Comments from Registered Members | (Register or log in to make your comment.) | genefire 2009-09-14
Planes don't melt into steel frames, it's not physically possible. No as of Van Jones, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. This administration isn't what people thought he was. He fooled most of you because he's a convincing speaker, I personally believed he mimic the late Malcolm X's talking style, and everyone fell for the rhetoric. Van Jones spoke against the real criminal running our puppet government and they didn't like it so they got rid of him. Nothing happens in D.C by coincidence, and once this is understood you will realize how little of a voice you really have because our rep's are only puppets that go along to get along. If not they are killed or politically killed. Remember Cynthia McKinley? | genefire 2009-09-14
The towers were demolished. Ask any demolition crew, especially if they are certified to use "Nano Thermite", which was found in the dust and analyzed by the Professionals. There is much video and documentation on this fact if you care to look into it. I just wish people who aren't familiar with what really happened that day stop claiming to have the truth in their corner (Right Zinger) because the facts can be found if you look it up. People said there was a loud bang in the basement before the top exploded. My IMO is there were no planes, if so prove it. No 767 can go that speed at that altitude without shaking apart. | Wildlander 2009-09-13
Right Zinger. Thanks for your reply. And yes, blown out from the bottom. That has always been my argument below... that the two towers collapsed from above and not from the demolition charge from below... and thus were not demolished. The first two towers collapsed starting from the top. The 3td collapsed from the base and I do agree it was from set charges in the base. But not the first two buildings. They clearly caved in starting high above from the point of impact. In any event, very nice to have reasonable discussion with you. | RightZinger 2009-09-13
Wildander: Check out procedures for building demolition on the net. You will see how uninformed your comments are.Buildings are always blown out at the bottom first so they will fall straght down. I know this has nothing with Van Jones, He got railroaded for being honest, and was a threat, thats what happens these days. | abcrane 2009-09-13
I have a better job for Van Jones--CEO of PII--"an international franchise of sustainable co-ops", let me tell you this--an ounce of BUSINESS is worth a TON of politics. Apply within: http://projectintegrity.ning.com/ Let's get REAL!! Join the REAL green revolution NOW! We don't need a White House nor a single politician to build this Green Empire! All we need is a think tank, a few investors and a bunch of entrepreneurs. | Holden 2009-09-13
Very good to see the fires of passion regarding these issues burning deep within this young lady. It makes me hopeful for the America of tomorrow. Fight the good fight. | dart 2009-09-13
Van Jones is clearly an american patriot and is therefore a reject of the empire.//The 50 unanswered questions by Escobar are now at global research-I scored 46/50 but have other questions he didn`t pose.//Compelling Barry Sheen video here:http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/35828.html//The US morphed into an Empire around 1953 brainwashing their sheople has been a masterful exercise in social manipulation and a tragedy for humanity. | Wildlander 2009-09-13
All you 911ers are the people who believed the world was flat. That the sun revolved around the earth. These people were all so sure about themselves. Certainly, I feel that the Bush admin was the worst we have ever had. Certainly, I believe corporatism is the root of all our evil. But to suggest we would strike our own most fortifide building in the world - a building our elite took great pride in - that there were explosiion at the base of the twin towers while they collapsed from the top down (illogically implying the blasts at the base were planted yet the building did not collapse from the base) - is not only idiocy but demonstrates your complete lack of intellect. | Wildlander 2009-09-13
NEVER did I comment on building 7. It was demolished. ALL my comment below, if you read them instead of letting your sentiment get in the way, are about the two towers. Building 7 DID in fact fall from the base. It was demolished. | gegenwarst 2009-09-12
Wildlander, with all due respect but your comments definitively prove that you fit in Harry Frankfurt�s definition of what a bullshitter is all about (read his essay titled �On Bullshit�). Thus, you should explain to this audience what triggered the collapse of Building 7 (WTC 7 � Salomon Brothers Building); remember that this skyscraper wasn�t hit by any aircraft on 9/11/01 and inexplicably collapsed around 5:20 pm on that day (more info: http://www.wtc7.net/). Once again Mr. Jay, the ball is in your court . | mcafeetr 2009-09-12
Mr. Wildlander is pathetically pompous, grandiose, ignorant, and wrong. For actual information and facts about the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings, please view the excellent DVD, 911: Blueprint for Truth -- The Architecture of Destruction, made by experts and professionals who actually know what they're talking about. | dart 2009-09-12
How absurd!Of course bush couldn`t be responsible for 9.11.The man`s a moron who should be taken into care but for any faction within the MIC possibly involved in the plotting he was also the ideal schmuck.Just as his unbalanced thyroid daddy knew about oil in Sudan and in Iraq from his Zapata days junior just about figured it would be a good place to invade.There are millions of people worldwide who know the commission was a scam so unless americans are looking forward to serfdom and perpetual war then they must insist on a full enquiry.The empire`s rulers are liars at war with their own citizens but they are so poorly educated and underinformed they probably wouldn`t understand unless it was on The Simpsons. | dart 2009-09-12
Why is american youth `shaken to the core`when they knew they were voting for the party whose members are vetted by AIPAC and funded under new donation rules emplaced by McCain,Liberman et al that favour the DNC?Are they so stupid they did not realise they were voting for PNAC and their Wall Street apologists,the CFR and TLC?Did they really expect an environmental agenda from the money changers?Even more hilarious is the wider american population that actually tunes in to Beck and government propagandists.Why did`nt they vote for Ralph Nader or does he use too many long words.Says a lot about US education if Alex Jones has to make the Deception video describing what is patently obvious. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
Yes, there may have been a blast. Probably lots of them - gas lines, tanks, etc. But the fact remains, the two towers still collapsed from the TOP down. Your suggestion was that there was a blast in lower part of the building makes no sense if that blast did not result in a collapse from the base. Sure there may have been some secondar explosions, but the building did not collapse because of that blast. It does not change the fact that both towers collapsed from the top down. Clearly they did not fall in from the base. The videos are extremely clear on that fact. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
toeg - do you understand the meaning of LATERAL moving material. Not down through the floors but outward and arcing out a distance from the blast. It is these materials I explicitely commented about. Please read what I said instead of just reacting out of sentiment.
| toeg 2009-09-12
Excellent story, TRNN. I'm happy to see young people get up and stand up for their rights. Don't give up the fight. Jessy is right to take responsibility for the resignation. I'm glad there's finally someone who prefers to take responsibility, rather than blame others.
Now, she must do everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again. Responsibility is good in step one. It's onto step two now. Jessy, don't fail us. There are many of us from the 60s who have been disappointed for decades with our own outcome. Time to complete unfinished business.
Wildlander - the secondary explosions in the basement of the twin towers is well documented. FACT - particles ALWAYS follow the path of least resistance. Going through 75 floors of solid skyscraper IS NOT the path of least resistance.
Jessy, it's your time, please don't blow it. We're here to help, just say the word. Call and we'll come, but if it's only to repeat the mistakes of the past, don't bother. Failure is | Wildlander 2009-09-12
The demolition of any buidling necessarily implies lateral moving materials like bricks and glass. When using charges at the base, walls are placed around the building to stop these lateral 'projectiles'. It is only common sense that demolitions not start at the top because lateral flying materials cannot be stopped by a wall so far up, and the long fall of such material gaining momentem and distance (arc) from the long fall to the ground - doing far greater damage to surrounding areas. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
For the 911ers. You want to talk about truth? The demolition of large buildings occurs with charges at the base and allowing the building to fall in on itself. I challenge you to show me the demolition of any building from the top down! The twin towers were not an act of demolition. FACT - the towers collapsed from the point of impact - from the top down. But it seems you only want to look at certain facts that support your view instead of being unbiased in considering all the evidence. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
Reply to DJ2008. I "KNOW" because I am clearly older than you and understand the issues better. Your comment is clearly of a younger man who has no real experience with the times and understanding of this country. The Pentagon has ALWAYS recogonized to be the most fortified building in the world. And for you to deny acknowledgement of this fact clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the issues - with both this and 911 in general. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
Part 3. Let's look at John Adams. He was in fact a Unitarian. Not a gay Universalist as we know them today but just Unitarian Christian - which is to say that he held to the view of the three Father, Son and Holy Ghost but that the Son was not God incarnate. I might add that Universalists was an entirely heterosexual religion in those days and only recently preverted by adding 'Universalist'. This is very well documented. Now, I have shot down two of the three examples that Gordon Wood used to dismiss religion as a factor with the thinking of our founding fathers. He is nothing more than a atheist who is attacking Christianity with lies. And for TRN to post this video is an insult to the otherwise good programming you have on your site. My suggestion, stick to truth and do your homework before publishing anti-Christian crap like this. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
See part 1 below. This is part 2 of my comment. George Wood is an idiot. Clearly in the private letters of George Washington, he displayed humble and gracious respect for God. He was what we call a Cowboy Christian. And for this man to claim he is a professional in his field and present George Washingon as non-religious is a lie. And The Real News is displaying very poor taste in publishing this video of these atheists who lie in an attempt to win support for their side. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
Since you do not offer comments with your secondary videos, I would like to make a comment here about your posting of "How Religious were the Founding Fathers?" I find this to be a very poor choice and a demonstration of the atheistic tendencies of your staff. Completely inappropriate. More in the next comment... | DJ2008 2009-09-12
Wildlander, how do you ***KNOW*** it to be bullshit for sure?!? No one WANTS it to be true, yet heart and head are two different things when it comes to a clinical analysis of the facts. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
As for Jessy Tolkan. AWESOME! I hope that your comment that the youth will be making a lot of noise this fall - if things remain unchanged, I hope the sound of that youth turns into the sound of guns and their final acceptance of the second ammendment to protect their futures. | Wildlander 2009-09-12
Gegenwarst - take your crap on 911 somewhere else. Certainly we will never know all the facts about 911 but one thing I do know, the elite viewed the Pentagon as the most fortified building in the world. The fact that it was hit was a great insult to them. The only question is who actually did it. But as for Bush et al being responsible, take that bullshit elsewhere. | rltmlt 2009-09-12
JohnK 2009-09-12
With barely over six months in office and the mood of the country we saw last month, I think it's fair to say that President Obama, and many of the incumbents in Congress, are already well on their way to finishing their final term in government. I blame the incompetent leadership of the DNC for even running a virtual rookie like him at such a critical time in our country's history. I agree with you, the extreme factions that have taken control of both parties are transforming our country into a third world tin pot dictatorship ! | gegenwarst 2009-09-12
Instead of posting nonsense clips, why is TRNN NOT covering the events of 9/11? In fact, Pepe Escobar (presumably still a contributor for this so-called �independent� media), posted a very interesting article last Thursday September 10th, 2009 in the Asia Times online titled �Fifty questions on 9/11� in which he asserts the following ��It's useless to expect US corporate media and the ruling elites' political operatives to call for a true, in-depth investigation into the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. Whitewash has been the norm�� (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.html). Mr. Jay, the ball is in your court. | JohnK 2009-09-12
Paul: I am glad you finally have a guest on that is willing to acknowledge that Obama has not done much for progressives. If he continues to be a wind-bag puppet for the neoliberal elites, progressives better start looking for a presidential candidate that pays more than lip service to critical services like healthcare. How long are we going to allow Obama sell out the people before we as as nation cry foul? And threaten this wind bag with a single term? |
TranscriptPAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network, coming to you again from San Francisco. We're at the Momentum Conference of the Tides Foundation. And joining us now is Jessy Tolkan. She's the executive director of Energy Action Coalition, a group of 50 young youth organizations throughout the US and Canada, and you fight against climate change or for policies that will mitigate the issues of climate change. And the man who was directly one of your leaders in the environmental movement, and I guess still was, Van Jones, just lost his job in the White House. What do you make of this episode?
JESSY TOLKAN, ENERGY ACTION COALITION, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Van Jones is not a leader in our movement in the past tense. He is still a leader and an inspiring figure. And we have no doubt that he's just getting started in terms of the leadership he'll provide in this movement. But it came as a great shock and a great disappointment to an entire generation of young Americans that have been inspired by Van's vision and Van's work to fight for a just and clean and inclusive future. In the early hours of Sunday morning when we learned of Van's resignation, I think it really shook a lot of young people at the core. They saw Van Jones as their voice in the White House, they saw Van as an embodiment of this president's commitment to a clean and just energy future, and they also saw Van's role in the White House as the White House really honoring the role of a new generation in this country. So I think the automatic reaction was a lot of frustration. Where was everybody coming to Van's defense? Where were the people fighting for Van to stay in this position? And something I'm proud of is there's been a lot of self-reflection within young people in this movement that we're doing a lot of remarkable things, but we weren't there the way we should have been as Glenn Beck and Fox News attacked one of our own. It was our responsibility to demonstrate that this country wanted Van Jones to stay in that position, to be loud, to use the media to kind of fight back, and as a movement we didn't do that as much.
JAY: But you didn't hire him; the White House hired him, and everyone was waiting for the White House to make their move. And then they had this most muted, "Yes, Van continues to work for us," which is more or less saying, "Van, time to fall on your sword."
TOLKAN: Right. And I understand and on a real level feel my own frustration with the White House. I would have loved to see Robert Gibbs or the president himself taking a firm stand and going out there and saying, "Van Jones is a critical member of this staff. We live in a country where people are free to have opinions, we respect that, and that's an important part of our White House." And I wish those were�the political reality existed in this country that this administration could do that. And, quite honestly, when I celebrated in the streets on November 4 when Barack Obama won the presidency, I thought that was the kind of America I was going to live in. I think the reality is we still don't have a politics that makes that possible. I also think it's important to point out, though, Van has been very vehement in the days since his resignation that it was his choice, that he actually does not hold contempt towards the White House. And at the end of the day, I believe it was an incredibly selfless move, and that Van's commitment to this cause, at the end of the day, meant that while I think that there were people in the White House who told him they were willing to fight for him, that he was unwilling to kind of continue to be that lightning rod for the administration. Now, I'll say I think the movement as a whole�and I'll take responsibility for this�should have been in a position where it would have been impossible that Van saw resignation as the way to go and would have made it impossible for the administration to accept that resignation, that Van is a critical part of this administration, a critical part of this fight, and we can't, simply cannot allow the right wing and the right-wing media to continue to be in the driver's seat, which is the position they currently hold.
JAY: And that's really the point is it's not about Van at all. And in my own personal opinion, I don't think Van even, in a sense, had a right to resign, 'cause what's at stake here is whether this administration has [inaudible] defend its own integrity, defend its decision-making process. And even more than that, this is a very small rump of hard-right talk. Not that many people watch it. It could have been dismissed, and they could have gone back to work, but this whole summer we've seen the health-care agenda ending up with Van Jones being taken over by this hard-right rhetoric, and there the White House is just playing defense.
TOLKAN: Right. Well, I would argue what's at stake is a lot more than the role of this administration and the way they're acting. I mean, what's at stake is whether or not we create an economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. What's at stake is whether or not we can become a nation that offers the basic right of health care to its people. And so that's why I understand, as a friend and ally of Van, why he made the decision to resign. But I agree with you 100 percent.
JAY: But you can't get to those things if you allow a new McCarthyism, and that's what they're doing.
TOLKAN: Listen, I agree 100 percent. And�.
JAY: Well, what I'm pushing back is�'cause throughout this whole conference I keep talking to people, and everyone wants to say, "Well, he's only one guy, Obama," or, "We've got to give him time," and kind of finding ways to let the administration off the hook. And isn't it�and especially on this, they're on the hook.
TOLKAN: Make no mistake: I don't want to let the administration off the hook on anything, and I don't want young people in this country to let the administration off the hook. And my message to the Obama administration is, if you think young people are signed, sealed, delivered in your camp no matter what, that is not the case. We are a group of highly diverse Americans, the most diverse generation in American history. Our political participation did not end on November 4 when we put the president in office. And while we are incredibly inspired by him, we are standing up and we are taking this as a giant wake-up call that we cannot allow the conservatives in this country to rule this debate, we cannot allow the administration to roll over, we cannot allow the administration to make compromises that will so dramatically impact our future.
JAY: And there needs to be some recognition of the conservatives within the administration. It's not just some talk show host. These talk show hosts wouldn't have much power if it didn't resonate right inside the party.
TOLKAN: Absolutely. At the end of the day�and, you know, I got highly criticized for being quoted in The New York Times a couple of weeks ago that Republicans or Democrats, watch out come 2010 if you haven't stood up and fought hard on climate and energy. And some of my friends and alleys in the Democratic Party could not believe that I went after Democrats like that. But at the end of the day, I'm not in this game to see Democrats in control or Republicans in control; I'm in this game to fight for a clean and just energy future, to fight for the basic rights of human beings in this country to have health care. And that means holding Democrats and Republicans accountable. And I think young people are uniquely positioned to do that. And we're about to make a whole lot of noise this fall and, I think, ruffle feathers, quite honestly.
JAY: Well, the problem actually probably is more in the Democratic Party, 'cause with the balance of power in Washington, there's never been such a situation where the Democrats could pass some legislation if it wasn't for the conservatives in the Democratic Party. So let's talk about that in the next segment of our interview, and we'll talk about energy and climate change. Please join us for the next section of this interview on The Real News Network.
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. | |
 
You must log in as a registered user to save articles, or to view articles you have saved. Not a registered user yet? Register Here  
|
