US “sue Saudis for 911 law” would be a geopolitical tectonic shift because…

New law approved by Congress on September 9 violates international law, would destabilize the US regime

By Denis G. Rancourt

We live in particularly unstable and dangerous times. The US behemoth is forced to adjust to an increasingly multipolar world, as Eurasia and alliances such as BRICS coalesce.

The coup in Brazil, tripling US expenditures for suppression in Latin America, Israel’s frantic genocidal pace, the NATO build up to intimidate Russia, Syria’s miracle resistance against US-desired “regime change”, Trump’s nationalistic impulses, and a Philippine president’s angry words… are all signs of the changing world.

The US regime did not need a domestic crisis that threatens its geopolitical posture, but it certainly deserves one.

I don’t mean pipeline resistance or Black Lives Matter. Those can be bulldozed and bought out without much difficulty. And the occupying police gang is not about to be displaced by any rival. No, I mean the “sue Saudis for 911 law” crisis: a real shit-could-hit-the-fan doozy.

Let me explain. For this, I need to present the following elements: Relevant international law concepts, present US law that violates the state immunity principle, characteristics of the new “sue Saudis for 911 law”, and the three reasons that this lawmakers’ project is a threat to the US regime.

911 Truth and Nanothermite: I Tried...

This follows a previous post about the nanothermite paper of Harrit et al.: HERE. 

Following my critical expert review of the Harrit et al. paper, Niels Harrit agreed to respond and we had several email exchanges about the matter. These email exchanges included more than twenty prominent 911 Truth Movement proponents in cc (see posted exchanges).

The emails are quite instructive about how science operates, how some 911 truthers operate and about persistent uncertainties regarding the Harrit et al. paper.

Therefore, I have decided to make these email exchanges public: HERE-1, HERE-2, HERE-3, HERE-4. (fresh link to the email exchanges: https://archive.org/download/harritrancourt)

As you can see from the main exchange (HERE-1), I was trying to treat one point at a time in order to go down the list, in the order of Harrit's first response. 

The first point was: Is there conclusive measurement evidence for the presence of aluminum in the red layer? 

After several back and forth contributions, Harrit simply quit without providing any of the extra data that he had mentioned and without answering the crux of the aluminum question. He ended with "Enough. It ends here." 

See last email in the main exchange. Here, my point is not that there is no aluminum in the red layer. My point is that the Harrit paper does not provide conclusive evidence that there is aluminum in the red layer. More and better measurements (without the measurement design problems used by Harrit et al.) are needed yet it has been more than two years now since the original work was done and the needed measurements have not been reported, nor has any other research group confirmed the findings. 

To be fair, Harrit is not an expert in electron microprobe analysis (EMPA/EDX/SEM) and this was the first time that he was co-author on a paper that used this measurement method whereas I have taught the technique at the graduate level and used it in my research for over a decade and had my own electron microprobe analysis instrument in my lab until 2008 at the University of Ottawa. 

Then we were going to move on to all the other points (one at a time, see email exchange) but we never got past the first point. For example, I would have been happy to correct Harrit's Newtonian physics errors (see email exchange) if he agreed to publicly exchange about these points. Physicist David Griscom (who was a referee on the Harrit et al. paper) was even more vitriolic than Harrit (see exchanges, especially HERE-4). 

None of the other more than twenty prominent 911 Truth Movement proponents said a peep on the email exchange, not even just to appeal to reason and calm.

In my opinion, the Harrit et al. paper has no merit as it stands and the exchange I proposed was aimed at helping the authors either correct the paper or correct their conclusions. Harrit's behaviour, reinforced by Griscom, gives the impression of a cover up rather than a dedication to truth seeking.

I think a movement based on truth should call for logic and reason in evaluating the scientific claims, not appeal-to-authority arguments, verbal intimidation, and a refusal to intellectually engage.

 

POSSIBLY RELATED POSTS: Some big lies of science False science of a fundamental basis for progress

Editor in Chief resigned over the Harrit et al. nanothermite paper

[See latest (January 10, 2011) on Harrit et al. paper HERE.]

A Second Editor in Chief Resigned: "in no way do I agree with its conclusions"

by Denis G. Rancourt

I was asked by 911 Truth movement researcher and radio host Kevin Barrett to debate Niels Harrit about nanothermite in WTC dust. I agreed and a two-hour live debate was held on November 9th, HERE.

In preparation I read the 2009 paper of Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31). I found many scientific errors and concluded that the editorial and/or peer review had been done very poorly. I tried to address some of my concerns with Harrit during the radio interview. Those concerns which I had time to express were mostly confirmed rather than alleviated.

Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed" and Harrit himself as a scientific authority with relevant expertise. Anyone using "appeal to authority" arguments must expect that the authority in question can be questioned.

Even more boldly, some 911 Truthers, including Kevin Barrett, advance that since the Harrit paper has not formally been contested in any peer reviewed scientific article then its methods and conclusions must be valid. I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested. This relates more to the social careerism of science than anything else.

I accept that the 911 Truth movement is an important societal movement and for that reason I decided to help clean up some of this crap.

I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper HERE.

Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.

There are a lot of very bad peer reviewed articles out there but it is so unusual for an editor of a peer review scientific journal to allow tenuous and extreme claims and elaborate suggestions that do not follow from the data that I decide next to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal.

Here is what I sent the Editor in Chief on November 10th:

Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences

Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal

Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"

Dear Editor Frydman,

As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.

I have posted my report publicly on the web here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html

My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.

On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.

Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?

Please indicate when you will be able to respond.

Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada

This was the former editor's immediate response:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Subject: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt <>
Cc: The Open Chemical Physics Journal , Shehzad , Editorial

Dear Prof. Rancourt

What you describe is indeed very worrisome indeed. To be frank, however, I should clarify to you two points that will probably derive this discussion through alternative channels

1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me

2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship...

I am hereby using the opportunity to copy the journal managers and publishers both of your concerns, as well as my renewed request that they officially and finally relieve me from any duties and/or relationship in connection to this journal

I hope this clarifies your concerns - at least in what they relate to my role in this sad story

Sincerely
Lucio Frydman

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Dr. Frydman,

Thank you for your email. Your resignation will be forwarded to the higher management for consideration.

Respectfully,
Maryam L. Shaikh
------------------------------------------
Ms. Maryam Legasto Shaikh
Asst. Manager Publication
The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Bentham OPEN
Email: maryamshaikh@benthamscience.org

SEE FORMER EDITOR'S RESPONSE TO THIS POST BELOW...

RELATED POSTS:
911 Movement Needs Clean Up and Focus on Activism
All posts labeled 911
Some big lies of science

Vlog series on anti-hierarchy activism

FORMER EDITOR'S REACTION TO THIS POST:

From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt

I appreciate the copying of the correspondence.
While i sympathize with your arguments, I have noticed with worry, however, that you have posted in an open web site my email response of yesterday to you and to the journal. While i stand behind what i wrote, i sent that email under the reasonable assumption that i was corresponding with you in privacy. A privacy that i see violated by your posting of my message in a blog without asking for my prior consent. Please remove it from your blog site -together with any comments you have associated with that message
Thanks in advance and please confirm these actions have been taken
LF
>
> Dear Prof. Frydman,
>
> Thank you for this prompt and informative reply.
> I have followed up with the Publisher and put you in cc.
>
> Denis Rancourt
>

My Reply:

Dear Prof. Frydman,

I wrote to you in your official capacity as a university scientist and as an editor on a matter that I explicitly stated was of "vital public and political interest".

Your response therefore is also of public interest.

I deny your request to remove your email message "together with any comments you have associated with that message".

I am also surprised by your request and I will make it public on the same blog post.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

911 Movement Needs Clean Up and Focus on Activism

by Denis G. Rancourt

I have argued that the 911 Movement is an important and valuable societal movement populated by citizens seeking truth, justice, and democracy: LINK.

I have also argued that it is wrong to assume that information and majority public opinion on their own produce societal change. I have argued that without an effective activism column the 911 Movement will simply be a curious cultural phenomenon with no political impact.

Activism cannot be only “getting the message out” and making videos and web sites. It must include direct interactions in the public sphere at political venues (hearings, conferences, government propaganda events, etc.), legal activism, classic political organizing, and anti-establishment activism at work and at school.

In this regard, in my opinion, the 911 Movement division between “researchers” and “activists” is counter productive. “Researchers” who focus their interests on tenuous theories of events rather than supporting the activists harm the movement. To operate a division between inquiry and social reform always serves concentrated and undemocratic power.

This is a fundamental divide and conquer strategy that has lead to our modern concept of “academic freedom”, thereby effectively making virtually all university professors into service intellectuals. (EXAMPLE)

The 911 Movement needs to rout out and isolate this destructive tendency to go off and “research” rather than concentrate one’s energies on effective activist tactics and strategies. Useful research must be part of a praxis of social reform or it is harmful research. There is no lack of historic evidence of research as a neutralizing force.

And the Movement needs to stop spinning its wheels with extreme theories such as: directed energy weapons, all the video is fake and there were no planes, and the two towers necessarily came down in controlled explosives-assisted demolitions with or without the help of tonnes of nanothermite.

None of these theories need to be true or proven for the motives driving an “inside job” to hold. In addition these proposals about the twin tower collapses can easily be contested, displace the debate away from more important issues, and appear to most opponents as ridiculous and therefore non-threatening.

To illustrate how easy it is to contest arguments for the “controlled demolition” of the twin towers, I offer two discussions below; in the hope of drawing the Movement away from severed “research” and towards political activism.


Evidence for nanothermite - Not

As a scientist with relevant expertise, I have reviewed the paper by Harrit et al. reporting to have found synthetic nanothermite in WTC dust samples (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31).

My report is posted HERE.

Harrit et al. did not make conclusions or proposals that followed from their data and made basic errors in data interpretation. Harrit himself admits to never having used the central method of energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDXA) in his research before his 2009 paper (LINK).

My REPORT explains a natural origin for the grey-red bi-layer flakes found by Harrit et al.


Explosives were required - Not

There is a widespread narrative among Truthers that the nature of the collapses and the degree of destruction imply that large amounts (tonnes) of explosives must have been used.

I see no evidence for this.

A standing building is a bomb waiting to be ignited (by an earthquake or anything capable of taking out structural elements). The gravitational potential energy that is released when a tall structure collapses is enormous. The higher and more massive the structure, the greater the energy release.

Indeed, this is the basis of controlled demolition in which gravitational energy not explosives does virtually all the destructive work. The explosives are only used to take out key structural elements and gravity does the rest.

The gravitational energy liberated (and used for destruction) in the collapse of one WTC tower is approximately 100 tonnes of TNT equivalent, a massive amount equal to approximately 1% of the Hiroshima atomic explosion.

The US war crime that was the Hiroshima explosion caused total destruction on an area of 12 square kilometres and killed 200,000 people. The US war crime that was the 911 twin tower attack caused destruction that is indeed equivalent to approximately 1% of the Hiroshima blast damage, although more concentrated on the point of the towers.

100 tonnes of TNT equivalent is enough to cause all the destruction seen as the result.

Those who insist that explosives were needed to produce the observed degree of pulverization would have us believe that every piece of office equipment and every human body had been loaded with explosives. That’s not how it works when you liberate 100 tonnes of TNT equivalent in seconds.

The following simple scenario of a twin tower collapse does not violate any physical principle.

I have already reported on the important work of Jim Malott (HERE) who exposed the corrupt politics of how the core-structure steel was allowed to be installed virtually unprotected during construction of the towers.

The core-structure is hit from one side, blowing away some of the fire protection material. The steel in the core-structure first fails on the side it was hit causing the top segment of the tower to start rotating. The heated steel in the rest of the core then also fails under the combination of heat and bending strain. The top segment now crushes against the bottom segment as it also continues to rotate but with lessening angular acceleration under a significant counter torque from the asymmetric crushing.

The top segment crushes itself into the bottom segment as it simultaneously (action-reaction) crushes the bottom segment. A cascade follows in which every newly crushed layer adds to the mass being accelerated downwards to continue the destruction.

In other words, I believe that if the conditions were created for key structural elements to fail at the point of impact then the rest would follow from gravity. Of course in such a NON-CONTROLLED demolition it would be messy and pieces would be flung in all directions, as was observed.

Sorry but I don’t see the need for an explosives assisted collapse.


And it matters because…?

What is most unfortunate is that many Truthers will now spend much energy refuting my proposal rather than moving on to the important task of activism.

We should be figuring out how to make the bastards accountable rather than posturing on questions of high school physics.

RELATED POSTS:
All posts labeled 911
Some big lies of science

Vlog series on anti-hierarchy activism

On the pleasure of watching the corporate media crash and burn

It has been a great pleasure watching the Canadian agenda rag CanWest ship nose dive into bankruptcy and disappear. Not even a gift bailout from the Harper Government (under the guise of a stimulus package) was able to materialize.

It's also nice everyday watching the likes of the CBC, the Globe and Mail, and the National Post, play catch up so as to avoid the embarrassment of not covering the real news that is viral on the internet. There are now many prominent examples of such catch up: G20-Toronto police violence, Climategate, Israeli crimes in international waters, and US war crimes in Afghanistan...

It's gotten to the point where the corporate media get their news from twitter after the rest of us do, since they gave up bothersome investigative journalism long ago.

But it's not enough for these now exposed servants of powerful interests to just crash and burn. They are so committed to kissing ass that they insist on serving with ridiculously overdone editorial and commentary constructions in the face of what is obvious to anyone who can say "Google".

In this way they bravely raise improbable edifices of opinion generation that are bound for catastrophic failures.

A recent example is described in this video (below), where thousands of US-Canada media "pieces" have been generated to ridicule and condemn the September 23, 2010, statements of Ahmadinejad at the UN, in the face of majority public skepticism about the 911 official story and the apparent acts of cover up. (And in the face of the transcript of the actual speech!)

This baby is gonna crash, just like the H1N1 swindle and many more.

It all makes one wonder what the mechanism for return to sanity away from corporate mind engineering will be if the internet is completely saddled for profit. Will photocopied tracts become hot items? Will photocopy lock-downs be implemented? ...

Full unedited Ahmadinejad UN speech: HERE.
.

Why we love to hate conspiracy theories: 911 Truth as threat to the intelligentsia

by Denis G. Rancourt
This essay was first posted on the Activist Teacher blog.


Especially left and liberal professionals and service intellectuals but also right-wing members of the intelligentsia vehemently attack and ridicule “conspiracy theories” such as the present 911 Truth movement.

Why?

It’s as though power did not covertly orchestrate its predation of us? Is that not the modus operandi of power?

Is it so difficult to believe that the complex and highly successful military attack on US soil that was 911 (levelling three gigantic sky scrapers, blasting a hole into the Pentagon, and destroying four commercial jets and their passengers) was not orchestrated by a religious zealot from a cave in Afghanistan and executed by failed Cessna pilot trainees with box cutters? Or that those who measurably benefited in the trillions had nothing to do with it?

What the hell? Not even (admittedly rare) authoritative mainstream reports seem to matter [1].

What ever happened to “war is a racket” and “follow the money”?

In rigorous compliance with the true meanings of "academic freedom" [2] and "freedom of the press" virtually no academics or mainstream journalists have made it their research to find truth or to radically (at the root) question the establishment version.

Indeed, all the major and considered-radical academic pundits such as Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, have actively avoided the possibility that the 911 attacks could have been known or aided from within the finance-corporate-military complex.

What keeps them from crossing that line? What makes them demean attempts to cross that line? [3]

Similarly, even outspoken dissident parliamentary politicians such as George Galloway have ridiculed the concerns of 911 truthers (at his last public talk in Ottawa).

Is such self and projected censorship by star intellectuals only the result of the fear of being mobbed by ridicule? Is asking these questions in public fora so dangerous?

When barred and suppressed Afghan Member of Parliament Malalai Joya was asked about 911 by a truther in Ottawa last year she replied that those who sought answers in this matter should address their questions to the occupiers of the White House. To this writer’s knowledge, this is the furthest that any politician has gone in this direction, coming from “the bravest woman in Afghanistan” no less.

But what shocked the present writer more is the derision to which was subjected the truther at the Malalai Joya Ottawa event, at the hands of an “activist” and “progressive” crowd.

INTELLIGENTSIA SELF-DEFENCE

The intelligentsia appears to be addicted to the illusion that it has a monopoly on valid analysis and understanding. In order to preserve this illusion and to protect its standing in providing interpretations of the World, the intelligentsia must limit the scope of all investigations to domains that fall within its self-established interpretational paradigms (right-left, power politics, geopolitical chess board, corporate motives, etc.) and self-established research protocols.

Those paradigms and protocols, in turn, and the rigorously followed discipline of not supposing the worst in one’s research stance, were established in academia at the time when “academic freedom” was being defined by the cornerstone nineteenth century US battles for professional independence in academia. The academics and society lost that battle [2]:

“[T]he economists were the first professional analysts to be “broken in,” in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as acceptable and social reform as unacceptable.

Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this meant. As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc.”

Academics and “radical professors” train the intelligentsia…

And power owns the media.

TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH

But much more importantly power owns us, owns our jobs, owns students at school and owns the homeless on the street, the First Peoples on the reserves and the prisoners in the jails. As long as we are owned, information about abuse of power is irrelevant for social change.

This is the sociological fact that the 911 Truth movement has failed to recognize [4]. Truth will not set us free. Truth and information do not lead to action. It’s not a question of how many folks know the truth.

It’s only a question of what the truth means in real terms to however few individuals and will these individuals rebel, actually rebel and individually take back power over their lives.

Contrary to the mantra of our left academic idols, truth and research are not threatening to power in a culture of subservience and obedience. In such a culture, radical-in-thought academics only stabilize the system by neutralizing the more action-minded youth. [5]

In such a culture, the only truth that is threatening to power is one that it perceives as an attack on its self-image [6]. And, in such a culture, psychological self-image arising from power’s connection to the broader society is the only force that can move power to constrain itself [6]. In this measure, in the present culture, 911 Truth could have an impact. In this way, some of the low-level actual perpetrators and facilitators of 911 could eventually be sacrificed in show trials or in mainstream smear campaigns.

In conclusion, the intelligentsia works at protecting itself (and by extension the system) and therefore will be a visceral opponent of 911 Truth until it can integrate 911 Truth and participate in neutralizing 911 Truth in order for power to save face. Or, some citizens might actually rebel? The extent and projection/potential of such pockets of rebellion is the only force capable of leveraging real concessions from power [7][8][9].

Endnotes

[1] “Major media articles on 9-11 raise questions” by Fred Burks, 2010, Want to Know.

[2] “Some big lies of science” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[3] “Questioning Foundations: An Interview with Denis Rancourt” by Michael Barker, 2010, Dissident Voice.

[4] “911 Truth” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[5] “Against Chomsky” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2008.

[6] “Psycho-biological basis for image leverage and the case of Israel” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[7] “On the racism and pathology of left progressive First-World activism” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[8] “Roundabout as conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s psychology of liberation” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[9] “Murder and genocide are natural, therefore rebel!” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

RELATED VIDEO REPORTS:
corbettreport.com: 9/11 Truth is Still the Issue
TheRealNews: 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered

Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic

Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy. [See rancourt.academicfreedom.ca]

Questioning Foundations of Left Intellectuals

From the Dissident Voice blog:

Questioning Foundations: An Interview with Denis Rancourt

by Michael Barker

"The best piece that DV has published to date."
--bozh, registered blogger at Dissident Voice (#)

Other interviews with Denis Rancourt:

Dismissing Critical Pedagogy by Jesse Freeston

TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paikin

911 Truth

Too many left intellectuals and progressive types have ridiculed or avoided the 911 Truth Movement so now I must embed this video.

Too many left analysts have used 911 to support their favorite theories about US foreign policy and blowback and the like and to support their wistful hopes that backlash might slow the Empire's killing machine and so on so now I am compelled to embed this video.



As a physicist and as an independent thinker I don't yet believe that the two main towers collapsed from traditional demolition, mainly because I don't know enough about the demolition of buildings. Also because the above-impact sections of the collapsing towers fall onto the lower sections which remain unaccelerated until impacted by the falling sections. Overall, however, the type of demolition is a minor point.

The fact that Building-7 was "pulled" on the other hand is enormous. You don't setup an operation like that in a few hours and it's NOT the fire department that does it!

And you need a damn good cover before you can just "pull" a 47-story building in the middle of New York... That, in turn, suggests you don't want them terrorist Cessna pilots to miss the target or be overtaken by the passengers...

And those photos of the extra appendages on the planes are rather compelling.

The Pentagon story of the mega jet in the small hole with no Pentagon video worth anything to be had is ludicrous. The engines are the only real projectiles on a jet plane - I learned that as a graduate student talking with nuclear accident simulation experts.

The Military-Industrial-Financial-Congressional complex has a lot of glue, a lot of blind spots, and plenty of motive. It doesn't investigate itself and it owns everybody with any influence. Taadaaa.

But I don't think that Truth as information alone can change anything. If everyone joined the 911 Truth Movement it would not change anything. Power has power. It holds us via our connection to the economy. You have to fight it at work and at school, not by evening and weekend truth seeking and truth telling. More democracy and transparency at work makes the whole system more democratic. And the fight makes you know and makes you strong. Truth is not in information. It's in what you are from not belonging to someone else. Information never changed anything. You don't act because you have information. You act when you've had enough of not being allowed to make your life.

That's my two cents, one cent per tower.