Did the United States of America attack itself? 911

[unholeee]

Are you actually saying the Internet is not a haven of misinformation but actually is a haven of truth ?   Some of the stuff spread on the internet is blatantly false and stupid. For instance, if you search you will find that each flight had different flight numbers at different times - but that is false.  There are pictures of the planes as they were about to crash that are false. there is even a story of a person on the roof of one of the towers when it collapsed - and how he survived. Sorry but a soft fleshly creature is not going to fall 1000 feet in rubble and survive. As far as the internet, it is an immaculate tool to spread misinformation. Even pianists often find bad technique lessons that are just plain wrong.  If you are relying on the internet to give you the truth about anything, you'll have to wait .

you do realize all media has an agenda.
Except mainstream media of course, that's 115 double percent verified and fact checked and obviously serves no agenda but of course a partial nondiscrimination to both sides of a story.

He simply stated use your own brain - you should try it.

[oxy60]

you do realize all media has an agenda.
Except mainstream media of course, that's 115 double percent verified and fact checked and obviously serves no agenda but of course a partial nondiscrimination to both sides of a story.

He simply stated use your own brain - you should try it.

News has become entertainment. It it bleeds it leads except if it is on fire. Then the report is not about the fire or shooting but about the feelings of those who witnessed it!

The same with 911. We know very little about it in comparison with what we know about the feelings of the "jersey girls" and other widows.

Television reporters are sent to cover an important school board meeting. They set their camera up outside and ask audience members how they FELT about the proceedings. Board members won't talk to reporters because they will be edited and spliced to convey another meaning.

 

[lostinidlewonder]

He simply stated use your own brain...

Well said.

If the internet did not exist then there would not be all this information to sift through. No one is saying there is no misinformation on the internet but with everything you research you can look for many perspectives on the same issue.

Now it is as easy as ever to research, before the internet it was incredibly difficult. This is the Information Age!



I found these articles a good read, how the Bush government fooled the people that Iraq had responsibility for 911. False flag much?

https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/5-hours-after-the-911-attacks-donald-rumsfeld-said-my-interest-is-to-hit-saddam-he-also-said-go-massive-sweep-it-all-up-things-related-and-not-and-at-2.html   (forgot to mention, some broken links but you can find that info on google)

https://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_evelyn_p_051115_bush_gang_swore_sadd.htm




And what about those weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was supposed to have? Oops, they weren't there, let's just hope everyone forgets about that one?

https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/WMDlies.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/06/wmd-j21.html

[p2u_]

[Without expressing agreement or disagreement with anyone in this topic, I would like to put this a bit in context.]

He simply stated use your own brain

Well said.

As long as one hasn't been brainwashed oneself, of course. We may just THINK our thoughts and beliefs are our own, but I have my doubts, actually, that we are able to withstand all the psychological violence that is going on. What I have seen mainly concerning this topic is manipulation through suggestion, not too many hard facts. For those who spread the diabolic suggestions, the audience that gives in to them are the ones that "use their brains". Duh!
P.S.: I also have more and more trouble determining who is whose prostitute in the media...

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

As long as one hasn't been brainwashed oneself, of course.

Brainwash means that one has no chance to change their stances, all bridges are burned so they say. It is quite a terrible situation to be in. Reading information will not brainwash you unless you believe it 100% with all your heart and there is NEVER any changing of your stance. Obviously that doesn't happen just by reading. We hopefully weigh the evidence and see the big picture. Hopefully we all have freedom of thought. Most people just don't care and just want to get on with their lives, that is ok, ignorance is bliss as they say, but some like to question.

There are certain facts stated through the thread and certain gray areas which lean more towards one answer than the other once you piece more and more together.

There is enough history of doubt, lies and deception in the US government to be severely suspicious of the 9/11 Commission Report. They have attacked themselves in the past to incite war, have they really stopped?

[thalbergmad]

If the Americans were behind this attack, they would have missed the twin towers and blown up a local school.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

If the Americans were behind this attack, they would have missed the twin towers and blown up a local school.

Thal

Nah they give deranged psychopaths guns to attack schools for them instead. It's easier to get away with. One wonders why US has most of these school shootings compared to the rest of the world.

[oxy60]

We should all keep in mind that in America all levels of government operate the same way. It may be a cliche but nobody thinks outside the box or dares do anything outside the groove.

We see parallels between the response to 911 and to the cop killer we're hunting here in Southern California. In each case our government made the wrong response.

We've lost the guy in the snow and have not put a dent into the radical Islamic movement. Nobody seems capable of thinking through what the long term consequences might be.

The only response was to throw a massive amount of armed resources at the problem. In both cases it is was the wrong thing to do.

[unholeee]

The problem is if there is a fault with reasoning or logical abilities, with anything you need to be able to draw conclusions from information that supports the argument or outcome. So I can see how it is possible to arrive at both sides of a story. With all the misinformation, poorly informed information, and blatant propaganda out there. It is hard. Considering most don't hold a doctorate in the specific field required. But what can't money buy..apparently it can buy the science behind an issue. How many times do you hear, oh wine is good for you. Then the next report is wine is bad for you. global cooling? yes/no global warming? yes/no. Carbon emissions pyramid tax scheme, yes/no. Anyway misinformation isn't just from crackpots. Wouldn't it be easier to dismiss stories if the issues are clouded? Do you think there are agendas that would find it in their favour if it was clouded? What better way to generate the outcome you desire if you own both the for and against institutions and it's actions and policies.

[lostinidlewonder]

I thought I might add what the official story of 9/11 is in one sentence:

"September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda, without any detailed advanced knowledge on the part of any government agency"

My BS radar explodes.

[p2u_]

There are certain facts stated through the thread and certain gray areas which lean more towards one answer than the other once you piece more and more together.

Acknowledged, but the facts are mostly organised in such a way that they strongly suggest the conclusion the authors want you to draw, you see? That is called the Art of Manipulation, and as long as we don't learn to recognize the SIGNS, we will be nothing more than puppets on somebody else's strings.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Acknowledged, but the facts are mostly organised in such a way that they strongly suggest the conclusion the authors want you to draw, you see? That is called the Art of Manipulation, and as long as we don't learn to recognize the SIGN, we will be nothing more than puppets on somebody else's strings.

Paul

Well if you think you can detect it be comforted that others can too.

Those who are really interested won't get fooled because when they read conflicting conclusions they then will need to work out which one is more believable.

No serious reader completes a single article on a "gray subject" and then goes... "oh yep now I know it for sure".

[p2u_]

Well if you think you can detect it be comforted that others can too.

Those who are really interested won't get fooled because when they read conflicting conclusions they then will need to work out which one is more believable.

No serious reader completes a single article on a "gray subject" and then goes... "oh yep now I know it for sure".

My rather well-trained gray subject tells me that there is NO direct evidence that the US attacked itself. All sources I've seen in this topic merely SUGGEST such a conclusion.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Look at the Vietnam war. Gulf of Tonkin phantom attack on the US military.

[p2u_]

Look at the Vietnam war. Gulf of Tonkin phantom attack on the US military.

A logical link to those events is strictly speaking merely a SUGGESTION, not a fact. Moreover, it is based on uncritical and primitive stereotype-like "thinking" ("Once a crook, always a crook", "no smoke without fire"), etc. Personally, I cannot accept that as facts.
P.S.: This does NOT mean I believe the official Hollywood B-Movie scenario with its many logical bloopers.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Im sorry but the example I provided is much more than just suggestions.

More recently look at the Iraq weapons of mass destruction lie. In the US governments case, once a crook sometimes again a crook.

[lloyd_cdb]

Here is a list of logical fallacies in color with matching descriptive images so as to hopefully trick people from succumbing to the ">10 words" aversion.

https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

[lostinidlewonder]

I wonder if that link just tries to allow the guilty to squirm out of a situation.

[lloyd_cdb]

These aren't fallacies unique to that site. It's just organized colorfully for the modern age of ADD-infested bloggers. You'll find those names in psychology textbooks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes I have heard these used in Internet debates over the last 20+ years now, they often do not mean to show that what is said is wrong but rather is emotionally charged which may indeed be simply the style of the speaker or writer rather than intended motive to deceive. Everyone likes to dot in their opinions.

For me I read is it probably a lie or true. The classifications elsewhere are just over reactions to emotional communication.

[p2u_]

I wonder if that link just tries to allow the guilty to squirm out of a situation.

I wonder why you suspect one party, but allow others to do the same...

Let's assume for a moment that there was a Third Party that got off the hook really easily - Let's say International Organized Crime (for the purpose of keeping the discussion "clean"). Now read all your sources again. Plausible? Quite so.

Let's assume that the US mostly lied and/or bent the truth a little bit in their reports to cover up the enormous security blunders they made before, during and after the event? Now read all your sources again. Plausible? Quite so.

The sources themselves prove nothing. It's the assumptions with which you read the materials that count.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not saying because they did it before that the 911 must be done by them. That is reading too simplistic. I am saying that this pattern exists and it needs to be added to the many other bits of info.

If the US never attacked itself in the past for political motivations one would wonder why would it do it now all of a sudden? I am not directly saying because they did it in the past they MUST have done it in 911. Circumstantial evidence is useful in court of law also.

My focus is on the US because it is a super power that is actively at war and one of my countrys' biggest ally.

[p2u_]

I'm not saying because they did it before that the 911 must be done by them.

I did not intend even to suggest that. I'm attacking the conclusions your sources want us to draw, not you, and I'm doing that by introducing assumptions at random that change the focus.

Let's assume that that same Third Party *wanted* the US to go to war. In that case, you need a very serious incentive, otherwise the People won't buy it. This was exactly such an incentive, and it was also quite predictable who would be blamed for it...

OR

Let's also assume that the three WTC buildings HAD TO be distroyed anyway because of the evidence in there against our Third Party of really huge financial scams. If the stakes are huge and you have money to burn, then the sky is the limit in terms of scenarios, etc.

Paul

[lloyd_cdb]

Yes I have heard these used in Internet debates over the last 20+ years now, they often do not mean to show that what is said is wrong but rather is emotionally charged which may indeed be simply the style of the speaker or writer rather than intended motive to deceive. Everyone likes to dot in their opinions.

For me I read is it probably a lie or true. The classifications elsewhere are just over reactions to emotional communication.

I'm not sure what you mean by this as these really have nothing to do with 'internet debates', but instead have to do with how people argue their opinions. This is a factual statement in regards to my links: "these are logical fallacies".

This has nothing to do with supporting an opinion or refuting it. Pointing out these logical fallacies won't make your opinion false or true. What it does is show that the argument you use to support it is nothing more than a few wasted kilobytes in the latrine that is the internet. Your opinion can be 100% true, but if you throw sh*t in the air as proof, all you're doing is throwing sh*t. I posted that so that people can try to use proper ways of supporting their argument as well as view other peoples' opinions from a logical perspective.

Anyone can say something is a lie or a truth. If you want people to believe you, make a logical argument that supports it. Don't just waste everyone's time by throwing poop in the air. I'd personally rather actually move towards a point than argue over the merits of an argument.

[lostinidlewonder]

I did not intend even to suggest that. I'm attacking the conclusions your sources want us to draw, not you, and I'm doing that by introducing assumptions at random that change the focus.

A logical link to those events is strictly speaking merely a SUGGESTION, not a fact. Moreover, it is based on uncritical and primitive stereotype-like "thinking" ("Once a crook, always a crook", "no smoke without fire"), etc. Personally, I cannot accept that as facts.

This looks like you tried to make simplistic connection between the two. I am asking readers to see the US history of attacking itself, whatever conclusions you draw from it is up to you.

I'm not sure what you mean by this as these really have nothing to do with 'internet debates', but instead have to do with how people argue their opinions. This is a factual statement in regards to my links: "these are logical fallacies".

This has nothing to do with supporting an opinion or refuting it. Pointing out these logical fallacies won't make your opinion false or true. What it does is show that the argument you use to support it is nothing more than a few wasted kilobytes in the latrine that is the internet. Your opinion can be 100% true, but if you throw sh*t in the air as proof, all you're doing is throwing sh*t. I posted that so that people can try to use proper ways of supporting their argument as well as view other peoples' opinions from a logical perspective.

Anyone can say something is a lie or a truth. If you want people to believe you, make a logical argument that supports it. Don't just waste everyone's time by throwing poop in the air. I'd personally rather actually move towards a point than argue over the merits of an argument.

Like I said people are emotional beings, pointing out these things is irrelevant, we just look at facts. I do not personally believe people's opinions is wasted kilobytes.

[pianoplunker]

Democracy is supposed to be honest and just, the leaks show that it is not and is a sham.

Misinformation of 911 has had over a decade to percolate, a lot of misinfo has already been identified and also shows how it was encouraged by the government itself with their Internet schemes.

Exactly. What an easy way to misinform the masses > Internet > YAY!

[p2u_]

I am asking readers to see the US history of attacking itself, whatever conclusions you draw from it is up to you.

I don't think it's that simple. I don't think we have a right to accuse anyone in particular of such a monstrous crime, especially since all REAL evidence was cleaned up really quickly from ground zero. One cannot say that the one who uses his/her brain power best is automatically right in his/her assumptions and conclusions.

From what I added to the debate, it is highly improbable the US would attack its OWN people just like that. A cynical Third Party with the help of highly placed Insiders within the System, though, suddenly gives all the materials another, I would say more realistic turn. This must have been a huge cover-up for something else, the moto being: "Blame it on somebody else, distract attention from the real crime, and keep a low profile yourself".

If this could be at least remotely true, then it also means that we can no longer take for granted what some people with an agenda want us to believe from the sources you quote.

My conclusion: We've all been had really badly. That's as far as I'm willing to go in my judgement, considering the absence of substantial evidence...

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't think it's that simple. I don't think we have a right to accuse anyone in particular of such a monstrous crime, especially since all REAL evidence was cleaned up really quickly from ground zero. One cannot say that the one who uses his/her brain power best is automatically right in his/her assumptions and conclusions.

We have all the right to put question to the official story since we hopefully live in a free thinking society. The US have in their own constitution a freedom of speech clause.

One would wonder why they cleaned it up so rapidly where in an airplane crash investigation they meticulously piece together every single tiny scrap.

I might add murders are put to death with circumstantial evidence, you do not need a video tape confession or physical proof. Academics of ancient history also will explain how to piece together the truth without hardcore evidence.

You are of course welcome to your stance and it is welcome!

[p2u_]

We have all the right to put question to the official story since we hopefully live in a free thinking society. The US have in their own constitution a freedom of speech clause.

The "free-speech" argument here is not much of an argument. In the name of free speech one could easily sentence an innocent person to death...

My way of questioning the official version:

Is it humanly possible for even an experienced pilot to steer a Boeing into such a building under such circumstances with such precision? My answer is: NO, it isn't. If that is a correct conlusion, how then could this have been accomplished? If what we saw were really planes, then they could have had pre-programmed software on board with the coordinates set.

Does such a conclusion automatically make the US government itself the guilty party? My answer is: NO. I already indicated ealier why I think the official report cannot be trusted.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

The "free-speech" argument here is not much of an argument. In the name of free speech one could easily sentence an innocent person to death...

It is "Free speech", not free judgement. Gone are the days of US history where lynching occurred me hopes.

[p2u_]

It is "Free speech", not free judgement.

If someone wants you to draw a certain conclusion (ab)using the principles of free speech, then that's what you get: free judgement.

I would be more interested in a balanced evaluation of my Third-Party argument, not in formal word usage. Thank you.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Free speech is free speech, there is no such thing as free judgement unless you live in a lawless country, maybe in your own head you can judge but officially and all encompassing, certainly not.

[p2u_]

Free speech is free speech, there is no such thing as free judgement unless you live in a lawless country, maybe in your own head you can judge but officially and all encompassing, certainly not.

If that is what you really believe, could you please address my argument then?

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I am not here to argue but share ideas, cheers

[lostinidlewonder]

Moving on..


I put a little focus on the lies of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The events of 911 was used to encourage the US to look at Iraq as a target for the so called "War on terror". Here is an admission from an insider proving that weapons of mass destruction was a lie and the resulting war based on this lie caused the deaths of over 100,000 innocent civilians.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/man-whose-wmd-lies-led-to-100000-deaths-confesses-all-7606236.html

https://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/    (Bush administration knew that the WMD was a lie before inciting war against Iraq.  "...information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it." )

[p2u_]

I put a little focus on the lies of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The events of 911 was used to encourage the US to look at Iraq as a target for the so called "War on terror". Here is an admission from an insider proving that weapons of mass destruction was a lie and the resulting war based on this lie caused the deaths of over 100,000 innocent civilians.

Politicians all over the world have always lied because they have always had powerful incentives to do so.

Citing these data in this topic carries the risk of introducing false causality (concerning the real perpetrators of the 911 events). This is a very popular trick in the media to manipulate popular opinion...

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

Politicians all over the world have always lied because they have always had powerful incentives to do so.

Citing these data in this topic carries the risk of introducing false causality (concerning the real perpetrators of the 911 events). This is a very popular trick in the media to manipulate popular opinion...

Paul

Thanks for your opinion.

[lloyd_cdb]

Like I said people are emotional beings, pointing out these things is irrelevant, we just look at facts. I do not personally believe people's opinions is wasted kilobytes.

I'm not saying opinions are wasted kb's, I'm saying justifying them poorly is a waste. I believe in pink unicorns. My justification is because my wall is green, I saw it snow in a tv show with pink unicorns and there is currently snow outside, and BECAUSE I SAID SO!!.

My wall is green - Fact
I saw it snow in a tv show with pink unicorns and there is currently snow outside - Fact
I SAID SO!! - Fact

My opinion is perfectly valid and I've contributed facts in support of it.

Often when reading and participating in these types of conversations, I have trouble finding arguments that are any better than the schizophrenic walking down the street yelling about government mind control chips. I'm simply saying we are all capable of using proper logic in supporting our opinions. Some opinions can't be supported and should be stated as such. But just because it's an opinion doesn't mean you shouldn't try to support it by logic and common sense. I appreciate that you at least find sources and such, I'm just saying that there have been plenty of comments in this thread that have made my jaw drop and made me want to dig out my eyeballs.

One would wonder why they cleaned it up so rapidly where in an airplane crash investigation they meticulously piece together every single tiny scrap.

I don't think it's that simple. I don't think we have a right to accuse anyone in particular of such a monstrous crime, especially since all REAL evidence was cleaned up really quickly from ground zero.

8 months and 19 days - the length of time the cleanup took. Is that actually a short period of time?

I always wonder where these non-specific phrases like "cleaned up quickly" come from. What is quickly, what is slow? People hear 'quickly' and repeat it... someone else has a different view on what 'quickly' is... 3 people down the telephone chain and it was cleaned up 15 minutes after the collapse. You have to realize it's in the middle of the busiest financial center on Earth. Of course the cleanup is going to go 'quickly'. That still doesn't mean it wasn't investigated properly.

[p2u_]

8 months and 19 days - the length of time the cleanup took. Is that actually a short period of time?

I'll have to check some serious sources because it is history and not my first interest in life, but I remember seeing on television that by September 29th, most of the debris - predominantly steel - had been removed and simply RECYCLED. While it is true that simply looking at a piece of steel doesn't tell much, it is surely evidence for forensics, and I was really surprised by how quickly they did that. Misinformed? If yes, please correct me.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not saying opinions are wasted kb's, I'm saying justifying them poorly is a waste. I believe in pink unicorns. My justification is because my wall is green, I saw it snow in a tv show with pink unicorns and there is currently snow outside, and BECAUSE I SAID SO!!.

You cannot teach the mass how to read/write with a particular method, everyone will read/write in their own way and make their own conclusions. If one insists that others read/write in a particular way those others might actually tell you to bugger off and let them do what they like. It is totally fine to read/write different from someone else, there does not need to be a single way. That doesn't mean one is better than the other or anything else.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=41550.0

[lostinidlewonder]

8 months and 19 days - the length of time the cleanup took. Is that actually a short period of time?

Well where other investigations will take years (4.5 years for example: Flight 427  and a newspaper article highlights the meticulous investigation of the debris, they literally where dealing with evidence the size of splinters ) and the evidence is not destroyed, the WTC 1+2 where comparatively cleaned up and evidence destroyed rapidly. MOST of the clean up (especially the collection of the steel) was done in the beginning, so the time of almost 9 months is deceiving. 9 months would have NOT been enough time to investigate the debris anyway, the non-forensic cleanup was a terrible miscarriage of justice in itself.

[p2u_]

the non-forensic cleanup was a terrible miscarriage of justice in itself.

I think that for the sake of a clean discussion, it would be preferable to leave such definite conclusions to the conspiracy thinkers.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

You will find that it is not only conspiracy theorists that believe that. So yes, let's keep the discussion clean.

[p2u_]

You will find that it is not only conspiracy theorists that believe that. So yes, let's keep the discussion clean.

In that case I have to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw any objective conclusions from the Internet resources available. Well- or badly constructed articles are no parameter for me because they may NOT contain facts related to this particular case.

1) What I have seen from virtually ALL parties involved is mainly computer animations, lots of "photo-shopping", modified video clips, fake audio clips, etc., all of which would be rejected as evidence in a court of law.
2) I'm in Russia. Dead links abound if you want to carry out some serious investigation yourself (either "access denied" or "does no longer exist"). To find out who bought the scrap and when, for example, I have to go to Chinese (!) resources. These problems can be explained in more than one way. Let everyone think for him/herself. This is not important enough for me, though, to set up several proxies to bypass the restrictions.
3) The official NIST report has certain procedural flaws that would be easily attacked by even a mediocre lawyer in court.

I agree that this plays into the hands of the ones that THINK they have it all figured out. It does not warrant definite conclusions, though.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

In that case I have to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw any objective conclusions from the Internet resources available.

In what case?

Well- or badly constructed articles are no parameter for me because they may NOT contain facts related to this particular case.

1) What I have seen from virtually ALL parties involved is mainly computer animations, lots of "photo-shopping", modified video clips, fake audio clips, etc., all of which would be rejected as evidence in a court of law.
2) I'm in Russia. Dead links abound if you want to carry out some serious investigation yourself (either "access denied" or "does no longer exist"). To find out who bought the scrap and when, for example, I have to go to Chinese (!) resources. These problems can be explained in more than one way. Let everyone think for him/herself. This is not important enough for me, though, to set up several proxies to bypass the restrictions.
3) The official NIST report has certain procedural flaws that would be easily attacked by even a mediocre lawyer in court.

I agree that this plays into the hands of the ones that THINK they have it all figured out. It does not warrant definite conclusions, though.

Paul

Thanks for your opinion.

[p2u_]

In what case?

In the case of your rather sarcastic reply to a serious post of mine about keeping the topic clean.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

In the case of your rather sarcastic reply to a serious post of mine about keeping the topic clean.

Paul

Ok thanks for your opinion.

[p2u_]

Ok thanks for your opinion.

You are welcome. The available sources are too suggestive for my taste, and leave no room for objective and independent analysis. I therefore see no point in digging any deeper.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

You are welcome. The available sources are too suggestive for my taste, and leave no room for objective and independent analysis. I therefore see no point in digging any deeper.

Well I don't really care if you think there is "no point" that is meaningless to me.

Anyway, moving on.




Have any of you seen the 911 water memorial? I think it looks horrific! An empty sink swallowing up water in a black hole, it looks so negative and literally draining. Talk about an electricity guzzler as well. It certainly does not inspire any positive emotions.

[p2u_]

Well I don't really care if you think there is "no point" that is meaningless to me.

I know you don't care. Everybody knows that already from other "discussions", so not need to emphasize that here. I merely stepped in because our valued American members deserve a bit more than just "sh*t" thrown around, but you don't seem to care about that either.
P.S.: The unseen heights in retrocognition reached by some authors in your sources  are nothing less than impressive. This topic, however, does not belong here. You have done yourself and the communtiy a great disservice by creating it and yes, I know you don't care about that either...

Paul