Eckolaker
09-21-2006, 11:30 AM
(Eckolaker- My boss forwarded this email to me. He is a old surfer from Hawaii and knew this guy back in the day. Over the years I have got my boss to come around on 9/11 but he is still one of those people who doesnt want it to be true and would just rather not hear about it. This is a great read and is extremely well informed.)
Part 1
From: "Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: "Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
>To: "DownSouth Subscriber" <dwcinlaguna@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Allan Weisbecker's Down South Perspective
>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:38:42 -0700
>
>
>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):
End Part 1
Part 1
From: "Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: "Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
>To: "DownSouth Subscriber" <dwcinlaguna@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Allan Weisbecker's Down South Perspective
>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:38:42 -0700
>
>
>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):
End Part 1