Down South Perspective

Hi folks,

People in the UK are starting to receive Can’t You Get Along With Anyone? (CYGAWA); with U.S. (and other countries) buyers it will take a bit longer, although some have already arrived at certain locales in the States. Hang in.

Knowing the book is actually getting read, I’m prompted to remind you: The book is a jazzy ARC (advance reading copy), which means it’s printed from uncorrected galley proofs, which means that there are still some typos and other screw ups. Try not to let them distract your read. (On the upside, the limited printing run of the pre-release [ARC] edition is liable to make it a collector’s item, as is the case with the ARC edition of Cosmic Banditos from back in 1985 [which also had typos], which has sold for as much as $300.)

Also: My new Appendix/adjunct to the book is still under construction. It will be done in a week or so. A massive undertaking, the site extensively backs up the veracity of the book. No James Frey shit here, folks.

#

Steve James, where are you?

Steve (from Wales), who won my last Pavones (Costa Rica) surfboard in the book drawing, has not yet responded to me to verify his shipping address.

I will not ship the board without hearing from you, Steve. Please email me or we’ll have to pick another winner. I’ll give you a couple more weeks.

Those of you who won the lettered hard cover “Uber” edition: That edition has not yet gone to press. Hang in, be patient. You’ll get it. I’ve sent out the poster to the guy who won it (Adam from New York); manuscript is on its way also (to Nicole in Germany).

#

My last message’s link to a physicist talking about some of the problems in the “official version” of the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11 created a shit storm, as I pretty much figured it would. Emails were divided between saying “I already knew that” or “What are you, another nutcase conspiracy theorist?” The latter – my status as a nutcase – was predominant by about 70 – 30.

Queries about my sanity were invariably hostile, like this one: “Fuck you and your book…. Your a jerk off.”

I may be a jerk off but this guy couldn’t even write a grammatically correct sentence telling me I’m a jerk off.

“You’re a jerk off” is of course the correct way of pointing out that someone, me, say, is a jerk off. I’m tempted to point out that labeling someone a jerk off (in a four word sentence) but in so doing making an obvious grammatical error (in the first word of the sentence) tends to put the labeler himself in the category of jerk offs, but I won’t. Too easy.

“Jerk off” as used by this fellow is a pretty funny term, if you think about it. I mean how did a verb referring to self-gratification become a noun referring to someone of low intelligence? (Which begs a question: Has the guy who labeled me a jerk off ever indulged in self-gratification, i.e., jerked off? If so, what are the implications? How about if he habitually jerks off, like every day, multiple times per day?)

Another way of describing a person who is a jerk off would be to point out that he has his “head up his ass.”

You ever see that poster depicting someone with his head up his ass, literally? The caption is “Your problem is obvious.”

Notice that in this case, “your” – rather than “you’re” – is correct.

I’ve noticed that jerk offs with their heads up their asses habitually confuse “you’re” and “your”. I’m not kidding. Hostile responses to this newsletter wherein someone calls me something, and in so doing should say “You’re a (fill in the blank)”, always uses the incorrect “Your.” Someone should do a study on this, find out what’s going on.

I’m wondering if daily self-gratification is a factor.

#

“The belief in untruths is the primary reason why the world is so fucked up.”

I say this in my last message, the one that resulted in my being labeled a jerk off, in a grammatically incorrect four-word sentence.

I’ll add this to that, by way of explanation: “Notwithstanding evidence to the contrary, people believe whatever makes them feel most comfortable about themselves and their world.”

I’ll give you just a couple or so examples of this.

(Hold on. I’ve gotten emails from outraged folks who say they just flat don’t want to hear this sort of bullshit from me. They want to hear cool stuff about surfing. Okay. These folks should just stop reading here and delete this email. Or skip down to the bottom, to the last word, which is cool and about surfing.)

Okay, now that we’ve gotten rid of them:

In 2001, soon after 9/11, the Pentagon released a video tape of Osama bin Laden bragging that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. CNN and the Bush Administration called the tape “The Smoking Gun Tape,” meaning it proved bin Laden was the monster behind the attacks.

I remember seeing the footage on CNN and immediately saying to myself, “That’s not Osama bin Laden.” I mean the guy did not remotely look like Osama bin Laben – although he was wearing a turban. (Meanwhile, “another” bin Laden released an audio tape saying he was not involved in the attacks.)

I was recently reminded of this while viewing a film on the Internet. The film is quite long, unedited, and the physicist who is featured isn’t the best public speaker. But the film is nevertheless enlightening, especially about the WTC collapse.

For those who care about the state of the world – why it’s so fucked up and so forth — I do recommend a complete viewing, but if you just want to see evidence that we were even lied to about who was behind the attacks, go to the following page and move the thingee at the bottom that marks the film’s progress to 1:08:50 minutes. See if you think that guy is bin Laden:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Back? There’s a joke about a guy getting caught by his wife while fucking another woman. As the other woman runs out of the room and the guy denies he was cheating, he says, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

So, regarding the “bin Laden” in the tape and what the Pentagon told you:

“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” (But hey: He’s wearing a turban! Must be bin Laden!)

Remember the fable called “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? This classic in understatement about human beings applies to just about everything we’ve been told about 9/11, but a good example is implied by another site you can visit. Call this one “The Emperor’s New 757.”

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Back? The “official” explanation (or, rather, one of them) for the lack of wreckage, was this: “The 757 was vaporized by the fire.” Not destroyed or melted, but vaporized. (They simultaneously claimed that the passengers were identified by finger prints.) When a 9th grader who had just taken General Science 101 (and gotten a C-) pointed out that this is impossible by the laws of physics (melting points of steel and aluminum, etc.), they then changed the story, saying that the FBI had the wreckage reassembled in a hangar somewhere, although they didn’t say where.

Okay. But aside from their contradicting their previous vaporization claim, we’re back to the photos: Where is the 757 the FBI now has reassembled?

“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

And then of course we have the collapse of the WTC, along with Building 7. The “official explanation.”

Several irate subscribers pointed out that Popular Mechanics magazine has come up with a book “debunking” all the “conspiracy theories” relating to 9/11, including the WTC collapse. At Popular Mechanics’ online site there’s a pitch for the book, with excerpts. Presumably, some of their best “debunking” is included; when you excerpt a book you give your best shot, no?

Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

"The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel–and fiery destruction throughout the building."

The above is a lie, a lie by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), and a lie by Popular Mechanics. I hope you noticed the lie, since it does not require outside fact checking to do so. If you did not notice the lie, you’re not paying sufficient attention to what you read.

Let’s assume you did not recognize the above as a lie: Now that you know it’s a lie, do you see why? Take a minute, if necessary…

How could the investigation "reveal" this stuff when the building was completely destroyed and the evidence carted away immediately, preventing any sort of forensic analysis? All they had to “investigate” was the video footage we all have seen. Were you able to see into the building, into the utility shafts as the plane sliced through them?

“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

(What Popular Mechanics of course did was to come to their debunking conclusions before any “investigation,” then they made up whatever sounded good to prove the conclusion they had already come to. I consider this lying.)

By the way: What happened to the South Tower? Same thing? And WTC 7, which was not hit by any aircraft? (What about “pancaking”? No building has ever pancaked at freefall speed, and never will, because that would violate the law of the conservation of momentum. Period.)

Another by-the-way (there are dozens): Popular Mechanics admits that the jet fuel (which is kerosene) would have burned off very quickly and it was therefore office contents that melted the buildings’ steel core (paper, carpets, computers, etc). To which I say: I used to have an old cast iron wood burning stove that heated my house. How come it never melted when I burned stuff in it? No outside fact checking needed on this one either.

Some of the lies in the Popular Mechanics piece do take outside fact checking. One example: They claim:

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet.

Let’s take that last sentence first: “Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet.”

Through some simple Googling I brought up the NTSB Report on the incident. Here’s an excerpt (it’s at http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm):

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response.

The F-16 intercepted Stewart’s plane 21 minutes after the controller lost radio contact with it, not “1 hour and 22 minutes.” (And fifteen minutes after the controller decided something was wrong and made a call.) And remember: This was a small, private aircraft that had simply wandered off course and failed to report in, not a commercial airliner that had obviously been hijacked.

But my point: Popular Mechanics is lying. Just flat out lying about how long it took to intercept the Learjet. (Or did their “scores of researchers” fail to do the little bit of Googling I did?)

So there it is, read the NTSB Report with your own eyes. On the other hand:

“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Let’s look at the first sentence from the Popular Mechanics excerpt from their definitive book “debunking” the “conspiracy theories”:

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.

Another blatant lie. There were 67 intercepts just in 1999, let alone the decade. I saw the report on this about a year ago, I think it was from the NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board) as well. Could have been a NORAD document. I forget.

This Popular mechanics lie is supposed to explain why no military jets were scrambled for an hour and a half while the sky was full of hijacked airliners bent on catastrophic destruction. They are trying to rewrite history about “standard operating procedure” (SOP).

I’d like to show you this document too – so you don’t have to take my word that I did see it — but I’m busy and don’t have the time right now to do the Googling. (If there are any expert Googlers out there who want to help refresh my memory of where I saw this document, please do. You might have to use Nexus –Lexus [or whatever], which I don’t have.)

We don’t really need to see the document, though, since a reading of the above NTSB Report about the Learjet shows how routine it is to call the military for an intercept – again, of a private aircraft merely off course and out of contact. Reading the above, do you believe that this incident with a golfer’s Learjet was the only such incident in a decade? Really. Please think about it.

What does this tell you about SOP?

As I say, I saw the document: 67 times just in that year, let alone the decade. I saw it with my eyes, although they of course could have been lying.

And remember: Fifteen minutes after the controller decided something was wrong, an F-16 intercepted Stewart’s Lear. How could that happen if they had to go up the chain of command to the White House before a jet was scrambled, which is what they are saying in their (latest) history rewrite? (It would seem that we have a serious “believing your lying eyes”/Emperor’s New Clothes Problem here too, no?)

Popular Mechanics is lying, as are all the shitball motherfuckers who are rewriting history so you believe the lies you’ve been told, about jets scrambling and all the rest of it.

If for some reason you have a need to have your intelligence further insulted, here’s the link to Popular Mechanics’ utter horseshit:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

(You go there you’ll notice they start off by “debunking” the wildest of the “conspiracy theories,” theories that are in fact bullshit. This is to work up contempt for all “conspiracy theories,” so when you get to their transparent lies (like the steel cores melting because of burning paper) you’ll believe them. This is perception management 101.

But why are all these people lying, including the experts from a “prestigious” national magazine? The long answer is in Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent.

The short answer: Do you think the kid from “The Emperor’s New Clothes” rose very high in the Emperor’s cabinet?

So far:

The Pentagon falsified a tape of “Osama bin Laden” bragging about being behind 9/11. (Or claimed as genuine a tape they knew to be bogus.)

The NIST (plus Popular Mechanics) is lying about why the WTC came down.

Someone, everyone (plus Popular Mechanics) is lying about military jets intercepting aircraft and standard operating procedure.

Notice I’m not saying what did happen. I’m only pointing out lies. That’s all. So don’t email me with questions that you figure prove that the lies are other than lies. That’s dumb ass.

To put it a different way:

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
–Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The expression No shit, Sherlock comes to mind.

I could go on about, say, the Popular Mechanics piece, show how every bit of it is either a lie or perception management, but…

But you know what? I just had a major rush of insight, an epiphany. The people who pointed out that I’m a nutcase are right. I am a nutcase.

Speaking of paying attention: Do you see how proof that I’m a nutcase is contained within this message? In other words, we need not outside fact check to prove I’m a nutcase. I’ve proved it myself.

How do I start all this off? With this theory:

“Notwithstanding evidence to the contrary, people believe whatever makes them feel most comfortable about themselves and their world.”

If my theory is correct, no matter how much proof I provide, you’ll go on believing whatever makes you feel most comfortable about yourself and your world.  

So if the premise of this message is correct, the message itself is absolutely useless, i.e., I’ve been completely wasting my time (a full day).

Only a nutcase wastes a full day of his time when he knows, or should know, he’s wasting his time. (Regarding those of you who already know about the lies – good for you! — I’m “preaching to the choir,” which is also a waste of time.)

Hold on. Maybe I’ve been indulging in self-gratification with this message… Which would mean that the guy who labeled me a jerk off is correct, after all.

We’re back to that one.

I’ll be in touch (nutcase that I am).

Allan

My last word to folks who just want to hear cool stuff about surfing: Cowabunga!

[ E N D ]