • Kelly Starks

    >..“all experts disagree with you” is on its face incorrect, uninformed and juvenile..

    No, actually its roughly true. Your point of view is out there with flat Earthers, and creationists.

    >..I suspect that both of you understand that I am a reasonable fairly competent and mostly serious person.

    No not I.

  • R. Cotour

    In time we may revisit this and I am confident that your perspective will change. It may be many years from now, you will see something or hear something and the light bulb will go off in your head, and you will think of me. Your welcome in advance.

    Lets end this here, Z is going to have a cow.

  • Pzatchok

    Conspiracy believers are exactly the type of people who make the Tea Party look bad.

    Just like the ones who think the republican and democrat parties are just two sides of the same coin.

    They are not. Its just that our form of politics makes them seem similar when you don’t get what you want out of them.
    Go ahead and form another party and in short order you will be saying the exact same thing about them when you don’t get what you want from them either.
    You can see it with every politician elected who ran on a ‘I’m different and will get things done’ platform. As soon as he is inserted into the Washington political machine(starts working) he gets almost nothing done of what he promised the people and soon his most ardent supporters start to think he has been turned by Washington into just another politician. They think they were lied to.

  • R. Cotour

    The tea party needs no help in making themselves look bad.

  • R. Cotour

    Can you reconcile this statement by Mr. Z, which I happen to agree with, and what you have written? If in the end there is no difference between the party’s then what is the difference? Please explain.

    “The Patriot Act and the concept for the Department of Homeland Security were put together by a commission headed by Al Gore during the Clinton administration. The Republican Congress at that time was not interested in passing it.

    Then George Bush was elected. As we know, the Oxford Dictionary definition for RINO has a picture of the entire Bush family there. When 9/11 happened the Democrats resurrected the Patriot Act and the creation of the DHS, and Bush, along with the other Republicans in Congress, eagerly agreed to it because, like all good RINOs, they felt something must be done. It didn’t matter that the idea was odious to our country’s traditions and law. It didn’t matter that the Democrats had proposed it as another power grab. And it especially didn’t matter that the law would accomplish nothing in the fight against radical Islam.

    Something must be done! And so they did it. “

  • Kelly Starks

    big agree Pzatchok

  • joe

    I second that agreement !

  • I said enough. This tread is closed.

  • R. Cotour

    Headlines in the news from the last couple of weeks.

    * “According to a new report, not only is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration providing information, like wiretaps and phone records, to law enforcement to help start investigations, but it is also coaching its agents to cover up such actions so it can’t be traced where this information initially came from.”

    * IRS used as a political weapon to target conservative organizations.

    * NSA sucking up and storing most communications on the planet in brand new facility in Utah.

    * CIA hides on the ground witnesses to Benghazi, changes their names.

    Where does all of this begin? Do you really think that Obama alone has engineered this whole thing? Now we know who really runs the world, and in the end isn’t that what its all about?

    Think, Constitution, small c.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *