Dwain Deets Goes Full Retard: Pushes “Ray Beams from Space” and “Mini-Nukes”

by Scott Creighton

BYU’s “nanothermite” distraction is finally doing what it was designed to do: implode on itself leaving the Truth movement scrambling for a new hypothesis to get behind. Some guy has finally said that “nanothermite” isn’t a high explosive and it could not have “blown up” the Twin Towers. Funny. I’ve been writing that very same thing for years.

But while all of this is going on, Dwain Deets pops back up going all “Simple Jack” on us backing any stupid demolition theory that was ever made to make us look like idiots. Dwain seems to have forgotten that famous advice from Tropic Thunder “never go full retard”

You will notice in Steven Jones’ new paper, that he isn’t capable of producing an estimate for the  detonation velocity of the “thermitic material” he is studying. That’s odd isn’t it? Because  detonation velocity is very important in this application; demolition. Scott Creighton, April 2009

As early as April 2009 I wrote in response to Jim Hoffman’s ludicrous “nanothermite” demolition scenario that they had no idea if this material was even a high explosive and as such they couldn’t even prove that it could blow up a dog house, much less take out the Twin Towers.

Since May of 2008 I had been suggesting that det cord filled with PETN, a high explosive commonly used in the demolition industry, was more than likely utilized in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

PETN has a detonation velocity of 8,400 meters per second and when it ignites it burns at a temperature of over 8,100 degrees F. (the surface of the sun is just over 9,700) well over the temperature required to melt structural steel and with a shock wave more than sufficient to pulverize the floor systems of the Twin Towers as we all saw on Sept. 11th (relative effectiveness factor of 1.66,). Considering the fact that that 3 controlled demolition teams were on site when the Twin Towers collapsed on Sept. 11th 2001, I would say this det cord, one of the primary tools of their trade, is probably a good place to start looking for answers.

Considering all of this information, the fact that PETN det cord could have produced all of the visual and scientific results we have found since 9/11 and the fact that det cord is commonly used by the controlled demolition industry, I suggested that Steven Jones and the Truth movement get behind a push to test the Ground Zero dust they already had for high explosive residue. PETN residue would be easily detected in the dust from Ground Zero. Jones and Gregg Roberts disagreed with me. As of this date, no organization, not the USGS, not FEMA, not NIST, not the 9/11 Commission, and not Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have run the one test, the first test they all should have run in a thorough investigation: the test to see if high explosive residue is present in the dust from Ground Zero. This is what Gregg Roberts told me about it:

However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. ;-)    Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.”  Roberts

They didn’t want to do actual residue tests used to determine if high explosives were used yet they did put a lot of money and time into creating the now thoroughly discredited “nanothermite” junk science. And yes, that is his original emoticon.

Notice what Roberts says there: “the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered“??? Or worse? Could there be a worse result for Mr. Roberts than a negative result? Could that … be a positive result?  There are only two results possible: positive for high explosive residue and negative for high explosive residue. Is that what his little winking emoticon was trying to tell me? (wink wink) That a positive result would be worse than a negative one? (wink) Worse for who? The government? (wink wink wink) CDI? (wink wink) Makes you wonder, don’t it?

But all of that is ancient history. Now some guy has come along and said that the “nanothermite” theory is crap because they can’t show where it burns at a fast enough velocity to create a detonation wave.

So now here comes Dwain Deets and Jim Fetzer to offer up some “rational” suggestions since “nanothermite” has finally bitten the dust. What do they come up with? Do they think to run tests on the dust for high explosive residues? Do they go back and look to see if anything commonly used in the controlled demolition industry could have created the results we already know?

Nope.

They do what BYU’s Steven Jones did a year or so ago and they dust off the “dustification Lady” Judy Wood and the ever popular “ray beams from space” bullshit. And just for good measure, they toss in “mini-nukes” and “plasmoids” just for the fun of it.

Remember Dwain Deets is the father of the modern drone. This is what I wrote about Deets a year and a half ago (also read Strange Bedfellows: AE911Truth, the Drone Industry, and Dwain Deets ):

Dwain Deets, former head of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center from 1996, who spent his career helping to develop remote piloting systems for aircrafts and then helped develop drone aircrafts like the Global Hawk, the Altus, and the Predator, has been deeply involved in the Truth movement for the past couple of years. Scott Creighton

Yes, that is right… Deets was involved with Dryden around the time they were developing and testing the Global Hawk drone. The Global Hawk has a wingspan roughly the same size as a 757-200 which is the type of passenger airliner that supposedly hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11th. At that time there were 7 Global Hawks in existence 2 of which were “out of commission” and one has been unaccounted for since. One witness described something that looked like a “humpback whale” hitting the Pentagon.  Deets of course supports the “flyover theory”

Does that look kinda like a “humpbacked whale” … and who’s name is that on the screenshot?

Maybe this image will help clear things up a bit.

To be honest, Dwain Deets is probably on the level of some kind of genius. When you make a sarcastic joke about someone being a “rocket scientist”, Deets was actually a rocket scientist. Not only that, but he headed up the Dryden Center at NASA which means he was in charge of “rocket scientists”. You think he’s stupid enough to buy into Judy Wood’s obvious bullshit? Of course he isn’t. But there he is.

Deets gave a talk in San Diego back in Aug of last year in which he attempted to apply a kind of half-assed rating evaluation to what he called the remaining “alternative” theories of the demolition of Building 7. His conclusion was that it was either “ray beams from space” or “mini nukes” of some kind. This conclusion of his he based on the evidence of extremely high temperatures present during the demolition of the Towers and Building 7. He failed to mention PETN’s 8,100 deg F during his discussion.

Now Deets is getting together with a virtual who’s who of fake “truthers” in Vancouver for their yearly grab and giggle conference. Jim Fetzer will be there and if you remember him, he put together the “Scholars” at one time which boasted the talents of Judy “ray beams from space” Wood, Steven “nanothermite” Jones, and Morgan “tv fakery” Reynolds.

So now we can add Dwain “went full retard” Deets to the Fetzer’s Fakes stable. Dwain, here’s a little suggestion for you: don’t get caught up in this playing stupid thing. You could get stuck that way…

Advertisements

41 Responses

  1. Over ten years later, we should not be going backwards – let’s begin with Licky Larry.

    • He would be one of the first 3 or so people called in for questioning if I ran the investigation, no doubt.

      • He wouldn’t be that high up for me only because at that time, the contractors would be more in charge of the drones than he would. But, he would certainly be up there. I would have to ask him a lot of questions about how he got in 9/11 Truth and I would have to ask him about that special project he went to D.C. for around the beginning of 2001 or so.

        • Not to mention his superb timing(and his kids for that matter) both on 9/11 and concerning the terrorism insurance not long before the attack.

          I’m curious though, what special project in D.C. is it that you mention? Ive read a lot about Silverstein but that one went over my head.

          • Deets took a leave of absence from Dreyden Flight Center around 1999-2000 for a year to work on a special “political” project. It is mentioned in one of the NASA websites, I can’t remember which. I always found it odd that he did that and now here he is a “truther” but it could have been any number of things. One thing though: when I first wrote about Deets and he communicated back with me on my site I don’t remember him explaining that project. I don’t know what that was, but it is interesting and worth looking into. I would LOVE to know what drone project was “political” around 1999 and 2000. But that might just be me you know?

          • Ah ok, you were talking about Deets, not Larry. That is an interesting nugget. Could be nothing but I do remember your thread on Deets before and I distinctly remember him dropping out of the thread when I pressed him on Zakheim and you pressed him on a number of specifics. So that makes me wonder about him and that “project”.

        • “the contractors would be more in charge of the drones”

          Drones? Really?

  2. Speaking of going full retard, I’m kind of disappointed none of the no-planer/tv fakery people answered your question over at Kenny’s about why the 9/11 terrorists wouldn’t just fake a Pentagon video if faking the WTC strikes apparently was(according to them) so easy. I thought it was a damn good question.

    As far as Deets goes, he fits a pattern of 9/11 truth plants who start out with one or 2 pet lies(or in some cases truths if for no other reason than to build cred) but eventually branch out into a more “everything under the sun” approach. Its like they go from trying to push their specific agenda but at some point go all in and switch to full on “discredit” mode. Look at Fetzer now. Started out ok if you didn’t look too closely. Now hes obvious as hell.

    • I LOVE how truthers attack other truther lies. As if their lie is better than the next fairy tale.

      Droners and no-planers have equal evidence….ZERO.

      Thermites and explosivers have the same evidence….ZERO.

      Ever wonder why the most adamant believers of the failed 9-11 CT have such little understanding, knowledge or experience is the topics involved?

      Hint: I can prove this over and over.

      • I love how liars are so worried about people questioning the obvious 9/11 lies that they feel the need to troll on various websites and run defense for the official fairy tale of “al qaeda scary mooooooslims gonna get ya!”.

        You fucking naive pussy. We get that you’re terrified of muslims and believe whatever mommy media and daddy government shove down your throat. You’ve added nothing. Try again. Or rather don’t, you’ll only embarrass yourself.

      • Shooter 486 – Affiliates guy…you still shillin’ for a billin’?

        I remember your toady boy BS from the 9/11 threads on COTO2.

        You still pal around with Assbury Smith and the rest of the gov.com crowd?

        Hint: the only thing you proved over and over is that you don’t have a clue to what you are talking about – on ANY subject you tried your silly hand at. You don’t even know anything about armaments and shooting, you’re a complete fraud – an insurance salesman.

        \\][//

  3. You ever notice how many 9/11 Truth “leaders” there are with backgrounds in military intelligence or some other military/government contractors? It seems like it is endless. One ‘truther” or another always has some kind of government background, while average people get marginalized quickly.

    • Yeah, it almost seems too sloppy and obvious.

      I even wonder about Mike Rivero. Sure he has a lot of great info on his site but the whole NASA thing coupled with his constant need to reinforce the official Pentagon Flight 77 bullshit is enough to make me wary.

      • That’s a very good point considering that the Dreyden Flight Research Center was a NASA project…

        • Somebody should ask them if they ever “worked together” on any “political projects”(a la Cass Sunstein?). Not that they would answer honestly.

          • He could answer honestly. I doubt Rivero ever had anything to do with Dreyden… he doesn’t have the intellect for it… BUT… remember, he does get a pension check or a retirement check from NASA and the fact that he doesn’t want NASA to end up investigated for a possible roll in 9/11 has nothing to do with whether or not he actually knew Deets or anything about drones PRIOR to 9/11. It just means he is still a company man when it comes to something like that.That’s all. That may VERY WELL be why he completely refused to allow ANY discussion like this on his site. Controlled opposition? Definitely. Why? That IS the question.

    • “You ever notice how many 9/11 Truth “leaders” there are with backgrounds in military intelligence or some other military/government contractors?”

      Yes, we need people with ZERO experience and understanding to be “truther leaders”. LOL.

      • You do realize you just contradicted your entire argument, right? I mean, you are able to understand that much, yes? Or do you need Snopes to explain it for you?

  4. scott,
    has gregg roberts quit ae911truth? congitive infiltrator snowcrash seems to say he has, see the thread here about half way down:
    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7519&start=30&sid=6948df6ef284d036ba3ddcd00570983b
    if true, i’m pretty sure you will say that’s a positive development, right?

  5. It might be a good idea to study the evidence, whether you are taking on the “no planers”–who claim that the four “crash sites” were faked and that none of the alleged “flights”–11, 77, 93, and 175–crashed on 9/11 or the “video fakers”–who claim that some kind of video fakery was taking place, whether it was altered videos or faked planes–at some point along the way. Flights 11 and 77, for example, were not even scheduled for flight that day, while the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered by the FAA until 28 Sept 2005. So how can planes that were not in the air have crashed and how can planes that crashed have still been in the air four years later?

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth has recently established that, while Flights 93 and 175 were in the air that day, Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, at the time is was supposed to be crashing in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was allegedly entering the South Tower. But that means some kind of video fakery has to have been taking place, since, unless the same plane can have been in two places at the same time, what we have been given as videos of 175 entering the building cannot be “the real deal”. So some of you might want to take a good look at “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery'” or “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, where, oddly enough, even the head of Pilots STILL wants to reject NPT and video fakery, even though his own evidence supports them.

    On The Vancouver Hearings, I am doing what I can to cope with the complex and controversial issues that continue to divide the research community. Check out http://www.911vancouverhearings.com and you will see that I have organized sessions to address how the towers were destroyed, since we still do not know the answer to that question, who was responsible and why, what happened at the Pentagon, and the “planes/no planes” and video fakery issues. My understanding of scientific reasoning holds that the only way to determine which of the competing alternative explanations does the best job of account for the evidence is by systematic comparisons of their explanatory power, where Dwain Deets is doing his best to solve that problem. Check us out and, if you want to learn more, consider joining us in Vancouver.

    • Jim Fetzer, huh? Aren’t you the same guy who took Jones, Reynolds, and Wood to Washington so they could present “thermite”, TV Fakery, and “Ray beams from Space” to the Washington Press corps as examples of the Truth Movement some years back?

      hmmm…

      So many logical fallacies in your statement above. Where to start? Is it worth in on Easter Sunday?

      Ahhh… no. The people who visit my site aren’t the for-profit sock puppets haunting many of the other Truth sites around here so I have every confidence that they don’t need me to point out the MANY flaws in your previous comment.

      By the way, if I want to “learn more” about the events of 9/11 I SERIOUSLY doubt I am going to look to Dwain Deets for guidance. The guy is the father of the modern DRONE which is the one industry that has made more profits since 9/11 than nearly any other.

    • Fetzer says, “My understanding of scientific reasoning…”

      Ha ha ha ha…that’s funny, really funny.

      I have quizzed you on your knowledge of applied physics for thread after thread on the Truth and Shadows blog…as per ‘science’? your a blooming idiot. You know Newton’s name well, but don”t know what he is talking about – AT ALL.

      You are a fraud Fetzer, an utter charlatan. BTW your pal Hightower just tapped your ass on the sol-gel issue on the “Free form 9/11” thread at Truth and Shadows. I notice you haven’t shown your face there since…as I have it on your head, that Hightower handed to me on a platter. Lol

      ww

  6. Just because it isn’t highly explosive, does not mean that it would not have been used. Think about it – a key opens a door, sure. But it’s not capable of turning the handle. I think that, if it were used [And I do believe it was] then it would have been used to significantly weaken the steel girders, i.e, cutting through them perhaps 95% of the way, which would have kept the structure intact, without causing it to collapse. Then, a secondary explosive could have been used, which would have knocked the last part of the girder out of place.

    Why is it wrong, to question things that do not make sense? Does it make sense, for a Building to collapse, just due to a regular fire, one which is made of a steel frame? Does it make sense, for that frame, to have collapsed uniformly and evenly, as is the case in WTC7? And so what if this is all true? So what of it? What if, the terrorists had bribed a few essential government officials, and that the same people who were suspected before, were the ones who did it? If we do not properly research things like this, we will be defenseless to similar attacks in future.

    • Alright. Suppose it was used. We know that it cannot have been the primary cause of the pulverization of the concrete or the decimation of the steel. (See “Is 9/11 Truth based upon a false theory?”) Plus it operates too slowly to have done the job. So tell us, what was the primary cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers? We have been waiting six years or more to learn that, which has been ignored on the basis of false claims about explosive nanothermite. So tell us: How exactly were the Twin Towers actually destroyed? How was it done?

      • Well, I don’t know all the evidence, and I never will claim to. I’ll stick to what I know, and what I believe/understand. As for thermite working too slowly – I assume that’s what you were referring too, well, the strange thing is that I have watched testimonies of firefighters reporting that there was ‘molten steel’ present, before the buildings collapsed. This always puzzled me, as it made no sense for there to be molten steel before the buildings collapsed, if it were an instantaneous destruction via explosives.

        However, if the thermite were activated far before the actual detonation time, there would be ample time to allow for it to cut through the steel. Considering the mayhem, also, that was occuring, it would be easy to discreetly accomplish this. It would also explain why planes hit the towers – they would have served as a distraction from the noise of the thermite etc.

        I do not believe the thermite was used as an explosive. I believe it was used as a cutting tool and nothing more. The pulverization, I believe to have been caused by other explosives.

        • Well, those are more reasonable and more rational responses to the evidence than my questions normally elicit. Go to The Vancouver Hearings, http://www.911vancouverhearings.com, and take a look at the presentations and Powerpoints for the sessions on how the towers were destroyed. I would like to have your thoughts about them. The molten steel (better, molten iron) evidence is disputed, of course. But I would like to have your appraisal of their presentations. Thanks.

          • Thanks. I’ll be sure to check them out soon, when I’ve had a chance to rest, that way I’ll be able to pay proper attention etc as it is about 3am here. I’m not like most ‘truthers’, in that I seek truth rather than seeking to prove my own conviction of what ‘truth’ is. So far, nothing seems to be able to accurately explain to me, why it was that these buildings didn’t groan, and sag/twist/contort etc prior to collapse. I’ve looked at the models, and so on, but I’m not quite convinced by them, as they don’t explain how the buildings collapsed with so little resistance, uniformly, at such high speed – i.e the whole way through, it’s like everything has been weakened evenly – I’d have expected the places nearer to the source of the Jet fuel, or fire, to have crumbled with ease, but the places further away ought to have put up a lot more resistance.. at least, I think so.

            I suppose, the only thing which comes to my mind, immediately, is the piece of girder which was included in Appendix C of the WTC Fema Report. I’m sure you’ve heard about it many times before. The reaction that took place.. well, a Eutectic was formed. Again, I really am not an expert on these things but as far as I can tell, the metal would have to be temporarily in a liquefied state in order to create any sort of Eutectic.

            • There are three key differences between WTC-7 and the Twin Towers:

              (1) the towers were destroyed from the top down; WTC-7 was not;

              (2) the towers were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust; WTC-7 was not;

              (3) there was a stack of debris equal to about 12% of the original for WTC-7, but the Twin Towers were destroyed below ground level.

              For more, see “Analysis of the WTC on 9/11”, abovetopsecret. See “This is an orange” on TWC-7 and “New 9/11 Photos Released” on the Twin Towers. Thanks for being a reasonable person. This is excellent.

          • Won’t let me reply to the latest comment, so I’ll put it here instead. My thoughts, are that WTC 1+2 were stronger than WTC7. Therefore, perhaps weaker explosives and charges were used. I know that WTC1+2 had very strong cores, though. Their cores were built to stay standing even if they were attacked by tremendous forces, as they would evenly disperse the load throughout the structure, via a grid-like mesh of girders and supports. However, I have heard of no such feat of engineering, where WT7 is concerned. Being 47 stories high, I suppose that it did not need to be so heavily fortified, and so, it would have been easier to take it down. Thus, the debris and demolition that would have taken place, would not have been enough to cause great billowing clouds of pulverized cement, like that which we can see by observing the Twin Towers.

            Also, there is further evidence to support this, in terms of how long heat was retained by the buildings. There are reports that say that WTC7 was analyzed via infrared scanning, 12 days later, and that no hotspots were apparent at that point. On the other hand, the wreckage from the Twin Towers, was molten for many weeks, maybe even months. I’ve only read this due to scanning through some comments exchanged by other people researching this, so I don’t know if it is true or not – but the thought must originate somewhere.

            Now, considering the fact that WTC1+2 were potentially stronger, and that they were at least twice as high as the WTC7, we can see that the ratio between the amount of explosives between the two, would, at a rough guess, need to be at least 4:1. Applying the maths, assuming that the 12 day survey is indeed correct evidence, that would mean that the ground zero of WTC1+2 would retain heat for around 48 days, at least. Which is well over a month.. thus the theory is plausible, I think, as it explains the parity between the nature of the Twin Towers collapse, and the WTC7 collapse.

            • Actually, WTC-7 was even more robust than the Twin Towers. It was erected over two enormous electrical generators that provided back-up electricity for lower Manhattan. While it makes only a modest, WTC-7 was built with solid steel beams, whereas WTC-1 and WTC-2 used beams that were hollowed out at the center. My guess is that WTC-7 was perhaps the most robust building ever constructed by the hand of man. It was a classic controlled demolition, whereas the Twin Towers were brought down by means of a demolition that was under control, but it was anything-but a classic one, for the reasons I have given: they were blown apart from the top down; they were converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust; and they were destroyed below ground level. None of those properties were found in the collapse of WTC-7.

          • That’s fair enough. I wasn’t aware it was situated over electrical generators. I’m still pretty sure that the amount of thermite used [If it were used] may have been higher in WTC1+2, and that therefore, if, as you say, that WTC7 was stronger, that the payloads per charge were exactly the same in both buildings, and so, the amount of charges would be all that would make the difference between the heat retained in the ground of the two. 110 floors vs 47.. 417m vs 186. Oh, plus, you say that it was destroyed below ground level – do you know how many more floors it went down? That’s also interesting in terms of the heat factor, since it would be more likely that any thermite residue would be retained underground, in the case of WTC1+2.. explaining the difference in heat retained.

            You seem to value the fact that the WTC7 came down differently than the other towers, why is that? Is there something to be gained from knowing that they fell differently – merely curious.

          • Don’t mean to intrude on your conversation. but the info about Building 7’s construction is so amazing…. how can the press ignore such facts ?

  7. jan,
    it is the press’ job to cover up what really happened on 9/11. reporting on building 7’s superior construction would not assist the press in meeting that regard. it’s efficient for them to ignore facts that tend to undermine the official story.

  8. Scott,
    Thanks for the accuracy and critical thinking relating to rocket science cognitively infiltrating American efforts to understand how 3k people died in 20 seconds. I think all that is pretty good thinking:-), and I was also happy to see the connecting g.roberts with ae.

    I noted the assumption that FEMA did not lie about the core structure design to NIST and that the false icons of 9-11 truth are properly using the FEMA info without checking its independent verification; still dominates the perceptions of the structure, THUS IT’S DEMISE. The only core structure that can be proven is a concrete core.

    For the record (relating to comments): STRUCTURAL TERMS
    “girders” are structural members, but specific to certain design methods, mostly trusses or “trussing” which is basically diagonal bracing.

    Columns are vertical, beams are horizontal.

    You will NEVER find a 9-11 pic of a girder, or a gusset plate at a column beam intersection either in the core or outside of it. The only column beam intersections you will find at all, are OUTSIDE THE CORE.

    The reason for this is the core was a steel reinforced concrete tube which resisted torsion and sway far better than any steel configuration could EVER! The concrete tubular core, 120 x 80 inside also provided the bearing point for the hat truss creating absolutely the best performance possible for the hat truss.

    The framed structural steel that supported the floors had a wall special framed wall that interfaced mechanically with the walls of the concrete core. That steel framework against the concrete core wall supported the inside edge of the floors. The columns of that wall were the largest single columns over the lobby level. They were called, “Interior box columns”.

    A framed structural steel core requires EXTENSIVE diagonal bracing and gusset plates (never seen in 9-11 images) which would badly block hallways and elevator doors in the core.

    Here is more evidence of the FEMA deception and how it is perpetrated by the false truth movement.

    http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html

    A comment on the demise:

    We witnessed well contained detonations which is not in the nature of what happens when cutting steel with high explosives. So the thermite is chafe BS and “nano” is sweetner for the dumbed down social set most effected by 9-11 in the long run.

    I would have a link evidencing well contained detonations, but have met with a state judge (donna geck) appointed by schwarzenegger while trying to get a meth lab out of the house I lived via a forced unlawful detainer. Long story short, the judge “prefers” convicted cookers on the same property; busted, convicted, (9 yr served), at in 1993, a house with a neighborhood rep that is widely known for drug dealing- . . . “prefers” over; two declarations AND two witnesses stating extreme chemical vapors (acetone and iodine/phosphorus) at different times, inside the house. Oh, and the appeals court judges aver in defense of the appellee in their lengthy decision consisting of great selectivity. BTW one declaration described a fire in the back of the cookers pickup (nazi method oops!)

    Curious how all this works with an earlier secret revision of local court rules in the 9th circuit that can remove all pro se civil rights in civil rights lawsuits by enabling certain pretrial dismissal with judicial assignment. But more curious is how reporters trying to underline the problem of meth addiction with facts, are gagged when trying to get the story of the lawsuit past the owner of a recently sold (to high of a price) newspapers/ Gagged even!

    http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

    The result, without cable internet at my new place, all the videos, pages links, etc. that have been hacked in the last 8 months, are not restored.

    In all, I highly recommend IMMEDIATE defense of our constitution by supporting the an Article V convention reasonably prepared for, to assure our well being and that of future generations. Perhaps even the survival of the species. My proposals for Article V are at a forum for Article V.

    http://articlev.org/proposals/index.php/35/rightful-masters-congress-the-courts-the-people-need-prepare

    http://articlev.org/proposals/index.php/31/draft-revision-of-the-first-amendment-of-the-bill-of-rights

    http://articlev.org/proposals/index.php/32/amendment-to-institute-campaign-finance-reform

    http://articlev.org/proposals/index.php/33/amendment-securing-the-vote-proper-preparation-for-article

    We need preparatory amendment, and some time to become more constitutional as a people. Lincoln was right, “the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts.” That was 1859 and he could only be referring to Article V because when 3/4 of the states ratify, congress, the courts and the president have no authority.

    All amendments must have constitutional intent. The people are the entities authorized to determine such intent.

    Back to 9-11-It is very unconstitutional that 3k erroneous death certificates sit in the coroners office of NYC, and that the error was used as the basis of concealing treason. It is very unconstitutional that I cannot find family members to inform of this. An intended result of free speech abridged.

    Think about love, then live

    Christopher A. Brown

  9. […] as caused the following possible scenarios: 1.) Ray beams from space; or, 2.) Mini nukes. Dwain Deets Goes Full Retard: Pushes ?Ray Beams from Space? and ?Mini-Nukes? | American Everyman COOL!!! More proof of: SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILAIN ALIENS FROM THE CONSTELLATION […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: