Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Weight Cutting + PED's: Going Darkside on MMA

Jordan Parson, the first documented MMA fighter to have suffered with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), or trauma-induced chronic brain injury.  He died in a hit and run that he may very well have been able to dodge had his brain not been compromised by this debilitating condition.  Only thanks to his premature death, which allowed an autopsy of his brain, was the first diagnosis of CTE in an MMA fighter able to be made.


All right, let's go dark. If weight cutting is potentially so horrible for the fighters, then whom does it benefit? Why do they keep this shit going? As the Weasle (a well regarded MMA analyst) has observed, main events get cancelled thanks to this shit. Fighters go to the hospital. It looks bad. Fans are disappointed.

 Obviously, it does benefit jacked fighters like Tibau, who can compete against smaller-framed, less muscular ones. Cyborg probably couldn't compete at all without weight cuts; she's too big and no other female is big enough to match her in natural weight. But this is a form of cheating, in my opinion.


Gleison Tibau after re-hydrating

Tibau after weight-cut, before rehydrating


Why would fighting organizations want people to cheat, or to be more physically vulnerable? To go slightly dark, it does give them more flexibility as to who fights whom. They can shuffle a fighter up or down and create the so-called "superfights," at the cost of their fighters' health. Dillashaw goes down to fight Cejudo, Till and Ferguson fight well below their natural weights.

To go darker, though, it makes a knockout more likely--and fans like knockouts. They love them! Fight organizations want their fighters to "finish" other fighters. This is mentioned as a plus for a fighter--"He's FINISHED four out of five of his last fights!".

With the weight cutting, chances are at least one of those fighters is going to be vulnerable to damage and loss of consciousness. Knockout fights are more exciting fights.

The least exciting fights, for the casual fan, are technical ground-game fights that go back and forth between evenly matched grapplers. The casuals like technical striking matches better, but if one fighter gets KNOCKED THE FUCK OUT, then all the bet-t-t-ter, right?

The most exciting fight I've seen this year, the one where everybody at the bar jumped up and howled with excitement, was when Cyborg got KTFO by Nunes--and it was certainly after another one of Cyborg's ridiculous weight cuts (but I wasn't thinking about that at the time).

Chris Cyborg during weight cut

As a side note, the UFC is castrating USADA because, now that the UFC is stable and legit, what the fans will want to see more of is fighters with super-hero bods and a greater ability to finish their opponent. The ability to take a shot does not go up as much as the ability to give one, so knockouts will be more frequent, so will higher profits, so will CTE....The way harm and profits rise together is just fucking beautiful , ain't it?


Superstar Jon Jones' physique became much more muscular after taking PED's.
I think the horrors of brain damage and fight-related injury should be tracked on into the future. How many fighters end up with CTE, addiction, or other debilitating conditions directly related to the damage incurred by fighting while dehydrated against 'roided-up monsters? How does MMA legend Matt Hughes find himself straddling the railroad tracks in his pickup just when the train is barreling through? Was he spaced-out due to brain issues, or drunk as a way of coping with them?  To be absolutely sure, we have to wait until they actually die, as Jordan Parsons did, and donate their brains.  But there are plenty of cognitive tests and brain scans that can be done in the meantime.

The consequences of allowing weight cuts AND having weak PDE-policing? Forget about it. Simply more knockouts, which is most of what the casual fan, with little knowledge of technique beyond the immediately sensational, can appreciate most. So don't look for either to go away anytime soon. Thanks to all that, it's only a matter of time before CTE diagnoses (the first MMA fighter diagnosed with CTE was Jordan Parson in 2016) become commonplace and somebody dies in the octagon, and you are going to see fleets of helicopter moms prohibiting their kids from participating in the sport, or any martial arts from that point on. It'll be basketball all the way.


Scott Wesgarth, a British boxer who died after winning a fight in Feb. 2018
What would happen if all organizations policed PED's well and banned weight cutting by doing weigh-ins that took into account hydration levels? You will see many fewer injuries and cancellations thereof. You would see more evenly matched fighters and fights much more often--and even-steven fights are better, more exciting ones, to me. In my book, nothing is more boring and pathetic than a mismatch. You would see smarter and more technical fights, thanks to fully hydrated brains--also much more worth watching, IMO (as a side benefit, you would see even more detailed breakdown vids by the Weasle). Fights would probably last longer, and there would be more decisions. Fighters would have to work more on their striking accuracy, crafty feints and combinations, correct body positioning, and training to maximize striking power in order to get knockouts, instead of relying on the dehydration of their opponents and sly micro-dosing of steroids.

Frankie Edgar (on right) is a very quick, technical fighter who does not cut weight.  He fights larger fighters who do weight-cut, but usually wins based in his speed and skillfulness and abililty to take a strike without being knocked out.  His record is 23 wins, 6 losses

And with a little education of the public, I'm sure they will learn to appreciate that way of fighting more.

Further reading/watching:

Rolling Stone article on CTE and sports
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-sports/ali-cte-and-parkinsons-confronting-sports-head-injuries-beyond-football-107318/


The Weasle on the dangers of weight cutting (video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDfwdX86j8Y


Wednesday, January 9, 2019

Why Are Vaccine Manufacturers the Only Ones On Earth Who Can't Be Sued?




It's not that Merck, Inc. employees could come and shit in a syringe, and pump it into you, and never be sued. But it's close.

Meet the men who managed to make vaccine manufacturers legally completely free from liability for any harm done by vaccines, ever. Ronaly Reagan in 1986. Evidently Reagan had his reservations, on grounds of resisting the expansion of governmental purview, but Vice president Bush, Commerce Secretary Malcom Baldridge and Dr. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, urged Mr. Reagan to sign it, as did James A. Baker, Secretary of the Treasury.

BTW, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the Supreme Court's ruling that this corporate protectionism was OK. You can assume that corporate-whore crotch scum like Brett Kavanaugh would never dissent against such a monopoly-friendly ruling.

That's right, no matter many harmful ingredients they have included or will include, no matter how they might overload infants and pregnant women and other people susceptible to adverse reactions with immunoreactive agents and toxic heavy metals the effects of which have never been studied long-term, no matter how they might step up the vaccine schedule in order to increase their bloating profits, or use those profits to influence the 'science' of vaccination side effects, no matter how much they ignore the science that does say serious side-effects occur and certain people should be red-flagged as high-risk, no matter how the actual experience of certain people contradicts the CDC's assurances of vaccine safety--you cannot, under any circumstances, sue a vaccine manufacturer. They are simply, legally, never at fault.

Now, you may disagree with me and say that, up 'til now, vaccines have been shown to be perfectly safe for the vast majority. Compelling challenges to this point of view exist, but for the sake of argument, let's agree with that. Nevertheless, no one knows if people will still be safe getting three times as many vaccines as previous generations, because it's simply never been done before. And you sure as hell cannot say that a $24-billion industry isn't ever going to be corrupted by its search for profits into offering, and then covering up, a seriously harmful vaccine schedule. That's a reckless level of naivete.

You know what happens if someone IS injured by a vaccine? There is a governmentally sponsored (and thereby taxpayer-funded) entity that hears cases and makes awards to 1 out of 3 complainants. Vaccine manufacturers themselves never pay a cent, because, in the U.S., that would be legally impossible. We pay for it, not the people who have profited from it.
When this law was drafted, there was very little money to be made in vaccines; the profit margin was horrible. In the 32 years since, they have become a cash cow. I think it's time to dump this law and make them responsible for any actual liability.

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Christmas Eve: the night before the day before the First Day of Christmas

(It came upon a midnight) Clearly, Christmas Eve belongs, somehow, within the Twelve Days of Christmas, even though neither it nor even Christmas Day itself are, technically.  Because Christmas Eve is the night when the magic of Christmas is stirring, gestating, breaking its water.  It's the night when the shamanic demi-God represented by Santa Claus miraculously comes to every child in the world's home on the same night using flying reindeer, and some sort of cornucopia magic to fit billions of presents into, like, 3 sacks--not to mention fitting his fat rear end down the often disused and narrow modern chimney.

By Christmas Eve, the Christmas tree is up and decorated--in my family home, my parents held a huge "tree trimming party" some days before [the ring of voices, drinks in adults' hands, cigarette smoke creating a fine mist, and the tree, little by little, being strung with lights, hung with ornaments, and draped with that "icicle" tinsel over each little branch of the twelve-foot-tall douglas fir...].  It was semi-magical, really, that the tree got itself trimmed even while in the middle of a bunch of people partying and yakking.  You can go on about talking animals and whatnot in all those Christmas tales and TV specials, which almost always take place in the time before Christmas, and that will, too, will add a touch of the magical anticipation of Christmas Eve.

At first I was puzzled about what sorts of songs to put on my playlist for this day, because, although there are a few songs with "Christmas Eve" explicitly in the title, they aren't many, and they're all sung by Justin Bieber.  So, I chose any song that focuses mainly on the time before Christmas ("They know that Santa's on his way...", or on Santa Claus ("...Is Coming to Town"), or things that we deal with before the actual day of Christmas (like Christmas trees, O Tannenbaum).  I found some real gems, like Korsakov's orchestral suite titled "Christmas Eve" and based on the short story of that same name by the Ukrainian-born Russian author Nikolai Gogol (available at your local public library?  I tried in vain to find a free on-line copy), The Cajun Night Before Christmas, the Ella Fitzgeral version of "It Came upon a Midnight Clear," which actually made me weep, and the musical comedy piece "Santa Claus and His Old Lady" by Cheech and Chong (which I'd never heard before), and a crazy vid featuring Bob Dylan of "Must Be Santa". 

Enjoy the playlist on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdartdqjh56C-o-JycMVVu4wetdRQ0b9k --but, above all, enjoy your Christmas Eve!

PLAYLIST, SONGS:

Rimsky-Korsakov - Christmas Eve: Orchestral Suite (1895)


Coworkers Recite Night Before Christmas from Memory

Cajun Night Before Christmas - Tee Jules 

The Nutcracker Suite (Full Album) - Tchaikovsky

Ella Fitzgerald: "It Came upon a Midnight Clear"

Santa Claus and his Old Lady

Weird Al Yankovic - The Night Santa Went Crazy

I am Santa Claus

Cheech & Chong - Santa Claus and his Old Lady

Santa's a Scotsman

Ray Stevens - Santa Claus Is Watchin' You

The Jackson 5 I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus (with lyrics)

BUCK OWENS - Santa Looked a Lot Like Daddy (1965)

Bob Dylan - Must Be Santa (Video)

"You're a Mean One, Mr Grinch" ~ Dr Seuss

Snow Miser/Heat Miser Song

St. Paul & The Broken Bones Perform 'Zat You Santa Claus'

Moses vs Santa Claus | Instrumental

The Pogues - Fairytale Of New York (Official Video)

John Legend - By Christmas Eve (Official Audio)

Gene Autry - Here Comes Santa Claus - 1947

Frosty The Snowman

Silver and Gold - Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer (Original Soundtrack)

Kay Starr - (Everybody's Waitin' For) The Man With The Bag - HD

Bing Crosby - I'll Be Home For Christmas (If Only In My Dreams) 1943

Nat King Cole - Deck The Halls

Michael Bublé - Silver Bells (ft. Naturally 7) [Official HD]

⭐️ O Tannenbaum - Weihnachtslieder deutsch | Kinderlieder deutsch | Weihnachten - muenchenmedia

South Park - O Tannenbaum / Christmas Time in Hell

Nat King Cole - The Christmas Song


 

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

9/11: An Unholy Wound We Must Re-open



Re-opening the 9/11 wound is crucial, although there are even many progressives who dismiss the value of unstitching it.  And yet it sheds a lot of light on the exact character of those currently holding power in the United States.   If people could see that the powers that be would go so far as to destroy American property on American soil, kill thousands of its own citizens, and blame in on Al-Qaeda or Bin-Laden, then maybe we could drop our illusions about their good intentions and see the road to hell they have us all on.  It is a road of endless war, and environmental collapse, for the sake of making a few people obscenely rich.  It really is that stupid, and ruthless, and greedy.

I'll say it:  9/11 was an inside job.  There is a shit-ton of evidence that it was, but, in the interest of keeping this post a manageable length, we could focus on its use as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, and the physics-defying explanations of all three towers' collapses, a comparison to general traits of false-flag operations, and what all Bush and friends gained from it all--and all of these are deal breakers for the idea that it was purely an outside job.

The 9/11 narrative quickly quickly dovetailed with the false WMD narrative that drove the Iraq war, almost as if it was meant to.  The whole WMD accusation was baseless, and, IMO, a shameless lie to allow American oil companies to control the previously nationalized Iraqui oil (which they now actually do; Americans have stolen the Iraquis oil, and now control it).  The false WMD narrative dovetails with the one about 9/11.  Applying the "cui bono" principle--"for whose benefit", we see that the Bush-Rockefeller banks and Military-Industrial-Oil-Banking complex got pretty much all of their wish list met as a result of 9/11.  So, they had motive, and a lot of it, and evident willingness to outright lie.

That all seems pretty obvious to me, at the very least that the Bush Administration, and the interests it was representing, would resort to falsehoods to get the backing of the American people for a dirty, baseless war.  (BTW, I am far from singling out the Bushes as people willing to do such things--others, both Republican and Democrat, have sung along with this tune).  So they would certainly not balk at lying about something that would have made them look even more psycho- and sociopathic: blowing up the World Trade Towers for money.

The other main piece of evidence, just as huge as the Bushes' ulteriority, is simply the speed and neatness with which all THREE buildings went down.  All three collapses resembled very closely only one phenomenon: controlled demolition.  They  came up with the "pancaking" sound byte in order to "explain" the collapse of the two main towers, which was already horseshit, but it didn't even apply to Tower 7, which was constructed differently, A, and was not hit by any plane, B.  For Tower 7, we were supposed to believe that burning office furniture was enough to take a steel-skeletoned structure down to the ground, neat as a pin, at freefall speed.  No jet fuel, even.  Some have proposed that Tower 7 had a "crack" in it (and I have heard other theories) but a crack could never explain the free fall speed nor the falling into its own foundation.  Cracks are cracks, and not controlled demolitions.

So, all you have to do is watch the footage of each tower's falling--3 steel framed towers tumbling to the ground at freefall speed in one day, when that had never, ever happened before, is simply beyond believing.  Just one of them would be crazy impossible, let alone three.  I really don't think you have to go any deeper than that.  Somehow, huge numbers of people  have witnessed what went down and still do not question the official explanations—which simply defy physics.

But don't take just my word for it; listen to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, at https://www.ae911truth.org/

The other piece that goes along with the unnatural collapses is that they got the wreckage out of there so fast!  They cleared a crime scene before it could be adequately investigated, and disposed of evidence, loading all that steel and rubble onto boats to Japan.  Faaaaaaaaaar away.  Nothing says “something’s fishy here” like getting rid of the evidence, and fast!  Furthermore, nothing says “Yes, we have the power to pull off this attack in front of God and everybody” like shitcanning literally tons of important evidence with nobody even trying to stop you or raising much uproar. 

Yet another piece is the pulverization of the concrete, which would never happen, even if "pancaking" were a thing (the pancaking sound byte may have worked even better by conjuring images of pancake flour everywhere?  Are people really that simple-minded?).  According to the aforementioned architects and engineers, only explosive charges pulverize concrete like that.  Plus, burning steel continued to glow in the rubble pile long after the collapses--a characteristic, besides the pulverization, of thermite explosives used, again, in controlled demolitions.  Consistent with this trend, people on the scene were reporting explosions just prior to the collapses, and the explosions themselves are actually visible in the footage as plumes of dust ejecting horizontally from the sides of the towers as they completely crumble to the ground into their own footprints.  Well--what about that?

Obviously, Tower 7 was supposed to have been struck by a plane as well.  Something went wrong with that, it crashed elsewhere, or something, but they decided to blow up the intended tower anyway.  Even though that was extremely difficult to explain, they counted on the numbness and shock to sell a naked emperor as fully clothed to the public.  Obviously, it worked.  A lot of people are unaware that Tower 7 went down at all.  Others have never stopped to consider the preposterous idea that office fires can throw down a steel structure.  One witness, Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the NY City Housing Authority, whose version of events directly contradicted the party line, was disappeared--has disappeared, I mean.  Ahem.  He’s gone.  Maybe he’s in Japan, with the rest of the evidence.  No one knows.

In conclusion, had the towers suffered from merely a couple of plane collisions, they would not have fallen at all.  Even if we were to enter the fantasy world in which fireproofed structural steel melts to pudding at the temperature of burning jet fuel, if they HAD fallen, they would have done so much more unevenly, and partially, and slowly.  Chunks would have toppled to one side or the other and a large number of floors not collapsed at all, but remained sticking up, in uneven fashion from their foundations.  There would have been no significant pulverization of concrete, but rather some crumbling as a result of the concrete's twisting and pulling apart.  There certainly would not have been huge clouds of dust barreling down the streets of Manhattan like sandstorms. 

One can only think that the plan all along was to create something much more catastrophic than three smoking holes in three towers; the idea was to create a real, live cataclysm, claiming many more lives and doing much more damage, and causing more zombied-out trauma on the part of the news viewing public (which could then be manipulated into agreeing to almost any form of retaliation).  Two or three smoking holes in two or three towers, caused by airplane impact, and a few hundreds dead, would have been horrible and shocking enough, but MUCH less dramatic than what we got, and less likely to cancel out the critical thinking skills of an entire population.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as was claimed, but you’ll notice that the Iraq War has killed  half a million people, anyway, and made a choice few very rich.

The collapse which is slow, partial, relatively dustless, or indeed nonexistent is much more plausible for three towers supported by interconnected steel beams.  But I suppose you can make anything look plausible with a schematic, and an animated graphic of how the towers were supposed to have fallen, and some ‘expert’ testimony on the trusted mainstream news. 

Throw in the horrible feeling that almost anyone would get from believing that our own government and corporations could do such a thing to their own population; throw in the fact that those responsible control the media and could thereby exclude most challenges to the official story; throw in that, if they were willing and able to kill thousands of people in cold blood as a means to beat the war drum and line their own pockets, that they would surely not blink at killing any credible witnesses who came forward.  Plus which, I imagine that any witnesses who were truly in the know would be well aware of their danger should they come forward.  Throw all that in, and any ‘conspiracy’ interpretation is very, very hard to sell; because such witnesses as there are remain inside the fog of the public's blissful ignorance. 

Not only that, but the powers that be, despite their obvious combinations of motive, means, and scrupulousness, have done a superb job of making so-called 'conspiracy theorists' look like loony losers.  I have to admit it's a brilliant reversal, on their part, because We The People have watched three steel-skeletoned towers miraculously fall into their own footprints--"It was just like a movie!" was the insightless refrain--and yet anyone who, reasonably, cries foul is part of the tinfoil-hat brigade, end of story. Or, they just get blank looks and a "next topic, please".  All this despite the fact a conspiracy  is just what it sounds like: it involves cons and it involves piracy--and you're going to tell me that those two things never happen in combination at the highest levels?  Bitch, please.*

This is a government which, along with its corporate clients, is cold, and sociopathic, and addicted to wealth and power.  The two in combination work much more like a mafia than anything democratically designed to further the well being of all citizens everywhere.  Who wants to look THAT reality in the eye?  But I’m afraid that that’s exactly what the evidence points to.  The Bushes and their oil and war-machine cronies benefitted very directly from all this.  Even despite a mind-numbing level of media passivity, Bush and friends have been exposed as very willing to lie and barely bat an eye as scads of civilians are murdered for their own profit.  They had motive, they had access (Dubya’s COUSIN—hello?!was in charge of security for the Twin Towers at the time), it's all fishy as hell, and their official story adds up to exactly bullshit.

False flag ops--manufactured crises designed to mobilize public opinion behind typically brutal and often unnecessary (but very profitable power grabs, to some) military actions--are a matter of record.

THIS is a very informative "op"-ed from the website Anti Media, along with a handy profile detailing what false ops look like https://theantimedia.com/5-confirmed-false-flag-operations/  It notes:

The false flag phenomenon is distinctively modern and used as an ideological weapon to control populations with the fear of a manufactured enemy. They are used in ostensibly democratic systems where people believe they have inalienable rights. Such democratic systems—primarily the United States, Israel, and Great Britain—must shock people into sociopolitical and geopolitical consent and, as such, require sophisticated modern propaganda systems and advanced covert operations teams with highly proficient skills.

In other words, your right to vote combined with your humanity threatens the preemptive shutdown of wealthy and powerful elite's cash-cow war plans, on behalf of all those innocent civilians who will be blown to bits along the way.   So they have to put on a bit of military theater in order to get you, the voter, on board.  And nice media helps!

(Just for fun, let's apply Anti Media's Warning Signs of a False Flag Operation to that fateful day in September:

~There is an immediate comprehensive narrative, including a convenient culprit.--Al Qada, Osama Bin Laden--check!

the mainstream media immediately proffer a narrative that completely explains the event** and encourages citizens to tie their intellectual understanding of the tragedy to the emotions they experience.--Despite a very limp investigation in which much of the evidence was deliberately deep-sixed, the media pretty much bought the Al Qada-Bin Laden line, and hammered on it from the beginning.--check!

There are often legislative, ideological and sociopolitical power plays waiting in the wings, which the government can immediately implement.--The Patriot Act, ahem--check!

~The official narrative has obvious domestic and geopolitical advantages for the governing body.--besides that which is covered below in this blog, Afghanistan.  Surveillance of the citizenry.  Other suspensions of civil liberties--CHECK!

~The narrative behind the attack serves to leverage emotions like fear, as well as patriotism, in order to manufacture consent around a previously controversial issue.--see below--check. 

~Military training drills and police drills occur on the day of and very near the attack itself, causing confusion to obscure eye witness testimony and allowing orchestrators to plant both patsies, disinformation and backup operatives.--The NORAD drills of 9/11, which do not account for the lack of military presence to protect the Twin Towers at all, but did provide a convenient excuse for what looked like, at the very least, extreme incompetence by the U.S.A.F. and our Commander-In-Chief--check!

Der Jim adds this: The event acts as a major distraction from embarrassing evidence of heinous corruption, and boost sitting politicians' popularity--The 2.3 billions dollars which had just previously been reported by Donald Rumsfeld as "missing"--that is, spent without having been accounted for--from the Pentagon's budget.--The so-called terrorist plane, supposedly piloted by an amateur terrorist, which did an expert hairpin turn to reach its target, the Pentagon itself, also miraculously nailed the offices where evidence of this extreme defrauding of the taxpayer had resided.  Not only that, but George W. Bush's approval numbers soared to 91% after 9/11--check!  check!


And this: Key witnesses who might contradict the official narrative (in)conveniently die--remember Barry Jennings? He did not live to be able to give the lie to the final NIST report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7.  Also, the circumstances around his demise were very suspiciously stanky--check.

To sum up: check, check, check, CHECK, check, check, check-check, check!!!!!!!!!


The U.S. has been, confimed and documented, complicit in 5 false ops: the so-called Gulf of Tonkin Incident (actually an empty non-incident) that kicked off the entire Vietnam war (obviously, it was very successful despite being a total deception), as well as Operations Gladio and Ajax, COINTELPRO, and the Lavon Affair. 

According to the evidence, they went much further on 9/11, further than simply looking the other way while the enemy approached, further than trumpeting about a fictional attack off the coast of Vietnam.  This time, through meticulously planned violence and deciet, they ripped away thousands of American lives on American soil, in the process emotionally wounding the loved ones of the slain, and traumatizing many more common citizens who repeatedly watched the repeatedly played footage and repeated repeated repeated commentary of that day, in a haze of zombified numbness.  The chilling conclusion: the U.S. mafia is getting even bolder and more brutal.

The stakes were high: Bush and cronies were set to make billions and billions of U.S. dollars.  Think of the munitions and aviation industries.  You think the Bushes have no friends in those industries?  Think of the billions in U.$. gold spent on fossil fuel--a Bush family investment--alone.  Think of mercenary contractors that would be hired to fight in Iraq like Blackwater, an organization with "long ties to the White House and prominent Republicans, including Ken Starr" https://www.salon.com/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush/)....We’re talking yachts, and expensive cars for the whole family and family friends, and private jets, and even greater influence on the political system than they already had—even more power, more freedom. 

Do people think that the rich and powerful would just say no to all that because it involved the deaths of 5,000 relatively unimportant Americans?  Many more than that had already died in wars for oil when 9/11 happened.

And the deaths of those Americans allowed them an unprecedented level of control--hello, 'Homeland Security'!  Hello, control of Iraqui oil and big, bad bully status in the Middle East!  Hello, privatized mercenary armies far from the reach of democratic protest!  They were going to just say YES to all of the above, like a kid in a candy store.

I'll tell you this: I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure.  Due to dumped evidence and silenced witnesses, no one outside of the cons-piracy may ever know.  But 9/11 was a win-win-win-win-WIN for the Bush oil dynasty and everyone with which it had dealings.

Think about it.

*For more thoughts on cons-piracy, I have an entire blog entry on the subject, "The No-Conspiracies Theory" at https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5058673764927061285#editor/target=post;postID=2413465687927295832;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=6;src=postname

**And before a proper investigation.  The narrative was constructed and accepted long before even the sham investigation compiled with egregious bias by the so-called '9/11 Commision'--Der Jim