Trillion Dollar Tube: By the Numbers

From the fountains in the mountains
Comes the water runnin’ cool and clear and blue
And it flows down from the hills
And it goes down to the towns and passes through

When it gets down to the cities
Then the water turns into a dirty gray
It’s poisoned and polluted
By the people as it goes along its way

Don’t go near the water children
See the fish all dead upon the shore
Don’t go near the water
Water isn’t water anymore

What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much — on a matter of world-altering magnitude?

And the party that recognizes that . . .

Has no qualms about denying this

To conform to fact

We must agree that it was watermelon and consider what it means: Maybe nothing, maybe everything. But you pollute the debate when you won’t even acknowledge the irrefutable.

Worse than that — you poison your purpose:

On that front — and this one

As I said in my doc

At the heart of why we fail to live up to our potential as a society is because we excel at polluting even the purest form of fact. How can we possibly solve serious problems when we refuse to adhere to some semblance of the fundamentals of making sense?

— Richard W. Memmer: Epilogue

Debunking the WMD delusion & Trayvon tale is a conduit for showing how this nation systematically derails debate.

“Everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not a valid argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.” By the way — how many of you know what Trayvon actually looked like?

It’s not the kid on People magazine I assure you.

I’m not interested in defending Zimmerman — my aim is to expose the irrational behavior of blindly defending Martin and the damage you did by doing so.

Speaking of pollution

A passionate observer shares his way of preserving one of our most cherished freedoms — to pursue the truth, no matter how tough the issue, through honest, open, and unflinching discussion.”

— Parade

“Parade” — how fitting!

[The O’Reilly Factor is] a one-hour program that runs 5 days a week — and yet in its entire history, O’Reilly has never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes.”

It just doesn’t register with the likes of O’Reilly that what Clinton and Cohen thought is entirely irrelevant to the tubes — but smugly circulating invalid arguments is the way of the world now.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV

How do I know the numbers on O’Reilly and the rest?

I had access — to everything

On this story: 10 pages of reading trumps 10,000 hours of TV — cable clans & broadcast to boot.

And that’s a fact — I did the math. Who cares about 10 pages when “you can’t believe everything you read”? Same standard to snub someone who’s read 10,000 — on world-altering affairs you snicker at.

And I noticed “you can’t believe everything you read” only applies to words you don’t like.

This isn’t guesswork, shooting from the hip, or hyperbole: I know, for an absolute fact — that O’Reilly never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes” on his show.

In another lifetime, we could acknowledge those things — and operate somewhere in the realm of sanity.

Or at least agree on math — and I know the numbers . . .

These professional know-it-alls breathlessly bitch about issues on a daily basis: And yet somehow on a matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — they just forgot to mention the marquee evidence Powell presented to sell it?

And the second a guest brought up the tubes, O’Reilly instantly shut down the discussion (never to be brought up again) . . .

Red Light District

Citing outdated and generic claims from Democrats is an emotional response to outright reject opposing arguments in a wholesale manner.

THAT . . . is the epitome of spin — to engineer an illusion — to make you believe that something meaningless has substance.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV

Just what would it take for “O’Reilly never even uttered the words ‘aluminum tubes‘” to register as something worthy of consideration?

Matching Scarborough’s record, the only time Hannity ever uttered the words “aluminum tubes” was in defense of Condoleezza Rice over the cartoon of her nursing the tubes. . . .

Clearly the image was racist, but I would think that her record of titanic deception would be of more concern. Hannity’s co-host Alan Colmes brought up the tubes 9 times between January 29th, 2003 and December 12th, 2005 (8 of which were in Hannity’s presence).

In each instance Hannity ignored the inquiry or deflected attention elsewhere. But what did Colmes expect with generic statements like: “We were misled about aluminum tubes.”?

— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV

Hardball — Give me a break!

And Chris Matthews wasn’t any better. While the tubes were casually mentioned on HARDBALL over 40 times, not once were the dimensions discussed in any detail.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV

Equally disturbing is how Matthews absolved Colin Powell because he liked him:

DAVID CORN: Blame Colin Powell for believing that and still giving that speech. And now he’s seen as a wise man and the president courts him, networks court him, and we pay a lot of attention. But he knew when he took the job that he was there to be a front for these guys — and he served dutifully as that front.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think he knew that? . . . I still think he. . . I’m gonna defend him because I like him. He was a military guy thinking his job was to salute.

— Talking HUBRIS: March 22, 2013

The Good Soldier

Mr. Matthews, with that attitude you have no business hosting a show called HARDBALL. The Secretary is essential to the entire charade, and yet you give Powell a pass because of your — fondness for him?

Coddling Colin Powell is precisely the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act III

But Lawrence O’Donnell takes the cake in his 2011 interview of Condoleezza Rice — where he just fired off empty rhetoric that made for another pointless interview.

Mr. O’Donnell, you had NINE years of exhaustively-detailed material to work from — and the media’s history of failed interviews from which to recognize what doesn’t deliver answers.

And yet you didn’t ask a single question of substance.

Lo and Behold


  1. Did you actually make a documentary? I ran into this website a few months back, read a few of your articles, and found you pretty interesting. I’d gladly read the rest of your website and do the subsequent research, but I’m still curious.


    1. A culture with the spirit of “I’m still curious” would limitless in its potential. Thank you kindly for your comment — and for your previous readings and interest in the rest of the site and documentary to boot. You said a lot about yourself in just a few lines: Your thirst for knowledge and understanding. Your willingness to ask questions. Your curiosity, of course — and courtesy in which it was conveyed. You made a point of saying you’ll gladly put in the time and effort on the site to find out more for yourself, but you just wanted to clarify, “Did you actually make a documentary?”

      Yes, and the links to the site and 7-part series are below.

      What I especially like about that question is that it sounds like the way I would ask it (in a jovial spirit of inquiry). I mean, how many lay-people have ya ever came across who wrote and produced a documentary? In nearly 20 years of challenging people on these issues and others, I’ve never met a single one. You’d think that would earn at least a little respect, but no such luck. ;o)

      I didn’t come up with this line out of thin air: “I point you to a 7-part, 2 hours and 40 minutes doc — that distills a story that demanded a massive amount of effort, thought, research, and writing: And you tap a Tweet with a talking point or two — thinking you can inform me.”

      It’s madness.

      But believe it or not, despite my occasional disgust with how people behave — I’m actually more at peace now than ever. As I wrote on the site: “Ah, the pooh-poohers of possibility: Forever on the front lines of lowering the bar while I’m trying to raise it — you’ve been a constant companion almost all my life. Where would I be without you?”

      So you can turn all that negativity on its head and use it to sharpen yourself. As I wrote on the site:

      “Ridicule just rolls right off me anymore. I’m not dealing with individuals — I’m dealing with a collective machine that’s been programmed to put me down. My job is to jam up the gears — and get these gears going again (Wisdom Begins in Wonder image goes here):

      ‘I like the cut of your jib, sir’. And then there are those memorable moments when someone surprises you with the simplicity and elegance of a line like that.

      In a sea of insults, one kind comment is like wind in your sails.”

      And ultimately, that’s the most important point of my reply — to express my appreciation with that line (as I have with a few others who earned it). They made a difference — as you have.

      Thanks again for your reply and for your time. If you have any questions along the way, feel free to ask. Moreover, if you have any suggestions about anything — feel free to fire way.

      Documentary site:

      Links to each video in the doc:


      Act I:

      Act II:

      Act III:

      Act IV:

      Act V:



      1. Thank you for your kind words *centurionoftheseed*, it means a lot to me coming from somebody who has the skill to command the English language to write that way. Something about it.
        So I watched your documentary on Thursday, and while I found it interesting and shocking at times, I think a lot of the information presented kind of went over my head, so I’d like to go back around and write a bullet list of topics to look into. It seemed like a lot of the information was similar to what I read in your articles. Thanks for writing this interesting documentary.


      2. First off, thanks a bunch for watching the doc — very much appreciated (along with your fine feedback)!! Secondly, I think that’s awesome that you wanna do that with the bullet list of topics (and lemme know if I can assist in any way). At the same time, I’d like to put your mind at ease about some of it going over your head. That’s a massive amount of information to take in — on an incredibly involved story with lots of components, people, science, and institutions involved. And keep in mind, I’ve been writing about this stuff for nearly 20 years.

        But how complex and involved the story is — is precisely to the point. As I put it on the Welcome page on the doc website: “What does it say to you that a conversation as complex as uranium enrichment could be hijacked by 10-second sound bites?” And as I said in the in the doc regarding Condi Rice being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos:

        “I would love to see the look on her face when someone asked her what the separative capacity of their doctored tube would be. It doesn’t matter if the audience doesn’t understand the essentials of uranium enrichment — what you’re trying to ascertain is whether or not she does. If she can’t explain even the basics behind why dimensions, material, and quantity matter in the context of U-235 output — now you can circle back around to those mushroom clouds and show that they simply made it up.”

        The way the media let them skate away without being asked any questions of specificity — is criminal (and that includes those in the media who didn’t support the war). They didn’t ask anything of substance (before or after the war) — and basically let the administration and others spin the narrative they wanted to sell.

        As I put it in the doc: “Perhaps my offering will serve as a reminder to all the networks — that even with all your credentials, you miserably failed to inform the nation on the most important matter of our time. No collective body that big could screw up so royally without ulterior motives in mind.”

        As Don Henley perfectly put it in Dirty Laundry:

        You don’t really need to find out what’s goin’ on
        You don’t really wanna know just how far it’s gone
        Just leave well enough alone
        Eat your dirty laundry . . .

        We can do “The Innuendo,” we can dance and sing
        When it’s said and done, we haven’t told you a thing
        We all know that crap is king

        And yeah, this site was started as a way to hopefully direct people to the doc (by providing clips and quotes from it — wrapped within various posts I’ve come up with over time). On that note, I have a very specific purpose in mind with what I’m doing now — an idea I came up about 18 months ago and I’ve been writing to get the word out ever since. I’ll explain later.

        As I mention at the end of the doc, my name is Richard W. Memmer (I go by Rick). On that note, I’d like to mention something about your kind comment: “it means a lot to me coming from somebody who has the skill to command the English language to write that way. Something about it.”

        That was very nicely put and greatly appreciated! :o) I wanted to tell you that the moniker “Centurion of the Seed” came from my English Professor friend (who’s actually mentioned in the doc for failing to deliver on his very own standards). He’s a wonderful person and an amazing teacher who was immeasurably influential on my life. But even someone of his stature and intellect can be blinded by appearances. He let Colin Powell’s reputation cloud his judgment (as did a lot of people).

        Anyway, the reason I brought him up that he was my English 102 teacher at Purdue — and we later became friends. I learned a great deal from him, and one of the most important things he ever did was give me a multi-page printout of some of his favorite quotes (which I still have — and an image of which I’ve shared on this site). That document alone changed my life — and is emblematic of what you see on this site and the doc: A lifetime of seizing on moments to make the most of them (big and small). When I was in college, on every writing assignment or anything I was writing — I’d always have a dictionary and thesaurus handy. I would always put in that little extra effort to find a better word (a practice I use to this day — but just a lot quicker with the internet).

        My style is my own, but the foundation of knowledge came from a lifetime of embracing the influence of others (including warranted criticism) — being inspired by people who could elevate my abilities in some way. But I was always willing to work for it. So it just astounds me to see people scoff at what I have to share (even quotes by some of the greatest minds to ever live). They don’t have to put any effort in to appreciate a quote, but they don’t even wanna do that — seemingly out of spite (like they don’t even wanna acknowledge the possibility that they learned something from me — even if it’s just a quote from Einstein). Contrast that attitude with the first time I saw what became my all-time favorite: “The wise man will make more opportunities than he finds” (the Francis Bacon quote at the bottom of the first page of that printout). Einstein’s “In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity” is right there with it.

        All I’m saying is that my “skill to command the English language to write that way” — came from a lifetime of hard work and influence (and I gladly give credit to that long line of people). And what you’ve been doing by watching the doc and reading my site is exactly in line with the spirit that shaped me.

        Which makes me wonder what influences you’ve had to set yourself apart in such ways.

        Speaking of wonder — not sure if you came across this page on the site or not, but it will fill you in on what set me on this path. It’s mostly pictures with some commentary here and there:

        As you might imagine, there’s a whole other story where that came from. ;o)

        Thanks again and I look forward to continuing this conversation.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s