zeitgeist

"but alot of the newer zeitgeist/911 truth (etc.) fans are relatively apolitical people just searching for ideas to explain their anger/frustration at the world who happen to hit on this kind of thing before they encounter more rational theories..."

That statement basically sums it up.

I was one of those people. Demolition charges in the World Trade Centers and all that crap. I came dangerously close to falling into the point of no return (I started watching Alex Jones on the internet).

Then, by awesome chance, I stumbled upon Noam Chomsky.......

......and then I woke up!! :D

Fucking Alex Jones. Piece of shit nationalist-xenophobe. I hate that guy. :x

What worries me is that the anarchist movement seems to be getting swamped with zeitgeist/911 truth people. Almost all the newer people in the movement seem to be really huge on it, and don't seem to know any leftist philosophy other than conspiracy theories. I believe one guy actually chastised me for liking Proudhon (this man claimed to be an anarchist.)

What's more, is that people's stance on zeitgeist/911 truth stuff is now being used to gauge people's legitimacy as anarchists. For example, people have declared Noam Chomsky a statist apologist because he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job. I say their priorities are all out of whack.

What I'm frightened of is that 10-20 years down the line the majority of anarchists will care more about protesting against the 'federal bank scam' and the '9/11 cover up' than actually trying to get rid of the state.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it dude. It's the same shit with the "national anarchists", at most they're just a very inconvenient nuisance.

"I believe one guy actually chastised me for liking Proudhon (this man claimed to be an anarchist.) "

You think that's bad! Just about an hour or two ago, I was waging a comment war on Common Dreams.org (basically me vs everyone else), I was trying to get across to them the importance of maintaining an anti-nationalist position in relation to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

It got to the point where one poster (username: "endCapitalism") made this little jewel of a claim:

"Anarchists are as useless as Zionists and many times are one and the same."

I asked him to back it up, and he laid this little turd:

"Both Zionists and Anarchists are ultimately anti-working class and tools of the corporate elite. Your very words around here, support that conclusion."

I'm actually going to make a post tomorrow describing my little journey into the abyss of that comment board. Just for the lulz. :D

Sorry if I strayed off topic. :(

Zazaban

What worries me is that the anarchist movement seems to be getting swamped with zeitgeist/911 truth people. Almost all the newer people in the movement seem to be really huge on it, and don't seem to know any leftist philosophy other than conspiracy theories. I believe one guy actually chastised me for liking Proudhon (this man claimed to be an anarchist.)

I have been fortunate to encounter only a few of these people within actual anarchist circles.

Whenever the topic comes up I just do what I can to impress upon people the utter stupidity of the 911/fed-reserve stuff.

Outside of anarchist circles, I've come across workmates talking about the Zeitgeist stuff, and usually these people are pretty receptive to hearing that a critique of a part of the monetary system is necessarily incomplete. If they're interested, I go on to basic Class Struggle politics and relations of production and how finance capital fits in with those relations and can't be viewed in isolation, and they're usually pretty receptive as long as I avoid using terminology with a historical baggage.

Zazaban

I believe one guy actually chastised me for liking Proudhon (this man claimed to be an anarchist.)

to be fair, Proudhon was a xenophobic, warmongering, misogynistic, anti-semite, so maybe it's not so out of line to question some people's motives for liking him (I don't mean you specifically, Zazaban).
The zeitgeist stuff is infantile conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, but that doesn't mean that honest historical research into 9.11 is somehow conspiracionist by definition or even "anti-anarchist".

I thought the Summer 2007 issue of Class War summed it up rather well :

9/11 CONSPIRALOONS OPPOSED

One of the daftest set of theories out there comes courtesy of the "9/11 Truth Movement". These are the jokers that try to convince the world and his wife that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks in New York.

In the UK a strange mixture of conspiracy theorists, ex-spooks (including that old red baiter David Shayler) anti-semites, new age greens and Muslims unable to accept their co-religionists ever do anything wrong, have joined forces in the UK and Ireland 9/11 Truth Movement.

They want us to believe that anyone from Mossad through to George W Bush himself was responsible, and even that the Twin Towers were not hit by planes at all but by holograms, whilst explosives planted inside the towers brought them down.

This nonsense is easily laughed off by the establishment, and of course Bush and Blair are quite happy to see people discussing conspiracy theories rather than the political issues that led the 9/11 attacks. Such as?

Perhaps all those years supporting and funding Islamist bigots as a bulwark against Communism was a bad idea. Perhaps sucking up to Saudi Arabia all the time - home to 15 of the 19 hijackers - was not such a good idea either?

This year has seen the beginnings of a backlash against these clowns, whose cult-like behaviour and dismissal of anyone who disagrees with them as "gatekeepers" is as annoying as it is telling. Expect to see Class War dismissed as "fake anarchists" or "Anarchist gatekeepers" as a result of this article.

To view some of the counter arguments from people tired of such conspiracy nonsense visit http://911cultwatch.org.uk/

Having said this, I'm not sure that 9/ll conspiracy is the main thing of the Zeitgeist people. They seem to be jumping on this bandwagon to get an audience for their own pet scheme which is the so-called Venus Project for a moneyless technological (not to say technocratic) wonderland.

Dang guys, I think I'm just a fucking retard.... Please be patient with me.

I think 9/11 had a certain criminal element involved within it. Several reasons:
- Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin (Others as well.)
- Gov't/Corps will do anything to achieve agenda (Pinochet, Suharto, ZM, etc.)
- Hitler and the burning of the Reichstag
- I am still looking for proof that Islamists were responsible for 9/11. CIA, NSA, and FBI have not shown any that I can see. I refuse to believe press releases, I want evidence.

How much influence Gov't/Corps had in 9/11 I am unsure, but I doubt they are perfectly innocent from the above reasons.

I sort of liked the Venus Project thing. Didn't get the moneyless technology vibes, but understood it as a resource based economy being more desirable than a monetary based economy. Isn't anarchism/libertarian socialism going to be a resource based economy?

**Side note: Alex Jones does not support Zeitgeist due to the movies calling out Christianity.

888 and others interested in debunking the waste of time that is 9/11 conspiracy theory, have a look at my article in the latest Datacide "Denial Networks: On Crisis and Continuity in the 9/11 'Truth' Movement". I just uploaded it to the libcom library here:

http://libcom.org/library/denial-networks-crisis-continuity-911-truth-movement

This was published in Datacide 10 which should be findable in the UK:

http://datacide.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/datacide-10-out-now/

If you think about it, it’s only ‘natural’ that the ruling class ‘conspires’.

They are a tiny minority ruling the world’s various states against the interests of the vast majority of the population.

As well as repression and the weight of ‘tradition’ (‘it’s always been like this; no other way of running the world is possible’), lies, deceit and a more or less conscious manipulation of ‘the truth’ have been the hallmark of ruling classes throughout the ages in order to perpetuate their grip, even if the modern bourgeoisie has brought this dark art to new heights.

Machiavelli may have been a feudal figure, but his scheming advice was taken on board by the new rising merchant class of the time. And this bourgeois class never relies more on its conspiracies and detailed planning than when it is facing up to the class struggle, or when it needs to mobilise the population for fighting its wars.

The more ridiculous ‘conspiracy theorists’ of today (David Icke’s giant lizards anyone?) in fact hide this reality: their outlandish claims serving to mask the truth of ruling class conspiracies.

I think that one of the most overt acts of duplicity last century was the US stance over Pearl Harbor, an incident which permitted and precipitated the US’s entry into WW2. As far as I can judge, a fair proportion the world’s ‘straight’ historians accept there was something extremely fishy about this incident.

The act of barbarism that was the destruction of NY’s Twin Towers had many similar echoes, in my view. Even if it’s the case that the US administration may not have known exactly all the details of what was about to unfold, there’s a fair amount of evidence to suggest that it was aware of an impending attack and prepared to take advantage of it. Like the case of the Reichstag fire, it’s always necessary to pose the question: ‘Who profits from the crime’?

My favourite recent piece of rather inept duplicity comes from a recent trip by the Polish president to Georgia. It’s here:
http://www.warsawvoice.pl/newsX.php/7352/2101916517

And a rather more developed article on Pearl Harbor is here:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/250_pearl.htm

Zazaban

What's more, is that people's stance on zeitgeist/911 truth stuff is now being used to gauge people's legitimacy as anarchists. For example, people have declared Noam Chomsky a statist apologist because he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job. I say their priorities are all out of whack.

But the funny thing about this is that Chomsky is in fact a statist. That's the thing about these people, they may have one or two truths that may be quite significant -- since they go against the dominant view in society, and deal with an important matter -- but then most of the rest of their perspective is full of shit. That is how they can recruit some inquiring, but not very clear, people to their cause. Just as, in the case of 911, it is quite easy to see the dominant view as full of holes, but that doesn't mean one must opt for one or another conspiracy theory on it.

tsi

Outside of anarchist circles, I've come across workmates talking about the Zeitgeist stuff, and usually these people are pretty receptive to hearing that a critique of a part of the monetary system is necessarily incomplete. If they're interested, I go on to basic Class Struggle politics and relations of production and how finance capital fits in with those relations and can't be viewed in isolation, and they're usually pretty receptive as long as I avoid using terminology with a historical baggage.

was having a beer with a few mates (one of whom posts here) about a year ago, and a guy came and put a flyer for loose change and another film on our table, they were screening them upstairs. a few beers later we thought it would be a laugh and went up. couldn't stop chuckling with incredulity at the non-sequiturs (firefighter: 'oh my god that building's gonna come down, get my men out of there!' narrator: 'he knew the buildings were being pulled. how did he know? why? we will never know, he was killed in the collapse. they covered their tracks.' :D )

they confronted us at the end. had a go at us for being 'socialists' who are 'sheep' for having jobs, 'bitter' because we don't enjoy our jobs like they do (!) and told us we need to 'WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH!!!1.' when they started evangelising with a copy of david icke in hand i tossed it on the floor and it nearly came to blows. didn't help that i was pissed and muddled david icke with david irving, but during the pushing/shoving/stand off one of them did pull out the 'jews were tipped off and called in sick on 9-11' line. anyway in my experience these people were fuckwits more akin to religious cults like scientology, but these were the people who organise these things not your typical 'believer' searching for explanations for why the world is shit i guess.

Virindi

Dang guys, I think I'm just a fucking retard.... Please be patient with me.

I think 9/11 had a certain criminal element involved within it.

flying planes into buildings killing thousands is certainly criminal, whoever the perpetrators are ;)

Virindi

- Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin (Others as well.)
- Gov't/Corps will do anything to achieve agenda (Pinochet, Suharto, ZM, etc.)

this isn't evidence of anything to do with 9/11 though. only that states are capable in general of black ops/false flags (Gladio in Italy/the Bologna railway station bombing is another example).

Virindi

- Hitler and the burning of the Reichstag

this is a better analogy to 9/11 than you realise, since the Reichstag fire really was lit by a council communist who opposed the Nazis. what is significant is how the Nazis used the fire, set by a genuine enemy, to advance their pre-existing agenda (compare PNAC).

Virindi

- I am still looking for proof that Islamists were responsible for 9/11. CIA, NSA, and FBI have not shown any that I can see. I refuse to believe press releases, I want evidence.

well there's the CCTV of the guys boarding the planes, the claims of responsibility... certainly much more evidence pointing to Islamists than an inside job. but so what, the US state is just as murderous either way, and what is important, like the Reichstag fire, is what they used 9/11 to do.

Virindi

How much influence Gov't/Corps had in 9/11 I am unsure, but I doubt they are perfectly innocent from the above reasons.

perhaps we should intern them without trial on the basis of your hunch?

I don't find Lurch or Virindi's posts convincing at all. What does it mean to say (Virindi) that 911 "had a certain criminal element involved with it"? That is just vague. No matter who did it, those that Bush & co. accuse included, they would of course have to be a "criminal element" owing to what they did. This is the fuzzy sort of thinking that makes conspiratorial types of analyses attractive to some. Then, the first three reasons you provided for believing the conspiracy theory (or one such) on 911 are completely irrelevant to 911. Only the final one has any relevance, but my reply to that is contained in my previous post.

As for the Venus Project, Virindi, and your question, what exactly do you mean by a "resource based economy"? In any case, communism is not about resource based or any other based, but about social relations, and about the suppression of the economy (as a separate social sphere).

Lurch, I don't find it only 'natural' that the ruling class 'conspires', and most certainly not if you are talking about the ruling class as a whole. They are just too divided, and their system keeps them so. I don't deny that there have been conspiracies by relatively small groups of ruling class people. (But I will not get into any details here, so don't even try to goad me on that.) The only issue on which the ruling class can overcome internal divisions is that of dealing with a working class revolutionary threat, and on that issue they have no need to be conspiratorial -- they act in concert quite openly. Even if a small minority of them chose to do something conspiratorial, that wouldn't prove anything like what you are claiming.

Pearl Harbour was definitely a tricky manipulative piece of work ("duplicity", as you say) by the US administration -- as was the Gulf of Tonkin incident -- but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

Seeing the ruling class acting in conspiratorial ways is counter to communist analysis and a communist perspective. It fosters good vs evil type thinking, leading people to support the 'good ones' (whoever they are) against the 'evil ones'. It is the system of capitalism, its social relations and mode of functioning, that should be our focus, not evil clans and such.

weeler

Funnily, I think the need to believe in grand conspiracies is quite related to the loss of belief in a god

indeed - see the creationists battle for a designer and their thinly (or not at all) veiled agenda for religious restoration. the comfort blanket of telos.

if i may bang on about one of my hobby horses, this is exacly the vacuum nietzsche feared with the death of god, people being 'human, all to human' seeking other forms of slave-morality as a comfort blanket (conspiracy theories, alternative medicine...) rather than determining their own values in gods absence. of course he was a bit of an idealist fuckwit sometimes, and the prevelence of these values can't be understood without regard to material circumstances. from a communist point of view this means seeing 'master morality' as being a collective project to impose our needs on capitalist society not simply an individualistic ideal of personal development.[/hobby horse]

All that stuff about banks creating money "out of thin air" is pure nonsense though.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/jan09/page12.html

yup, that's my hobby horse 8-)

One of the best books I've read on 9.11 that goes beyond the "evil terrorists did it; end of story" myth without falling into the conspirationist trap, is Peter Dale Scott's "The Road to 9/11". It is written from a bourgeois democratic perspective, not a class-based one, but the guy is an amazing writer nonetheless; his vast diplomatic experience under several American presidents and the fact that he properly sources all of his claims (the lack of which is what mainly discredits the "truth" movement), makes this a useful account amongst the myriad of shitty 9.11 tracts.
From Amazon:

This is an ambitious, meticulous examination of how U.S. foreign policy since the 1960s has led to partial or total cover-ups of past domestic criminal acts, including, perhaps, the catastrophe of 9/11. Peter Dale Scott, whose previous books have investigated CIA involvement in southeast Asia, the drug wars, and the Kennedy assassination, here probes how the policies of presidents since Nixon have augmented the tangled bases for the 2001 terrorist attack. Scott shows how America's expansion into the world since World War II has led to momentous secret decision making at high levels. He demonstrates how these decisions by small cliques are responsive to the agendas of private wealth at the expense of the public, of the democratic state, and of civil society. He shows how, in implementing these agendas, U.S. intelligence agencies have become involved with terrorist groups they once backed and helped create, including al Qaeda.

http://www.amazon.com/Road-11-Wealth-Empire-America/dp/0520258711/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231332677&sr=8-1

weeler

from there its a hop skip and a jump to jews doing 9/11 and other fantastic destinations

Actually, Zeitgeist doesn't make that last jump, maybe because the filmaker is called Peter Joseph. Maybe too that's another reason Alex Jones doesn't like it.

Waslax wrote:

“It is the system of capitalism, its social relations and mode of functioning, that should be our focus, not evil clans and such.”

I most certainly agree with you here. However, we perhaps have different interpretations or appreciations of what the modern capitalist class is and the economic, military and social dynamics which oblige it to behave in one way and not another, etc, etc.

In all events, what this calls for is quite a detailed and thorough discussion of the organisation and consciousness of the bourgeoisie, both historically and today. And this thread is probably not the best place to conduct it as, fair enough, it’s axed around what seems to be a not too serious ‘conspiracy site’ (which I’ve not looked at).

Nonetheless, despite the divisions which exist within any given national bourgeoisie (it’s a class based on competition after all) there is, I believe, a tendency towards unity of thought and action when faced, as you rightly say, with the working class and also with ‘external’ rivals and in the face of the economic crisis. This ‘unity’ in the national interest is both a reflection and result of, on the economic level, a tendency towards state capitalism and on the political level, towards totalitarianism.

Perhaps ‘conspiracy’ is not the best way to describe this state of affairs, but the fact remains: behind the facade of ‘democracy’, of ‘party pluralism’ (in the ‘advanced’ countries at any rate); behind the lie of ‘transparency’ the state is obliged to adopt very definite policies, regardless of which party is ‘in power’. It is organised to achieve this. It ‘conspires’ to achieve this: would we expect it to rely on telepathy?

Lurch

behind the lie of ‘transparency’ the state is obliged to adopt very definite policies, regardless of which party is ‘in power’.

exactly, but who makes these decisions? does the bourgeoisie democratically vote on matters of foreign policy? no; the end result will be in their class interest, but the people who make the decisions on whether or not to carpet bomb laos or sponsor afghani druglords are few and privileged, and they have every reason to "cover up" their supra-political actions; acknowledging that is not conspirationist.

Vlad: I don't think we disagree on this issue (though I could be wrong). Neither (as I said) do I want to fixate on the word 'conspiracy'. But a decision-making process by a 'few and priviledged' people who 'have every reason to "cover up" their actions' is the very dictionary definition of 'conspiracy'.

that may be, but there is a marked difference between what an actual conspiracy constitutes in the modern bourgeois political process, and the conspirationist theories of misguided people who think zeitgeist is a documentary, imo.

Lurch

a decision-making process by a 'few and priviledged' people who 'have every reason to "cover up" their actions' is the very dictionary definition of 'conspiracy'.

actually, in law as well as dictionaries a conspiracy is simply an agreement between 2 or more parties to commit an act. while it has nefarious overtones, these aren't definitive of what a conspiracy is. government is the very definition of conspiracy ;)

conspiracy theories on the other hand are marked by wild speculation beyond the facts and non-sequiter logic. if there's any evidence for them (like the Bologna railway station bombing, or the sexing up of the Iraq dossier) then they cease to be conspiracy theories and are just conspiracy facts.

Joseph K wrote:

'government is the very definition of conspiracy'

So Joseph, you agree that it is 'only natural that the ruling class conspires'?

in the legal sense of conspiracy i outlined, but of course. adam smith could tell you as much. as i say, this is distinct from conspiracy theories.

Then could we please, Vlad and Joseph, get beyond petty sniping, in order to demolish the false theories of 'conspiracy theorists', to discuss the deeper issues of how, in general, class societies are based on lies and 'conspiracies' to hide the reality of exploitation, to the reality of modern capitalism which has made an 'art form' out of such practices. I've got enough trouble with my 'enemies': I don't want to wreck this thread with arguments with folk I actually agree with.

i can't see any petty sniping here, i just think it's useful to define terms clearly, and any discussion of ruling class conspiracies has to distinguish these in a legal sense from 'conspiracy theories' as irrational flights of fancy.

Joseph: if you want a 'last word' on this, you've got it. There is a real discussion here, but maybe for another time. For the record, I agree with your statement: 'government is the very definition of conspiracy'. This particularly and especially applies to the capitalist mode of production and its political expressions, IMO.

Joseph K.

they confronted us at the end. had a go at us for being 'socialists' who are 'sheep' for having jobs, 'bitter' because we don't enjoy our jobs like they do (!) and told us we need to 'WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH!!!1.' when they started evangelising with a copy of david icke in hand i tossed it on the floor and it nearly came to blows. didn't help that i was pissed and muddled david icke with david irving, but during the pushing/shoving/stand off one of them did pull out the 'jews were tipped off and called in sick on 9-11' line. anyway in my experience these people were fuckwits more akin to religious cults like scientology, but these were the people who organise these things not your typical 'believer' searching for explanations for why the world is shit i guess.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever had a run in with any of the people who organize this shit, but I think it's probably not even worth your breath on those people. "Cult" is probably the best way to describe it.

But your average person who gets duped by this stuff is probably just, like you say, searching for explanations for why the world is shit. If a person is using their critical faculties it doesn't take long for them to see the stupidity.

Although, on a side note, I had a friend that got into the 911/fed-reserve conspiracy populist stupidity and it actually pretty much destroyed the friendship. It was very much what I'd imagine it would be like to see someone join a suicide cult or something similar.

weeler

I find it funny that Zeitgeist basically uses a psychological trick to get people believing mental stuff. Start off with basics, undermine religion a bit, string a bunch of half-truths together, knock down some strawmen and them bam, organised religion is obviously a conspiracy. Ok, yeh, from there its a hop skip and a jump to jews doing 9/11 and other fantastic destinations.

The makers must have a lot of resources and expertise..... I wonder what their real intentions are....... Surely if they are clever enough to know how to manipulate, they must know that their story just doesn't add up? We need to follow the money trail.... I think the CIA and Mossad are behind it myself...

At least three people I've worked with have been either a little or very interested in conspiracy theories, so I think it's pretty widespread, and I don't think in any of those cases it was linked to right wing politics - although the guy who was most into it I only saw a few minutes a day, so never had an in-depth discussion about it.

The whole point of the first 3 points that had nothing to do with 9/11 was to demonstrate why I think gov't/corps are capable of "pulling" something like 9/11 off.

Though I've seen little evidence that holds Govt/Corps responsible, there is a lot of things that would cause one to allude to them being responsible. (Bush/Cheney fighting an investigation for so long, the 9/11 Commission Report being a joke, Bush/Cheney not willing to testify unless it was classified and they could do it together, FBI group Able Danger, etc.)

(And thanks for the biography of Marinus van der Lubbe.)

As for the Venus Project, Virindi, and your question, what exactly do you mean by a "resource based economy"? In any case, communism is not about resource based or any other based, but about social relations, and about the suppression of the economy (as a separate social sphere).

Either way though, the economy is going to be based on how best to conserve resources, and not based on money. Is this not called a resource based economy? Can it not be called that? We can play the semantics game, or we can agree that resources are going to be the main factor in the amount of production, replacing money that is.

well there's the CCTV of the guys boarding the planes, the claims of responsibility... certainly much more evidence pointing to Islamists than an inside job.

CCTV and claims on responsibility is not "much more evidence". In regards to that, the CCTV footage was immediately rounded up by the FBI and like I said, I don't believe press releases.

I do believe that the towers were not brought down by planes alone. I've seen a lot of evidence from engineers related to this. Because this is true does that implicate the Bush administration? No, of course not.

but so what, the US state is just as murderous either way, and what is important, like the Reichstag fire, is what they used 9/11 to do.

This is a very good point, so long as we agree that the US State is the financial elite and exploitors. Thank you for reminding me of it. For whatever reason though, I think Govt/Corps perpetrating/magnifying black-flag operations is another aspect that is important to understanding how State Capitalism and authoritarian power works.

perhaps we should intern them without trial on the basis of your hunch?

Of course not, I never said or alluded to that. Get real.

The problem with discussing conspiracy theories is that the standpoint of many who criticise them is deeply influenced by democratic ideology and naivete about the capacity of the state bourgeoisie to act in a concerted manner.

The 'conspiraloons' are often just the negative image of the purveyors of the offical democratic line, which sees the marxist proposition that the bourgeoisie exists as a class and is the class that rules society as a variant of conspiralunacy.

Regarding 9/11, the Class War statement goes no further than Michael Moore's idea that the Bush clique was embarrassed about its Saudi links. This may be true but it doesn't get to the more essential question, which is that these events have to be seen in the context of imperialist war.

Lurch is quite right to point out (in response to Waslax) that the bourgeois state is capable of high levels of 'conspiring' - unified action taking place outside the external democratic facade - not only in response to the class struggle, but also also in the struggle to defend the imperialist interests of the national capital. It's true that, faced with the revolution, the bourgeoisie can momentarily unite across these national divisions (Paris Commune, 1917-19). But it is certainly possible for the bourgeoisie of a nation state to largely subordinate its separate interests when faced with heightened imperialist conflict. Of course, it can only do this in a hierarchical manner in which decisions are made by small minorities.

It is by no means 'loony' to consider that important elements of the US state bourgeoisie were happy to allow, or 'let happen', some kind of attack by al Qaida (and perhaps they had no idea at all of how devastating the attack would turn out to be) as a basis for launching a global imperialist offensive. The precedent of Pearl Harbour was already there and the idea of a massive attack on Afghanistan and/or Iraq didn't suddenly spring into their heads on September 12.

Such an approach would not have required the conscious involvement of vast swathes of the state apparatus in the events, which is a logical implication of many of the most widespread conspiracy theories (eg the insistance on arguing that the Towers were booby trapped, that the Pentagon was attacked by a US missile, etc). Ironically, these theories also end up downplaying the imperialist aspect of the event by more or less dismissing the actual involvement of al Qaida in the attacks.

Given the real machiavellianism of the ruling class, it's inevitable that conspiracy theories will flourish. They need to be combatted because they mystify reality - not least because they let the bourgeoisie off the hook by positing some other power behind the throne of capital. But they can't be fought by simply falling into the vulgar 'common sense' of the dominant ideology.

weeler

Occam's razor, end of discussion.

That's right. Of course Al Quaeda done it like they say and off their own bat without conspiring with Bush & Co.

Alf

It is by no means 'loony' to consider that important elements of the US state bourgeoisie were happy to allow, or 'let happen', some kind of attack by al Qaida (and perhaps they had no idea at all of how devastating the attack would turn out to be) as a basis for launching a global imperialist offensive. The precedent of Pearl Harbour was already there and the idea of a massive attack on Afghanistan and/or Iraq didn't suddenly spring into their heads on September 12.

Such an approach would not have required the conscious involvement of vast swathes of the state apparatus in the events, which is a logical implication of many of the most widespread conspiracy theories (eg the insistance on arguing that the Towers were booby trapped, that the Pentagon was attacked by a US missile, etc). Ironically, these theories also end up downplaying the imperialist aspect of the event by more or less dismissing the actual involvement of al Qaida in the attacks.

No. It is loony to consider that elements of the US ruling class permitted the attacks to happen today in 2009, when excellent historical studies of the events are available. Touching History, The Looming Tower, Firefight, and yes the 9/11 Comission Report (though flawed) are examples of books that demystify the events of that day but are ignored by people who want to believe that the 19 highjackers and Al-Queda weren't responsible for the attacks.

The very minimum of collaboration required for assisting in the 9/11 attacks would be to allow the hijackers space to pull off their attack. This would have involved:

- Shutting down or distracting the FBI's Alec Station, which was tracking Al Queda at the time both internationally and domestically, to make sure that the hijacker cells were not discovered during the period they were training on flights and up to the day of the attack.
- Cooperation of at least local airport police in three different airports so that the hijackers were not removed from the flights and allowed to board.

There is no evidence of any intervention by government forces on the first or second of these points. That would be the absolute bottom line for a collaboration argument.

I've been debating people hawking these theories since 2004. It is time to move the fuck on and place the blame where it really lays: the 19 hijackers and their collaborators.

Given the real machiavellianism of the ruling class, it's inevitable that conspiracy theories will flourish. They need to be combatted because they mystify reality - not least because they let the bourgeoisie off the hook by positing some other power behind the throne of capital. But they can't be fought by simply falling into the vulgar 'common sense' of the dominant ideology.

You're right, they have to be fought with facts and open debate.

This is certainly popular over here. There is a small group of people (I don't know them) who put on monthly free film screenings in a popular student bar in the central city - ranging from things like Zeitgeist (Perhaps the conspiracy film equivalent of a gateway drug?) to Loose Change, Alex Jones shit and even David Icke. They get at least 100 people every month, sometimes far more - whereas free film screenings put on by anarchist (or Leninist, for that matter) groups tend to be happy if they get 40-50.

The ideas are also making their way into anarchist circles - predominantly by the lifestylist / crimethinc people. Some anarchists even organised demos around that awful 9/11 conspiracy "general strike" callout that came from the US in 2007.

weeler

Occam's razor, end of discussion.

You see, the theorists claim that occam's razor supports their position, so that doesn't work.

Zazaban

weeler

Occam's razor, end of discussion.

You see, the theorists claim that occam's razor supports their position, so that doesn't work.

do they know what occam's razor is?

radicalgraffiti

Zazaban

weeler

Occam's razor, end of discussion.

You see, the theorists claim that occam's razor supports their position, so that doesn't work.

do they know what occam's razor is?

They claim that since that Lucitania, Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin were inside jobs, therefore the simplest explanation of 9/11 is that it was an inside job.

What's more, is that when I questioned that those were inside jobs, they said they may not be inside jobs per se, but since the US took advantage afterwards (key word 'afterwards') they still count as false flag operations.

I didn't bother commenting.

well i guess there's no point arguing with mad people

Lurch

Then could we please, Vlad and Joseph, get beyond petty sniping, in order to demolish the false theories of 'conspiracy theorists', to discuss the deeper issues of how, in general, class societies are based on lies and 'conspiracies' to hide the reality of exploitation, to the reality of modern capitalism which has made an 'art form' out of such practices. I've got enough trouble with my 'enemies': I don't want to wreck this thread with arguments with folk I actually agree with.

the primary problem with focusing on a conspiratorial aspect to capitalist tactics is it lets them off the hook much in the same way calling bush a fascist allows the actual brutality of capitalism a free pass.

And of course not accepting that Al Quaeda done it let's them off the hook, ie in effect takes the side of that section of the local elites in the Middle East who want to end US dominance there. Despite being a bit of conspiraloon himself Alf is basically right to see the whole thing as part of a conflict between two sections of the international capitalist class over who is control the resources and people of the Middle East.

jesuithitsquad wrote:

the primary problem with focusing on a conspiratorial aspect to capitalist tactics is it lets them off the hook much in the same way calling bush a fascist allows the actual brutality of capitalism a free pass.

Certainly, if the ruling class’s various conspiratorial acts are viewed as ‘things in themselves’, isolated events perpetrated by ‘rogue’ elements acting against the interests of an otherwise democratic or ‘popular’ states, then yes, it can lead to the idea that such ‘aberrations’ can be corrected, legislation passed, individuals brought to book, departments closed, or even familial dynasties removed (eg the Bush clan) and, hey presto, problem solved

If, however, if they are understood not as ‘exceptional’ events but the very norm, the mode of life and functioning of capitalism, in continuity with ruling classes of previous epochs but exacerbated and exaggerated by the specific stage of this modern mode of production, then no, there is no get-out clause: if anything fundamental is to change, social relations must change, the capitalist mode of production and all it excretes must be superseded.

sphinx

No. It is loony to consider that elements of the US ruling class permitted the attacks to happen today in 2009...and yes the 9/11 Comission Report (though flawed) are examples...that demystify the events of that day

9/11 was the largest homicide by far in American history, yet it has never been adequately investigated. The public has been told of a conspiracy that included terrorist conspirators organized and financed abroad. But if U.S. defenses had functioned on that day as they had previously, the four planes at a minimum should have been intercepted by fighter aircraft. Yet we are told that even this did not happen. There is a domestic side to 9/11 as well, about which we still know next to nothing. There are systematic suppressions of evidence in the 9/11 Commission Report itself, along with unresolved contradictions in testimony and occasional misrepresentations of some crucial facts.
The Report failed for example to address the Jersey Girls' question about the collapse of the 47 story steel-framed building, WTC-7, which was 355 ft from the nearest of the two towers hit by planes, yet it collapsed neatly into its footprint some seven hours after the towers fell. The first alleged reason was fire, but, ast the NY Times observed, "No other modern, steel-reinforced skyscraper except for the trade towers themselves has ever collapsed in a fire."(NY Times, Dec. 4 2001)
It would be far-fetched to take this as proof of an "inside job", but the fact that the report does not discuss it is rather shocking I would say given its goals.

Vlad336

9/11 was the largest homicide by far in American history, yet it has never been adequately investigated.

Yes it has. You and the other people who say this have not read either the 9/11 report or the NIST report beyond their summary conclusions and don't pretend that you have.

Vlad336

But if U.S. defenses had functioned on that day as they had previously, the four planes at a minimum should have been intercepted by fighter aircraft. Yet we are told that even this did not happen.

The claim of NORAD standing down has been debunked since the release of the NORAD archives of that day, in 2006. Please, try to read a book. I know it's hard. Touching History has a literally minute-by-minute recounting of the struggle to intercept the aircrafts. Air Traffic Control was surprised again and again by the fact that more aircrafts were being hijacked. No one knew the plan! The simultaneity and breadth of the hijackings was enough to defeat yes, even NORAD and NEADS. There was also of course a broad assumption at the time that hijackings meant that the hijackers wanted to negotiate PLO, Red Army style. Not so that day.

Vlad336

There are systematic suppressions of evidence in the 9/11 Commission Report itself, along with unresolved contradictions in testimony and occasional misrepresentations of some crucial facts.

There are about as much facts missing as you would expect from any government report, mostly a result of various agencies trying to avoid taking heat for their part in failing to prevent the attacks. None of it means complicity.

Vlad336

The Report failed for example to address the Jersey Girls' question about the collapse of the 47 story steel-framed building, WTC-7, which was 355 ft from the nearest of the two towers hit by planes, yet it collapsed neatly into its footprint some seven hours after the towers fell.

Wow, you're really going to bring controlled demolition claims onto libcom? I feel sorry for you...

First off, the mechanics of the collapse were better left to engineers, and they were. See the NIST report on the collapse of the towers. That's where the Jersey Girls' questions are put to rest with a reasonable scientific account of the collapse.

Vlad336

The first alleged reason was fire, but, ast the NY Times observed, "No other modern, steel-reinforced skyscraper except for the trade towers themselves has ever collapsed in a fire."(NY Times, Dec. 4 2001)

Yeah, and a fucking airplane hit it.

Vlad336

It would be far-fetched to take this as proof of an "inside job", but the fact that the report does not discuss it is rather shocking I would say given its goals.

No, they didn't discuss it because it's the private theory of shut-ins and loons. Good on them for it.

First,
sphinx

Wow, you're really going to bring controlled demolition claims onto libcom? I feel sorry for you...

I said nothing of controlled demolition, but I find it symptomatic that the 9/11 report failed to discuss it. Please refrain from petty ad-hominems; it adds nothing to the quality of your argument.

Yes it has. You and the other people who say this have not read either the 9/11 report or the NIST report beyond their summary conclusions and don't pretend that you have.

The 9/11 Report is chock-full of cherry-picking of evidence, suppression of evidence, and issues that are misrepresented or simply ignored. If you had read it, you would know that and would not be claiming that it is an adequate document by any means.
I can discuss plenty of examples of how the Report fucks up (intentionally or not) if you want, but I feel that this is not the thread to do it in.

The claim of NORAD standing down has been debunked since the release of the NORAD archives of that day, in 2006. Please, try to read a book. I know it's hard.

It's hard yes, especially when so much of this literature is faulty, but I have read on the subject. Allow me to bore you with some facts that I have stumbled upon while reading (even though I said I wouldn't turn this into a 9.11 thread)

The report itself blamed the failure of the US gov to respond appropriately to the hijackings in large part to an existing procedural protocol that "was unsuited in every respect" for what happened that day. It cited a JCS memo that specified that military assistance from NORAD required approval at the highest levels of gov. This was meant to erase the distinction between interception and a shoot-down. But the normal request from the FAA to NORAD for "military assistance is for an interception, not a shoot down. Mike Snyder, a spokesman for the NORAD headquarters said however that its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with graduated response. Eventually it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it.
Now the FAA reported 67 interceptions between Sept. 2000 and June 2001. It is inconceivable that in this period requests for interceptions were cleared by the "highest levels of gov." Yet the DoD records obtained by the 9/11 Commission show that only at 10:31 on Sept. 11 did Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold tell NORAD: "[the] Vice president has cleared us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond" (Report, 81). The audio file released by NEADS has essentially the same message. Cheney himself referred to the intercept order as the "toughest decision" Bush and he made that day, equating interception of a plan with shooting it down (Meet the Press, 2001).
But the report failed to ask why this problematic JCS memo was promulgated ten weeks before 9/11, or who was responsible for it. It would have been easy to have asked this question of Gen. Richard Myers, vice chairman of the JCS, who was interviewed 3 times by the cosmission, but it didn't.Because most emergency response regulations are secret, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which changes in regulations complicated NORAD's ability to respond to the hijacked planes. What can be said is that the 9.11 report failed to investigate the origins of the JCS memo that apparently made interceptions a matter for the White House. In Dec. 2001, the old, more permissive procedure was restored.

There are about as much facts missing as you would expect from any government report, mostly a result of various agencies trying to avoid taking heat for their part in failing to prevent the attacks. None of it means complicity.

I did not say otherwise. You are simply trying to impute on me some sort of conspirationist agenda. I already said that I don't believe in any sort of complicity, given that there is no sufficient proof to indicate it.

See the NIST report on the collapse of the towers.

I have yet to go through it, I admit, so I won't get into this discussion.

Steel buildings have collapsed before in fires, whether they where skyscrapers or not is irrelevant.
Its a pain to find pictures because most pages which mention steel buildings which have been on fire are truther sites.
I did find this which had a concrete core and steel on the out side, you can see the steel parts buckled and collapsed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower

Ironical i first found it on a truther website as evidence that steel buildings don't colapse :lol:

Vlad336

First,
sphinx

Wow, you're really going to bring controlled demolition claims onto libcom? I feel sorry for you...

I said nothing of controlled demolition, but I find it symptomatic that the 9/11 report failed to discuss it.

Um direct quote from you:

The Report failed for example to address the Jersey Girls' question about the collapse of the 47 story steel-framed building, WTC-7, which was 355 ft from the nearest of the two towers hit by planes, yet it collapsed neatly into its footprint some seven hours after the towers fell. The first alleged reason was fire, but, ast the NY Times observed, "No other modern, steel-reinforced skyscraper except for the trade towers themselves has ever collapsed in a fire."

Why do you call the collapse from fire (and airplane impact) alleged if you're not going to say there was a controlled demolition of the buildings? You also remark that it fell 'neatly' into its own footprint which is also not true considering that both towers caused massive damage to surrounding buildings and spread debris for blocks, hence 'ground zero'.

Yet the DoD records obtained by the 9/11 Commission show that only at 10:31 on Sept. 11 did Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold tell NORAD: "[the] Vice president has cleared us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond" (Report, 81).

Yeah, 10:31. That's when the shoot-down order came. What time did the first jets to intercept the planes scramble? 8:40 a.m. Approximately 30 minutes after the highjacking takes place, which is actually incredible speed.

Again, you aren't thinking three dimensionally about this. The hijackers turned off the transponder signals. All the air traffic controllers have to go on at that point is where the plane WAS, dots on a screen full of anything showing up on radar. Most of the planes that were scrambled wound up being unable to find their targets period, because the transponders were off. So the shoot down order was null and void anyways, because at no time were the fighters even able to find their proper targets.

Because most emergency response regulations are secret, it is impossible to evaluate the degree to which changes in regulations complicated NORAD's ability to respond to the hijacked planes.

Again, I urge you to read Touching History for a detailed breakdown of the timeline for which each plane was discovered to be hijacked, fighters were scrambled and then subsequently could not find their targets in time. It is not impossible to evaluate how these changes in regulations affected things because bottom line the hijackers did not give the military the chance to shoot them down.

Vlad I can't believe you're paying any attention to this shit. You always seemed quite sensible

I still like to believe I am, Steven. I do have an interest in 9.11 and especially in how the events of that day were misrepresented in official documents, but I'm not going to start arguing melting temperatures with sphinx, to prove that a-ha! it were the government what done it! That would be a bit mental, and in any case I don't have any strong beliefs to support an alternate explanation for the WTC-7's collapse. All I did was note that the Report did not deal with the subject at the time, even though public opinion, as evidenced by articles in the mainstream press, like the NY Yimes, and several "truth groups" like the Jersey Girls (which at that time did not seem so wacky and cultish) was quite confounded as to how a building of this type could collapse the way it did.
My interest is mainly in the history leading up to the unfortunate event, and the Report and how the latter suggests a governmental cover-up, especially in what concerns Cheney's actions; I do believe there is a cover-up, but that doesn't indicate an "inside job" a "collaboration" or anything of the sort. It just means that government often functions through misinformation and conspirational devices, which is what I was saying earlier. That is different from saying that the Catholic church, the masons, the Zionists and whoever the hell is mentioned or not mentioned in Zeitgeist are part of a NWW trying to brainwash us into building a giant landing pad for the mothership to land.

Most of the planes that were scrambled wound up being unable to find their targets period, because the transponders were off. So the shoot down order was null and void anyways, because at no time were the fighters even able to find their proper targets.

God help American Air Defence if any enemies attack without broadcasting transponder signals then. Is it really true that normal air traffic control, let alone NORAD can't identify "bogeys" without someone helpfully flying the equivalent of a massive flag saying "I'm an enemy plane, please shoot me down"?? Rather worrying for the US military if true ...

Apparently, NORAD actually did run drills based on various scenarios involving hijacked planes according to this article from USA today - the main difference was that it was assumed the planes were coming from another country. Presumably, air defences are so optimised for external threats that interceptors can lose not just one but three planes (or four if you include the one crashed before it reached its target)! And leaving aside terrorist attack, does this mean a hijacked plane for more mundane reasons is pretty much invisible to US interceptors?! One wonders at what the standard operating procedure for a normal hijacking would be - "oh boys, we think we've got a hijacked plane but there's like so many blobs on my radar man, but let me know if you find it". Conspiracy or not, I find this breathtaking!

On the 9/11 report, I'd be interested to know why they included nothing about Operation Able Danger. Also can anyone confirm if it's true that the testimony of Coleen Rowley (who claimed efforts to get a search warrant on Zacarias Moussaoui (despite having probable cause) were consistently suppressed by senior FBI officials) was also ommitted?

One last point, nearly all the "conspiracy" theories posed suggest that the government either actively planned the attacks or knew what was coming and allowed it. There is actually a third possibility - that the state was watching one of a number of terrorist cells but not actively dismantling them, in the hope that they would "do something". Complete knowledge of the cell's activities in this scenario is not required - they may not have known something on the scale of the 9/11 attacks was on the way but were happy for "something" to happen. Such a scenario doesn't involve complicity from airport security, NORAD or anyone else

Interestingly, there were rumours of FBI involvement in the 1993 world centre bombing. According to this article in the New York Times, the FBI actually had an asset that they were going to insert into the cell responsible but then pulled back. It is unclear that they knew what the target was going to be, but they seem to have known something was afoot.

Nice post Demogorgnon.

I too was under the impression that, for the past decade, if a fisherman farted in the North Atlantic (or anywhere else, for that matter) it was flagged up. Let alone 4 jet planes full of passengers (and maybe weapons).

Sure it could all be a cock-up - you can monitor millions and still not see the wood for the terrorists. Ultimately, it's not the point.

For communists, the fundamental point is not to 'prove' (v difficult) this or that 'manoeuvre' of the ruling class, nor to add fuel to the 'conspiracyloons' but to arm the working class. Which means?

Be aware: if we are waking up, if others are joining us, in the view that something extraordinary, something revolutionary, is the only perspective, then the current ruling clique (the ruling class) isn't stupid, isn't impotent.

sphinx

Vlad336

The Report failed for example to address the Jersey Girls' question about the collapse of the 47 story steel-framed building, WTC-7, which was 355 ft from the nearest of the two towers hit by planes, yet it collapsed neatly into its footprint some seven hours after the towers fell.

Wow, you're really going to bring controlled demolition claims onto libcom? I feel sorry for you...

First off, the mechanics of the collapse were better left to engineers, and they were. See the NIST report on the collapse of the towers. That's where the Jersey Girls' questions are put to rest with a reasonable scientific account of the collapse.

Vlad336

The first alleged reason was fire, but, ast the NY Times observed, "No other modern, steel-reinforced skyscraper except for the trade towers themselves has ever collapsed in a fire."(NY Times, Dec. 4 2001)

Yeah, and a fucking airplane hit it.

Vlad336 was talking about the collapse of WTC-7, which, as he said, collapsed 7 hours after the twin towers (i.e. WTC-1 and WTC-2) fell; and WTC-7 was never impacted by an airplane. Sphinx responded as if Vlad336 was talking about the collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2, when he clearly wasn't. Just to clarify.

So there was a controlled demolition of an unrelated building for the purposes of... alerting conspiracy theorists to the existence of a conspiracy?

mikus

So there was a controlled demolition of an unrelated building for the purposes of... alerting conspiracy theorists to the existence of a conspiracy?

Well, for the conspiracies to be discovered the the theories, they have to leave little clues around so that they can be exposed. Which is exactly what an all-powerful demonic cabal would do. Yep.

mikus

So there was a controlled demolition of an unrelated building for the purposes of... alerting conspiracy theorists to the existence of a conspiracy?

No, I never said or implied that. I was just clarifying what seemed to be a fairly basic misunderstanding by sphinx of what Vlad336 had written.

waslax

Vlad336 was talking about the collapse of WTC-7, which, as he said, collapsed 7 hours after the twin towers (i.e. WTC-1 and WTC-2) fell; and WTC-7 was never impacted by an airplane. Sphinx responded as if Vlad336 was talking about the collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2, when he clearly wasn't. Just to clarify.

WTC-7 was, however, pelted with huge chunks of concrete from towers 1 and 2, which may go some way to explaining it (and also kind of scuppers the "fell neatly into their footprints" myth).

Demogorgon303

One last point, nearly all the "conspiracy" theories posed suggest that the government either actively planned the attacks or knew what was coming and allowed it. There is actually a third possibility - that the state was watching one of a number of terrorist cells but not actively dismantling them, in the hope that they would "do something". Complete knowledge of the cell's activities in this scenario is not required - they may not have known something on the scale of the 9/11 attacks was on the way but were happy for "something" to happen. Such a scenario doesn't involve complicity from airport security, NORAD or anyone else.

This appears to be the official ICC Party Line on this or at least this is the argument all their members and fellow travellers here have put. It can be conceded that this is the most plausible (or the least nutty) of the 9/11 "Truth" theories as it doesn't assume planned demolitions, drones and the whisking away of passengers to a secret destination where they still must be (unless they've been killed). But it seems to be based not on any evidence but merely on the dogmatic assertion that this is the "machiavellian" way in which all States act.(The same dogmatic assertion is behind their view that the Israeli State welcomes and even encourages the launching of rockets from Gaza).

Like the other 9/11 theories this would require a conscious decision on the part of US State's top officials (President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Council, CIA) following a debate amongst them. If this was the case there will be some trace of it somewhere, especially as not all those involved in the decision-making process might have agreed with it. And lesser State officials would have had to be involved, eg military air traffic controllers who, if Demogorgon's assumption is right, would have been able to track commercial planes with their transponders turned off and so would have known that the planes were headed for the Pentagon and the centre of New York.

In other words, like all other conspiracies involving hundreds of people it would not be able to be kept secret. Ironically, the US State is one of those with more "open" government than most others (otherwise Chomsky would be out of job) so that such a conspiracy or such a machiavellan decision would eventually be discovered. Even in Nazi Germany such decisions were recorded if not made public, as historians have found.

waslax

mikus

So there was a controlled demolition of an unrelated building for the purposes of... alerting conspiracy theorists to the existence of a conspiracy?

No, I never said or implied that. I was just clarifying what seemed to be a fairly basic misunderstanding by sphinx of what Vlad336 had written.

Ah yep, sorry missed that he was talking about 7 there. 7 was obviously not hit by an airplane. Sorry Vlad.

Aside from cultists, why do you dislike Zeitgeist specifically?

I'm assuming that you take issue with Zeitgeist overlooking underlying causes, instead speculating about symptoms. That's the the problem I see with it.

Is there a good Anarchist film for propaganda, one which illustrates why we should demand the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism, in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or a gift economy, one which uses verifiable facts? Haven't seen one.

There's Are You in a Bad State?

Thanks. I'll give it a once over.

waslax

mikus

So there was a controlled demolition of an unrelated building for the purposes of... alerting conspiracy theorists to the existence of a conspiracy?

No, I never said or implied that. I was just clarifying what seemed to be a fairly basic misunderstanding by sphinx of what Vlad336 had written.

Okay, sorry.

I direct the question to the people who are actually concerned with WTC7 then.

As far as the transponders are concerned, my assumption was/is that commercial airplanes give off similar radar signatures and there are so many of them that it would be rather difficult to quickly tell which airplane was which if the transponders were turned off.

Does anyone know if this is the case?

This is from the 9/11 commission report.

"On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.

Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft's transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed. "

Take a look at this site:

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/911/norad/

It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

Anrchst

Aside from cultists, why do you dislike Zeitgeist specifically?

I'm assuming that you take issue with Zeitgeist overlooking underlying causes, instead speculating about symptoms. That's the the problem I see with it.

Is there a good Anarchist film for propaganda, one which illustrates why we should demand the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism, in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or a gift economy, one which uses verifiable facts? Haven't seen one.

i've been thinking of doing something like this, but i desperately need collaborators for footage. archive.org can only get me so far. anyone interested?

jesuithitsquad

i've been thinking of doing something like this, but i desperately need collaborators for footage. archive.org can only get me so far. anyone interested?

I'm halfways-competent with adobe premier and sonar. If you're serious about this as a longer term project I'll volunteer to help, although I don't know what I could do to help with footage. What sort of stuff are you looking for?

mikus

It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

I agree about the conspiracy theory madness, but I don't why you are smearing the entire communist left here, when, afaik, it is only the ICC and their sympathizers who are "so drawn to this sort of thing". I am not drawn to any conspiracy theory, including any and all about 911. I am agnostic, and sceptical about all versions (including the official one) of what really happened on 911. I find none of them convincing, but I admit I haven't (like the vast majority of people) thoroughly investigated any of them. I think the agnostic/sceptical position is the correct one to take for anyone in such a position. And, I think that no matter which version is true -- and the true version perhaps hasn't even been formulated yet -- it makes no difference to my political perspective. I also think that is the correct position to have for pro-revolutionaries in that respect.

tsi

jesuithitsquad

i've been thinking of doing something like this, but i desperately need collaborators for footage. archive.org can only get me so far. anyone interested?

I'm halfways-competent with adobe premier and sonar. If you're serious about this as a longer term project I'll volunteer to help, although I don't know what I could do to help with footage. What sort of stuff are you looking for?

I'm going to start a new thread about this. I'm wavering between doing a weekly/bi-weekly series about responses to the crisis and doing a full-on movie. I threw this together yesterday as a kind of primer. Not my best work, but it's something. Youtube compression fucking sucks, btw.

waslax

mikus

It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

I agree about the conspiracy theory madness, but I don't why you are smearing the entire communist left here, when, afaik, it is only the ICC and their sympathizers who are "so drawn to this sort of thing".

I don't think it's a smear, I think it's evident from this thread that of the people who are into this stuff, the left communists are highly represented. They seem to be disproportionately into this. And yes, mostly they are ICC'ers or supporters (except I don't think Vlad is a supporter...?), but then again most left communists on libcom are ICC'ers or supporters.

BTW, I'm not saying that all left communists are conspiracy theorists or that there is anything inherent in left communism that makes one interested in conspiracy theories.

Perhaps more than left communists as such who are into conspiracy theories, it is tiny groups who display about equal concern for evidence as conspiracy theorists do. I don't know. I just thought it was strange that the left communists were so highly represented on this thread.

It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

Yes it is. I don't know if I'd say left communists have a particular attraction to the topic though.

waslax

I am not drawn to any conspiracy theory, including any and all about 911. I am agnostic, and sceptical about all versions (including the official one) of what really happened on 911. I find none of them convincing, but I admit I haven't (like the vast majority of people) thoroughly investigated any of them. I think the agnostic/sceptical position is the correct one to take for anyone in such a position. And, I think that no matter which version is true -- and the true version perhaps hasn't even been formulated yet -- it makes no difference to my political perspective.

I'm sorry but it is this waffling in particular that gives conspiracy theory the forum it already has in radical circles. "Dood, I dunnooo!"

Like any major historical event, there has been a significant amount of history written about 9/11 which has exhaustively laid out of the chain of events that culminated in the attacks. I've already mentioned several books. Let me mention another "Masterminds of Terror" by Yosri Fouda, an Al Jazeera reporter who ventured to Pakistan to interview Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh about how they plotted the attacks.

The book contains the full written justification for the attacks by Binalshibh, as well as the entire text of Fouda's interview with the terrorists, which was carried out in hiding as both men were being hunted down. Also included are interviews with close relatives of the hijackers, revelations of Mohammed's connections with the first attack on the Twin Towers in 1993, details of the role played by Binalshibh and Mohammed in the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, how the two men built al-Qaeda's Far Eastern network, and an expose of the secret communications between Binalshibh and 11th September hijack leader Mohammed Atta.

This book came out in 2005!! And yet you will never hear any conspiracy proponents even discussing its existence because it represents good history not channeled through the traditional propaganda channels, and clearly indicts the perpetrators in their own words.

There is nothing to be agnostic about. 9/11 is one of the most investigated and thoroughly accounted events in recent history. It is important to understand that the perpetrators saw in these attacks not only the propaganda by the deed that their organization's political capital is based on, but found their motivation in among other things ideological opposition to American troops on Saudi soil, anti-imperialism (the Pentagon) and anti-semitism, seeing the attack on the trade towers as an attack on world Jewry (Atta especially).

In other words, like all other conspiracies involving hundreds of people it would not be able to be kept secret. Ironically, the US State is one of those with more "open" government than most others (otherwise Chomsky would be out of job) so that such a conspiracy or such a machiavellan decision would eventually be discovered. Even in Nazi Germany such decisions were recorded if not made public, as historians have found.

Like Operation Northwoods, the information on which was released in 1997, over thirty years after its original proposal. Of course, Northwoods was only proposed, never actually carried out. ULTRA was kept secret from the end of WW2 all the way through to the 70s, for 29 years and relied on thousands of people keeping quiet.

I'm unconvinced by the majority of the conspiracy theories, but I do think there's evidence to suggest the US State knew something was coming which I gave a very brief summary above.

On air-traffic control, I don't dispute that it's normal for air-traffic control to occasionally lose contact with aircraft and it may have taken a while to establish what was going on. What I was disputing was the fact that it seemed impossible once interceptors had been lauched (and planes have their own primary radar systems, of course) to find the planes once they had got to the area they were searching. Even if ground control couldn't view them, are we supposed to believe the planes were suddenly invisible to pilots themselves? Flight 77 was apparently undetectable for 36 minutes over some of the most sensitive airspace in the whole of the US. They had primary radar contact for a significant proportion of that time but just couldn't identify the plane due to the lack of transponder signals. And the other two planes had already hit the towers! I still find this breathtaking.

However, the fact that the Pentagon was Flight 77's target suggests either no conspiracy/incompetence or a conspiracy that was far from in complete control. I find it hard to believe the US wanted to (potentially) blow up its own headquarters and the propaganda value is probably far less than the Twin Towers. So, if there was a conspiracy, it was one that (as I suggested previously) just wanted to something to happen but was probably unprepared for the audacity of the attacks.

One of the problems with this discussion is that the specifics of 9/11 and the general question about "machiavellianism" are conflated. It is perfectly possible that there was absolutely no conspiracy behind 9/11 - the question is how people come to this conclusion. If it's because of the facts, fair enough. But if it's because people simply can't believe a democratic government would be capable of planning or carrying out such an atrocity (even the rather diluted theory I've proposed) I think there's a problem.

Sphinx, thanks for the reference and the earlier ones too. I don't think I am waffling, though, as I expressed a consistent scepticism to all existing theories/versions of events. Waffling would be expressing sympathy towards one theory at one time, and then away from it, and towards another theory at another time. I have not thus far expressed any sympathy towards any of the competing theories/versions of events. Maybe this would be waffling, however: of the different theories/versions I am aware of, I find the official version to be the least implausible.

Demogorgon303

... I do think there's evidence to suggest the US State knew something was coming which I gave a very brief summary above.

No you didn't. You asked if anyone knew if it was true that Coleen Rowley wanted to get a search warrant on Zacarias Moussaoui and then was stopped by FBI officials, and you then posted an article which contained evidence that certain parts of the US government might have known about that the 1993 bombing was coming.

If that's what you consider evidence that parts of the US government were somehow involved in the attacks (whether through outright manipulation or by allowing the attacks to occur), it's no wonder you take the conspiracy theories seriously!

No you didn't. You asked if anyone knew if it was true that Coleen Rowley wanted to get a search warrant on Zacarias Moussaoui and then was stopped by FBI officials, and you then posted an article which contained evidence that certain parts of the US government might have known about that the 1993 bombing was coming.

I asked if anyone knew whether Rowley's testimony had been ommitted from the Commission report. The fact that her investigations were actually blocked is not disputed to my knowledge and is supported by numerous other sources who say the same thing - whether there was an ulterior motive to this is, of course, another question.

If that's what you consider evidence that parts of the US government were somehow involved in the attacks (whether through outright manipulation or by allowing the attacks to occur), it's no wonder you take the conspiracy theories seriously!

That, and evidence that the US government has actively planned at least one similar if smaller scale conspiracy in the past (Operation Northwoods) and seems likely to have had advanced knowledge of the 1993 WTC bombing. There also numerous other factual examples of "conspiracies" by the US state. The Church Committee uncovered all manner of conspiracies by the US intelligence agencies. Similarly, the CIA experiments in mind control are also not just a myth (although there is certainly a lot mythology about them) - there was a real attempt to develop such techniques under the banner of MK-ULTRA (not the same as the ULTRA project I mentioned above which was the British code-breaking operation). The project began in the 50s and was finally uncovered in the 70s by a Senate investigation (hampered by the fact the CIA destroyed most of the files although some did survive).

Note also the actions of other "democratic" governments such as Operation Suzannah by Israel. Or Operation Gladio, the P2 lodge (which had connections all the way through NATO), and the "Strategy of Tension" in Italy. Or the plot by some parts of the British Intelligence Services to overthrow Harold Wilson.

Back to 9/11 we know one fraction of the US ruling class were quite open that a "new Pearl Harbour" was needed to push forward a new programme of US imperialism and that this fraction (the "neo-cons") happened to be in power at the time of the attacks.

And we also know that, if nothing else, the US bourgeoisie was the prime beneficiary of 9/11 in terms of uniting a population (at a time when the US had already begun to face an economic downturn) behind that programme, not to mention a brief moment when it managed to re-unite its old allies behind its war aims.

And, again, you lump all the "conspiracy theories" together under one banner. There are clearly different levels of credibility. Practically everyone on the left at least adheres to the "conspiracy theory" that the aim of the war in Iraq wasn't to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Most on the left accept that the Bush and Blair administrations conspired to deceive their respective populations about both the war aims and the justification (WMDs) for that war. But, at the time, I recall being accused of "conspiracy theories" because I suggested this to some friends who were caught up in the war propaganda and also because I pointed out how the West had supplied chemical weapon precursors to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Given these historical facts, the idea that all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 should automatically be considered ridiculous is naive in my book. There is clear historical precedent for such a conspiracy at least being conceived, analysed and seriously suggested to the President himself (Northwoods)! That doesn't mean we should believe in anything and everything either, of course, which is why I don't happen to believe that the US government (in this case) organised the attacks themselves, or that they put explosives in the buildings or that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, etc.

But what I have proposed is completely within the bounds of credibility, is actually quite tame given some other real historical examples, and has some circumstantial evidence in its favour. You and many others may not be convinced and that's fine, I'm not too worried about it as long as its based on a rational appraisal of the facts. What worries me is the automatic knee-jerk reaction about "conspiracies" which blinds us to the real mechanics of the iceberg state.

Edited

ALL CAPS makes my argument MUCH stronger!!!

3w43245325

All caps looks like shouting. Do you shout when you speak?

For emphasis, italics are a good choice.

Bold, even, though I think it looks a bit shouty too :D

And people are still talking conspiracy theories about 9/11? SMH.

I don't know much about planes, however I know a man who does. He investigates what goes wrong with them, he's pretty much what you might call a World Expert, in fact casually known in the industry as the Dr House of plane failures and before changing direction he had a background on forensic chemistry. And to clarify that he's not an apologist for the industry, he is of the general opinion that governments are duplicitous bastards, full of secrets and lies and that the industry is often economical with the truth, when it comes to plane crashes. The black box recorders only record the flight details and do not record individual engine part failures, which often cause the crashes. Regularly not all parts are recoverable after a crash and all too often unexplained crashes are, in his opinion, unfairly blamed on pilot error. There's not a lot of scope for pilot error in a modern jet plane - they're all fly-by-wire - but it saves a shit-load on litigation costs if the dead pilot takes the blame. He didn't officially investigate 9/11 but was fascinated by it because it was nothing like any incident that has happened before. Just to emphasize again, he has no vested interest in covering up "what really happened on 9/11" and in his very expert opinion, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with the 9/11 crash sites from the official story.
You can look at those crash sites and say they don't look like any other crash you see on the news and that's absolutely true. Most crashes take place on take-off or landing at much lower altitude and velocity and even planes that fail at altitude have pilots doing their level best to bring the plane down. These planes were long haul flights full of jet fuel. Not to put anyone off flying (much) he refers to planes as "flying bombs." The ones which hit the WTC would cause a fire so hot and contained within the building it was inevitable that those buildings collapsed. No building could be built to withstand those temperatures and the fire-proof insulation which would have contained a normal fire, in this case, acted like a furnace causing it to burn even hotter. Also, gravity was pulling the burning jet fuel downwards, not keeping the fire contained on the floors which the planes hit. Temperatures this high would melt the steel girders, and even if only the supports on the higher floors melted, the bucking would have caused the whole building to come down, relatively rapidly. The Truther guy (can't remember his name) who tours the world telling people why he thinks it was a conspiracy is not an aerospace specialist, he is an architect. I'm sure he knows a lot about how buildings behave under normal fires, earthquakes etc but he knows very little about how planes behave when they hit the ground.
The Pennsylvania rash left nothing but a crater, which is what you would expect with a plane full of jet-fuel crashed at at a 40 degree angle at velocity. There would be very little left. Incinerated. The reason it didn't look like the average plane crash, with fuselage and luggage strewn around, is because it wasn't anything like a normal plane crash, for reasons already explained. The Pentagon site, on the other hand, caused far less damage because the plane was brought down at a far lower speed, having reduced velocity in order to hit a low-rise building.
In short, all those conspiracy theories about how those planes could not have caused the damage they did are rattled off by people who know jack-shit about what happens when planes crash.

Are there 9/11 cover-ups? I'm sure the security agencies were a bit red-faced about not seeing this one coming, OBL was talking about wanting to have another pop at the WTC years before it happened, whether or not it could have been prevented is another matter. But all these insane theories about missiles being fired at the Pentagon, black-ops explosive experts bringing down the Twin Towers etc are just flights of fantasy. As for the third tower which fell, sometimes buildings fall down. I doubt it was built to withstand the stress of two enormous towers collapsing in it's vicinity. Civil engineers rarely have to factor that sort of thing into their designs.

Seriously, after all these years are people hanging on to the tin-foil hatted conspiracy theories about 9/11? There's nothing like letting a few facts get in the way of a good story and as conspiracy theories go, it's right up there with the Lizard Kings and the International Conspiracy of Jewish Bankers. And people wonder why the Zeitgeisters are such a joke....

TZM is basically Marxism, with the ADDED feature of using the scientific method to distribute resources. Despite what mainstream Zeitgeisters claim, Zeitgeist / Venus Project is DEFINITELY a branch of Marxism and I am quite happy to admit this

.

Sure it is...

32151521

What about building 7

If an entire skyscraper can be destroyed and pulverized into dust by fire in a few hours, like what happened on 9/11, then why do demolition companies need a few months to rig a skyscraper with explosive charges to bring it down? Wouldn't they be out of business since all that trouble could be saved by just lighting a few floors on fire for a few hours?

Yup, cause that's what Fleur said :roll:

He did it just to "spite america's freedom"? Really? Are you THAT naive?

Yes, that's what everyone on libcom thinks. We are THAT naive.

Also, I'm not totally sure you understand the logic of terrorism.

*cracks fingers. Bring it on conspiracy boy*

1. Jet fuel cannot melt steel in the open air.
Did you read what I said? It wasn't in the open air. It was in a furnace-like environment. I am aware that not everyone understands how a furnace works. However I do, given that I use one myself to make bronze and other alloys. It was not in the open air, there was a limited air supply and a limited way for heat to escape. It was far hotter than if it was in the open air. Even of you had a puddle on the ground, only the outside edges would be in the open air. In the middle heat can't escape, since there's already flames surrounding it. ie the middle of the flame is hotter. However, crashes which happen, in what you call the open air, often result in molten metal. Try googling the 1985 Manchester air craft crash sites or the the Paris crash of Concorde or indeed air craft crash sites in general. Aviation fuel has a higher calorific value than butane, which is can be used in welding torches to -guess what?- melt steel. And how do you think people melt steel in the first place in order to make girders? In a furnace. Given that the WTC was acting like a furnace on 9/11 then it is not surprising that molten metal was found at the crash site.
Also, do you know why jet engine high pressure turbines are not made out made out of steel? It's because aviation fuel burns hot enough to melt it.

2. Building 7
Fuck knows. It didn't have a plane crash into it so my tame airplane crash investigator, with many years experience in the field, who has never worked for the government, really doesn't know. Maybe because it was an old building which was hit by massive amounts of debris from the other towers and when it was designed nobody factored in being walloped by this debris, nor the sheer seismic force of the fall of the Twin Towers - they were really, really big, you know - caused it's structural integrity to fail. A bit like they way so many buildings in the area were seriously damaged and needed to be demolished afterwards because they were nolonger safe. By the way, it wasn't a single small fire in Building 7 but multiple fires throughout the building. That sort of shit happens when burning debris hits a building. The building had also been altered before 9/11, so some of the floors were taken out. This wasn't supposed to have affected the structural integrity of the building but I I don't suppose they had put the collapse of the Twin Towers or the earthquake-like effect of their fall on it's foundations into the math when these plans were drawn up.

3.Why did the buildings fall at free fall?
They didn't. Get your terminology right. There is conjecture that they actually fell faster than free-fall. There was an active mechanism pulling them down, as a consequence of fire caused implosion because there wasn't enough oxygen as a consequence of the furnace-like conditions inside the Twin Towers. It was sucking air in. Have you ever held a newspaper sheet in front of a fireplace? If not, try it. It gets sucked in towards the fire. It's simple high-school physics.

4.They found passports of one of the pilots on the ground.
So what? They also found an uncharred rag doll from one of the floors which went up. Has it occurred to you that when the planes hit the buildings some of the fuselage might have got a tad damaged and some of the stuff inside the plane might of flown out. In any case, some small thing which cannot be immediately explained does not some grand conspiracy make. You know what, I've had a mysterious hole appear on my deck. No idea how it got there. OH MY GOD IT MUST BE MOSSAD! You know I have some Palestinian friends and one of them brought me back a present from Palestine last year, which must be an encrypted message from Hamas. Or on the other hand, it could have been raccoons. But I didn't see it happen so I cannot actually fully explain it.
5.Explosions heard prior & in the basement.
Hundreds of people heard prior explosions did they? Around about 8 million New Yorkers didn't however. It's not at all noisy in downtown NYC during the daytime, is it? And during the sort of chaos and confusion (note the word CONFUSION) people often get chronology mixed up. There was an explosion in the basement? What, the basement which was still standing and and supported by four walls after the building collapsed on it? How the fuck can you tell where any noise was coming from in that situation. Sound was transmitted by the superstructure of the building. Have you ever done that experiment with two tin cans and a piece of string? Pay attention, this is relevant, sound is transmitted through solid objects. There were objects distorting and collapsing. Somewhere in this there were sounds being generated. I'm not sure many people were hanging around in order to definitively pinpoint the origins of these sounds. Sound travels approx 15 times faster through steel than air, it could be a function of the accident, making it sound like came from the basement.
6.If an entire skyscraper can be pulverized as on 9/11, why do demolition companies need a few months to bring it down with explosives? Maybe because they are demolition specialists who aim to bring down buildings SAFELY, without the added benefit of an accelerated jet-fuel based combustion IN A FURNACE-LIKE CONDITION, aiming not to turn the building into a highly toxic ash, which covered a large portion of the Island of Manhattan, spreading carcinogens and other toxins which have caused deadly respiratory conditions. Because they're professionals. In comparison, Nagasaki was turned into a radioactive wasteland in a matter of seconds. There is a safe way to bring down a building. 9/11 was not one of those methods.
7. None of the security cameras showed the planes coming in. Where were they positioned? I don't know but I would be very surprised if a camera in the lobby caught an aircraft flying towards them. Also, it would have been a bit of a weird angle to point a security camera. If only all CCTV was pointing above our heads. I would have thought that the Pentagon had other techniques for detecting incoming missile attacks, rather than pointing CCTV up at the sky. Like RADAR or something. I expect the security cameras were pointing at ground level. Planes generally move about in the sky. I was unaware that the Pentagon was particularly free and easy about releasing security footage. The garage across the street, however, are a little less uptight about national security and clearly captured a plane heading into the Pentagon building.
8. Signal on phone.
I've never tried getting a signal on my phone because I have a mortal fear of being wrestled to the floor by air marshals, so I can't give you a definitive answer here. But let me tell you something - and you didn't hear this from me, hush, hush - but most modern jet airplanes have satellite links, the Boeing 767 included. I guess you haven't got a signal because you've been flying in some old piece of shit.( Not that I don't fly in old pieces of shit too.) GE. Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce are actively monitoring engine health, which is a good thing really. It's really a lot like GPS. Do you know how that works? These links are heavily encrypted usually but it is possible to get a signal on a modern aircraft. They don't want you to however, lest it interferes with the avionics but this has become less of a problem recently and a lot of airlines have relaxed their rules. Mostly people can't make calls on planes BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T TRIED IT because they've been told they're not allowed and for fear of causing a plane crash. Please don't try this next time you're on a plane, just in case you are flying on an old piece of shit and you do mess with the avionics. You don't want to shut the engines down. Also, by the time some of these calls were made - and let's not exaggerate here there were only a few - the planes were losing altitude and they may have been in range of a cell tower. Just as a point of interest the radiowaves on cell towers go up as well as across and down.
9. Why were there 9/11 hijackers alive after the crash? Oh now you talking super big bollocks. Were there anyone alive and if so why weren't they dragged trough the streets of NYC and hung from the lamp-posts? Complete shit. No-one could survive those crashes BECAUSE THEY WERE BLOODY GREAT BOEING 767s FULL OF JET FUEL. No-one lives to tell the tale of that sort of crash. Google Lockerbie Pan Am 103. Unless, of course they were actually CIA agents, who jet-packed out before impact and were instantly squirrelled away by their handlers.
10.What was OBL motive?
I don't know, not being a perfidious leader of Al Qaeda, I can't say our thought processes are alike. I do know however that Al Qaeda had previously tried to blow up the WTC, it was a little pet project of his and he had been making rumbling threats against US soil and what is more dramatic than hitting the Twin Towers, buildings which were very emblematic of NYC. And subsequent video recordings of him discussing the attack showed him expressing surprise at how dramatic the building collapse was. That was unless they were fake and it was actually an out of work actor from Idaho playing the role. And if you were going to attack anywhere in NYC with planes, it probably would be a better, more easily recognized target than, say the Jersey Turnpike. What did he hope to gain from it? Fuck knows. I don't think he did it for the Airmiles.
11.Why was the hole in the pentagon so small?
Slightly beyond high school physics here but not too difficult to grasp, it's simple mechanics. Concrete really doesn't deflect much, especially reinforced concrete which was build to withstand nuclear attack. On the other hand, airplanes do, largely being made out of aluminium. Have another little google and check out some air crash wreckage. The first thing you might notice, apart from gremlins, is that they do tend to get a little bit mangled. Well, a lot mangled actually and one hitting the Pentagon - and you have to hand it to the civil engineers who designed it, it's a sturdy little structure- would be very likely to the point of CERTAINTY to rip the wings off. It doesn't need to be a big hole because not all of the plane penetrated the building. Try it yourself. Try smashing an empty beer can against a wall. It gets crushed. Drink the beer first though.
Why did the crash at the Pentagon contradict the crash at the WTC? What does that mean, were they arguing? Unless you mean that they were different. Take that from the No Shit Sherlock file. Let's go again, WTC planes penetrated the building, made of glass with steel supports (the load-bearing ones were incidentally towards the centre of the building) causing FURNACE-LIKE CONDITIONS (see above) and the Pentagon, massively reinforced concrete, designed to withstand massive attack, which did not have a whole plane combusting inside it and was not a skyscraper imploding into itself. Yeah, they're a bit different, I'll give you that.

No, I don't tend to think of myself as particularly naive, as you suggested. And incidentally, I happen to find your rape analogy particularly offensive. You can shut the fuck up straight away on that one. The consequences on 9/11 - and can we please try to remember here that 3000 people died an appalling way, it seems to me that whenever I come across any 9/11 conspiracy this is practically forgotten in the rush to formulate ever more fanciful scenarios - are that we have been forced to relinquish even further our freedoms in the name of the War on Terror and 100,000s of dead people in the Middle East. And yet, those non-sheeples amongst us feel the need to formulate weird conspiracy theories. No I haven't fallen prey to government propaganda, the last time I looked physics, chemistry, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, and a touch of sod's law doesn't fall especially under the sway of whatever sinister cabal you imagine is manipulating all this. Maybe you could open a book or two - NO NOT ONE WRITTEN BY ONE OF YOUR CULT LEADERS- one that might explain the science behind the 9/11. And then you might want to grow up a little.

P.S. the toothfairy doesn't exist either.

^ Best. Post. Ever.

Why thank you :)
I did have massive technical support on it though.

BAM!

^See, that's the appropriate use of all caps.

But what about building 7?

Dammmmnnn! Fleur, I think TAEHSAEN's grandkids are gonna feel that one.

Mr. Jolly

But what about building 7?

I never really could understand why conspiracy theorists harp so much on the building seven thing as it doesn't really fit with any of the other suggested motives behind the conspiracy. What do they think the government would have gained by exploding that extra building?

asfsagggg

Either you think you’re some sort of messiah and we’re supposed to take your word for everything (once again, back up your claims), or you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, OR you are a compulsive liar

Make YOUR choice Fleur. Although, personally, I'd go with number one if I was you.

Also, this is DEFINITELY true:

You seem like the kind of person who believes that all muslims are violent.

Now watch our video please. Please. :cry:

Well honey, do YOU understand simple real life physics that even children can understand?

Well, fuck me, as if the rape analogy wasn't enough, TAE has not only divined your gender Fleur, but you're "honey" now, too. Bad form TAE. BAD FORM.

Are you serious? I just provided a BBC article link showing a hijacker “being alive and well”. Maybe my point was that he was never the hijacker in the first place. Here, I’ll post the link again. This time, please go through all my links before trying to refute me:

“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm”

You jackass, it doesn't say he was a hijacker who survived the crash. It says it was a case of mistaken identity or two people with the same name. Again, government incompetence does not = conspiracy. Trust me, I've lived and worked in more than one country. Government bureaucracies are far from failsafe at this type of thing, especially if two people have the same name and the same job.

Also, what's the point if if a passport survived? The government left it there? Why? I mean, Jesus, the whole world saw the planes hit. Osama took credit for it. They don't need f*cking passports to prove their case and get what they want out of the attack.

It seems like you can't have it both ways: the government can't be so effective at conspiracies to create this massive spectacle yet, at the same time, be stupid enough to allow their story to be a disproven with a passport that they apparently left there intentionally?

And, finally, here's the other thing I can't understand: you don't need a conspiracy to explain how fucked up the US government is. I mean, the CIA trained Bin Laden - a long-time religious extremist - to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Once his usefulness was done, they dumped him. Years later, he used his CIA training to attack America in retaliation for it's imperialism in the Middle East. You don't exactly need a conspiracy to discredit the US here.

ggggddsheeew

Truth boy -

So Chilli sauce "misunderstands you, man" but Fleur (I mean sorry, "honey") doesn't "understand simple real life physics that even children can understand?" is "manipulative", doesn't have "sound" reasoning, has a "low level of maturity" and just to throw in there, is also a racist.

You sexist butthole.

Also, you say yourself that you're not a maths or physics expert. Is it possible that Fleur, BUT A SIMPLE WOMAN, could have more knowledge than you on this?

TAEHSAEN

fleurnoire-et-rouge

*cracks fingers. Bring it on conspiracy boy*

1. Jet fuel cannot melt steel in the open air.
It was far hotter than if it was in the open air. Even of you had a puddle on the ground, only the outside edges would be in the open air. In the middle heat can't escape, since there's already flames surrounding it. ie the middle of the flame is hotter. However, crashes which happen, in what you call the open air, often result in molten metal. Try googling the 1985 Manchester air craft crash sites or the the Paris crash of Concorde or indeed air craft crash sites in general. .

Let me humbly begin by stating that I am no physics expert. Moreover, your reasoning is valid, HOWEVER, it is NOT sound. You used very simplistic reasoning to "prove" that the steel melted because the twin towers turned into a furnace. However, you do not have any real evidence to back up your claim, nor do you have any ACTUAL math to back up your claim. A friend of mine pointed out that the entire steel structure acted as a heat sink, so it would be impossible for the fuel to burn that hot (even if your claims about an active furnace is correct). The only way the temperatures could have risen that high was if explosives were involved. And unfortunately, that was the case. Moreover, I came across ACTUAL MATH to back up my claim (that the fuel alone could not have produced such temperatures), whereas you do not. Check this out and see for yourself:
"http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm"

So to me, your claim about the fuel producing enough heat to melt metal is false (since its physically impossible for the fuel to have done that by itself, without explosives being involved).

MOREOVER, I just spent 20 minutes googling for "1985 manchester air craft molten steel" and such. I found no evidence / indications of molten steel there. Maybe I might have missed something (if so, do send me a link), but from the looks of things, you just blindly threw this argument at me to make your argument seem stronger, when in reality, you had no idea what you were talking about. A very cheap tactic indeed.

The "molten steal" thing has been dealt with before eg http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445988 http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm basically any molten metal is more likely aluminum, also you are wrong about explosives, explosives do not melt steal, they break it apart.

TAEHSAEN

3.Why did the buildings fall at free fall?
They didn't. Get your terminology right. There is conjecture that they actually fell faster than free-fall. There was an active mechanism pulling them down, as a consequence of fire caused implosion because there wasn't enough oxygen as a consequence of the furnace-like conditions inside the Twin Towers. It was sucking air in. Have you ever held a newspaper sheet in front of a fireplace? If not, try it. It gets sucked in towards the fire. It's simple high-school physics.

So at this point, I can only think of three things. Either you think you’re some sort of messiah and we’re supposed to take your word for everything (once again, back up your claims), or you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, OR you are a compulsive liar. Even NIST admits that WTC fell at free fall speed in their final report.

“NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.
So, after presenting 606 pages of descriptions, testimonies, photographs, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST on page 607 says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”

there are not 607 pages in the NIST report on building 7 or in the report on the towers and building 7 together, the bit where free fall is mentioned says

The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors
clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.
A more detailed analysis of the descent of
the north face found three stages: (1) a slow
descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the
exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at
gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the
north face encountered resistance from the structure below.

and you think this contradicts the the idea that i fell because of a fire how? what do you expect to happen between the supports giving way and the upper part hitting the rest of the building? Saying you where no physics expert was clearly understatement

You call other people liers and tell them to do research, but clearly you have done no research your self rather just accepting the conspiracy theory's without thought, and repeating blatantly false information.Sometimes i have to wonder if some of the conspiracy theory crap is not made up to show how credulous people like you really are.

TAEHSAEN

Well honey

Is it in poor taste to tell this guy to eat shit?

All 3 buildings, fell @ free fall speed, you don't have to be a genius to realize that! The question to be asked, is what can make steel framed building fall @ such speed? The very first part of any scientific endeavor, is observation, unfortunately, for those conspiracy theorist, who follow the poor explanation of the government, are the ones that ought to question themselves! I affirm they are surely not left, to swallow the lies of a criminal government hook line and sinker! Building that fall because of office fires, and no steel building ever had, before that day, they would certainly respect the law of physics and would fall asymmetrically!
Let's leave that for a few minutes, let s look at the term conspiracy theory, a term invented by the CIA, to push ppl away from the notion that JFK, had been assassinated by the very CIA, who coined that phrase! It is use now, to demonize and to invalidate contradicting opinions! These two events are very connected, and as many well know, Noam Chomsky, is out to lunch, on both of these events! I would suggest you look to Professor Michael Parenti, his writings on Conspiracies! Both of these acts, are profoundly important, cause they shape the consciousness of generations! They also steer the government on a new path, with the recent events, away from the RED SCARE, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, along with it, the "Socialist Block", as important, the international left as well! A new direction was to be forged, so with that in mind, the US WAR MACHINE, had to create their new enemy, and they have! War on terror, which means nothing, simply a collection of words, but to analyze the wording, it would mean, let's have war on a tactic, by applying the very same tactics, TERRORIZING POPULATIONS, abroad as well as at home! For the buffoons who can't understand 9/11, who can't place it, in its proper context, it will take them a whole life time, of writing on blogs, defending the criminal state, and still have the audacity to call themselves left! [b]POVERTY OF THE LEFT THINKING [/b] There is an easy way to really solve 9/11, which I will not disclose here, certainly not now, but for ppl to say Osama took responsibility, which is a bold faced lie, more importantly, the Taliban told the Criminal gang in Washington, show us the proof, we will hand him over! It took the US 444 days, before launching a formal "investigation", FACT, not the crime scene being studied, no, why would they, they instead do a COMMISSION, as they had done for JFK, for Waco and many others, these commissions have one purpose, yep, to hide the facts! Historically they have!

Finally, the role of government is to conspire, to lie, to cheat and steal from the population, to disarm the working class, and yes, to perpetrate their existence at all cost! Sadly to say, even the so-called left governments have done the same things!!
Those who are dogmatic, can not change the world, they fear the truth, and must look for safe places to hide! DARE THINK!!!
Good read, John Stockwell, in search of enemies!
go to Facebook and check Rethink911
Dialectical Materialism and historical materialism are the tools, but they must be sharpened with the reality of the day, you must adapt quickly or become extinct!

Well, that told you lot!

(Also, I was as surprised as anyone to learn that libcom apparently already had thirteen users registered under the name hansolo.)

TAEHSAEN

NOT ANYTHING TZM ADDED DEFINITELY CAREFULLY BOTH WHY ALL HAVEN'T

[youtube]aPaClw2kM3Q[/youtube]

I'm going to do this in several bite sized pieces, partly because my internet connection is a bit dicey today and I would hate to have to type this out more than once and also because I'm working, which incidentally involves using a furnace to make molten metals. That kind of needs my attention so I will be coming and going from this.

Chilli Sauce

Quote:
Either you think you’re some sort of messiah and we’re supposed to take your word for everything (once again, back up your claims), or you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, OR you are a compulsive liar
Make YOUR choice Fleur. Although, personally, I'd go with number one if I was you.

But I'm not the Messiah! I'm just a very naughty girl :lol:

Truthy Boy:

May I call you Sweetie? I figure that you call me Honey we must be on familiar terms.Btw, if you're going to be so kind as directing me to external websites please go to the trouble of putting in actual links. I can't be bothered to type in complicated URLs in order to try and locate, what I imagine are paranoid ramblings.
I understand, it is quite normal when having your belief systems challenged to react with anger and denial, however I will reiterate and explore some of that new fangled sciency stuff involved in the collapse of the WTC.
I suggest you hone your search engine skills, it took me less than a minute to find the official accident report on the Manchester air crash. I'm not going to find you the Concorde report, it'll be in French anyway and whereas I don't mind doing a bit of translation work, I really can't be bothered to do it for this purpose.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/8-1988%20G-BGJL.pdf

Page 127, para 2.6.3 to page 130 para 2.6.4 explains that it was a typical static pooled fuel fire involving modest amounts of fuel ie fuel tank ruptured and explodes and the fuel catches fire outside the aircraft. This crash happened on take-off, it hadn't even left the ground and within a minute of the plane coming to a halt the fire had penetrated the whole of the cabin. It's fast and it's hot.
In relation to the molten steel, which perplexes you so much, page 32 para1.12.1.4. (it's a pdf and won't let me copy-paste, so you'll have to read it yourself) the bit from
"Left lower wing aft surfaces.....to.....were melted."
The the outer surfaces of the wing are made of aluminium BUT THE STRUTS ARE MADE OF STEEL. They were gone, melted away. And just to be clear that the Manchester air crash wasn't a government conspiracy and the report isn't a secret service cover-up, this plane crash changed the aviation industry, every inch of that plane was examined and multiple recommendations from it have been implemented as international safety laws as a result. This crash changed the industry and my world expert, highly skilled, very well qualified and massively experienced air crash expert HAS SEEN AND EXAMINED THE WRECKAGE. The steel supports were melted, which means they must have been molten, made liquid by the temperatures generated by burning aviation fuel. This was on the tarmac, not in the as already explained furnace-like conditions inside the WTC.
Also, did you even bother to read what I said before you decided to dismiss my "simplistic reasoning" which is actually more commonly known as thermodynamics? I said

Also, do you know why jet engine high pressure turbines are not made out made out of steel? It's because aviation fuel burns hot enough to melt it.

Do you understand how an engine works? Quite reasonable if you don't, most people get into their cars without the faintest knowledge of how they work. It's called internal combustion, there's a clue in the word "combustion." It means BURN. In the case of an engine it's a controlled burn but nevertheless burning fuel. Which is why jet engine high pressure turbines are not made of steel because the heat of the aviation fuel BURNING will reduce it to molten metal. Other parts of an aircraft are made of steel, such as the frame which the skin is built around but they are parts which are well out of the way of the BURNING FUEL.
Let us examine what you mean by "Open air burn." Open air burn is a concept which was used, but has been defunct for decades, in architecture and civil engineering. It was something used in relation to installation of such things as wood-burning stoves in buildings. It is no longer something which is used in building codes. I can only assume the Truther architect, who's name I still can't be bothered to look up, was not a very good architect or one who took much notice in more recent developments in his field. I'm sure it's absolutely fine in determining safety standards in wood burning stoves, or maybe not seeing as nobody, except perhaps wood-burning stove installation specialists, uses it anymore, but when it comes to burning aviation fuel, people use thermodynamics. As I already explained, you cannot have "open air burn" - go see my puddle on the ground analogy. Not unless the thing which is burning is spread molecule thin, which I can only assume the girders in the WTC weren't. Only the very outside is exposed to the air. Light a match, look at the flame, only the outside is exposed to the air, the bulk of it is not, that is why it is hotter in the middle.
If you want to define open air as adiabatic, which means constant pressure, as in the puddle analogy, then aviation fuel (Jet A ) has a adiabatic flame temperature of approx 2100 degrees centigrade. The maximum melting temperature of any steel is 1540 degrees centigrade. I can attest that steel does indeed melt at lower temperatures than the flame temperature of aviation fluid because I've done it myself with an oxy acetylene torch. Please don't try this at home unless you know what you are doing.
My expert has kindly examined the conspiracy theorists' math for you and the mathematics itself is fine but the underlying assumptions, such as ignoring the heat transfer rate of concrete, are fundamentally flawed and excessively simplistic. An undergraduate certainly would be failed for making these flawed assumptions. In W/mK, light concrete has a coefficient of 0.1 - 0.3 (almost nothing) , carbon steel is 43. It is very different, hence why I am asserting it is like a furnace. So the concrete is a very good insulator, keeping the heat within the floors and ceiling, made of concrete. It's like a furnace. The heat is not escaping. The math "proving" the case for the conspiracy theory totally ignores this. But, apparently it is really funny to read.
To put it in context, the 10,000 litres of jet fuel the planes were estimated to be carrying at the time of impact ( the 767 can carry as much as 91,400 litres) and taking the latent heat of fusion of steel as 2.72 E05 JKg and specific heat capacity of 0.466 J/gK there was sufficient energy produced to melt 354000 Kg of steel (approx 70% of all the steel in one of the floors turned to a puddle.) I'm not saying that it melted this much, not even nearly, it has the potential to melt this much. But even a minute fraction of this would be enough to bring down the building. My friendly expert has refused to do the math to calculate just how hot it got in there because the official report has already done this very well and he's not doing it himself. It'll take about a month to do and quite reasonably doesn't feel this would be a valuable use of his time.

And when I come back, I will be using my "filthy tactics" to explain thermites.

This is quickly becoming thread of the year.

wwwwww

Mwahahaha! Back to my devious manipulations.

Nanothermites, thermites and explosions.

Before I go into this, let's investigate Scholars for 9/11 Truth, from which much of the so-called evidence is culled, or more specifically the man who heads it up Steven E Jones. He is a physicist or at least he was until Brigham Jones (Mormon) University put him on administrative leave in 2006, citing him for increasingly speculative and accusatory work and, more significantly, not allowing peer review of his work or publishing anything in scientific journals. Presumably his theses in Let's All Hide Under The Bed Monthly were not of a satisfactory standard. His other notable scientific endeavours include interpreting ancient Mayan evidence to scientifically prove for sure that Jesus Christ did indeed visit America. It appears he's too Mormon for Brigham Jones, who have made themselves clear the want no association with any of his 9/11 theories. But they're probably in on the conspiracy too. His steadfast refusal to submit any of his research on the subject to any peer review at any reputable scientific journal should at the very least throw up some red flags.
There is also Judy Woods, she is actually a mechanical engineer but she specializes in dentistry. Her hypothesis about the how the towers fell wasn't entirely unfounded, except she forgot to take momentum into account.

Anyway, nanothermites. Now I can't honestly be bothered to go back and find which post nanothermites came up but what they are are tiny (hence nano) explosive particles, which Truther wisdom has were sprayed all over the floors and ceilings prior to the attack (or detonation) which is why the WTC went up in flames and fell down so violently. If we can just get past the idea that sometime in the few days leading up to 9/11, a bunch of people went into the WTC and coated the place with nanothermites, presumably unnoticed by the thousands of people who worked there, the biggest problem with this theory is that nanothermites do actually appear to be total fantasy. Now, people have been working in nanotechnology and also working with thermites but apparently nanothermites are a top secret, hush-hush, military tech and they were used covertly to bring down the WTC.
There are, however nanothermites which have been recovered from the WTC. And guess who has them? Steven E Jones and his buddies.They are what he refers to in his paper as red/grey chips and I can only assume that they are of no relation to the red/grey chips analyzed by other scientists and discovered to be rust-inhibiting paint primer. Of course if Steven E Jones would submit his nanothermite samples for independent analysis or have his research reviewed by someone who has not got a vested interest in the Truther movement, it might clear things up. For the time being though, it does look suspiciously like nanothermites is a Made Up Thing. Show us the nanothermites Steven E Jones. If you have some, prove it.

Thermites, these are real. They are used in controlled demolitions, pyrotechnics (I love those) etc. One of the reasons this is a popular idea is that thermites cause white smoke. I'm sure you've all seen it coming off fireworks. But so does a lot of other stuff. Like aluminium, such as the around about 40,000 kg of aluminium in a Boeing 767. I do do know what colour smoke aluminium gives off - it's white- because I've accidentally set fire to some. Oops. Or the colour the titanium in the engines burn at. In fact all sorts of vaporized stuff gives off white smoke.
One of the things Jones et al have seized upon is the large presence of 1,2-diphenylpropane molecules in far higher concentrations than expected. This was sourced from an EPA report by Erik Swartz. What Jones declined to include in his paper was Swartz's conclusion that was present as a result of the burning of tens of thousands of computers.
I have here a paper from the American Chemical Society (an actual reputable body) on the chemical compositions of computers, for recycling/waste-management purposes.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/3641/2/Energy_and_Fuels_2006.pdf

As you can see, 1,2-diphenylpropane is present in most of the plastic components of computers, for example 1.4% of the back cover of a computer is 1,2-diphenylpropane. It's also in PVC. Multiply these small percentages by tens of thousands and you you will find a substantial amount.

The sounds of explosions. As referenced in the Zeitgeist film (yes, I've seen your shitty movie and I will come back to it later) people heard things exploding. That would be another one from the No Shit Sherlock file. When buildings are on fire, some of the things inside explode. Most large buildings have electrical transformers. The WTC had many 13,000 volt transformers which were used in the ventilation system, primarily for air conditioning. When they are in a fire they explode. Actually, when a house is on fire things explode, like the AC units, appliances. Very few people are able to identify what the actual explosion is. How many people are familiar enough with different explosive sounds to be able to tell what it is? Even firefighters in that situation can't tell what the explosions are. That is why they do investigations afterwards. And if you are going to bring up the firefighters, which pretty disgusting of you given that so many of them lost their lives and so many must have known when they went into those buildings that they had scant chance of survival, by far the majority of the NYFD have no truck with your crazy theories and it is a complete and utter disrespect to use them and their dead co-workers to make your utterly unsubstantiated speculations.
When a transformer on the next street blew in a freezing rain storm a couple of years back it made a terrific bang. Could be easily mistaken for a detonation or a bomb, if you don't know what they sound like and most people don't. I jumped out of my skin but since I was in earshot of this one going off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

I pretty much realized it wasn't someone blowing shit up. But most of the time explosions are scary and bewildering things. I'm not surprised they caused confusion on 9/11.
So, I never suggested that there were no explosions at the WTC. Only a complete idiot would imagine that a towering inferno wouldn't include explosions. The idiocy I was disagreeing with was that they were set off in the form of a demolition or a bomb in the basement. The foundations of the buildings, the footprint ie the basement was remarkably intact given what happened. I have already suggested that sound is transmitted through solid objects, which would make it sound like loud noises from above were coming from the basement. But there was no catastrophic explosion in the basement which could have caused building collapse. There were electrical transformers however. When they blow they make a dramatic noise but they don't on their own do much damage. Not like a 767 flying into the building would.

And that's where I'm leaving it for now, Poppet, because I have an actual life to be getting on with. I will be back with my opinions on your crappy movie and why your opinion that OBL and Al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 is utter bullshit.

However, my point is that you are misusing your knowledge in these fields to go out of your way to justify something that you know has something wrong to it.

Yeah, so...take that.

Also, but what about building 7? Hmmm....how do you explain that one? Oh, oops, you already did. :oops:

And I cross posted with your post but I can't be bothered to read it now because I'm busy, although I will say that it is impossible to look at any argument which is bad science, paranoia, misinformation and lacking in any decent analysis of how government and capitalism actually works with anything approaching an open mind.

But briefly "lower wing aft surfaces" refers not to the tail but the wing. The clue is in the word "wing." And I used the word strut because it was a word I thought you might understand. That report was written by and for professional engineers working in the aerospace industry. They all know how an aircraft is constructed. They don't need it spelt old in excruciating detail, they are not lay-people, they know what it means. The steel supporting structure inside the plane was melted away. Or do you think they made that up too? Or that planes don't use steel in their frame construction? That's a fabrication as well?

redsdisease

Mr. Jolly

But what about building 7?

I never really could understand why conspiracy theorists harp so much on the building seven thing as it doesn't really fit with any of the other suggested motives behind the conspiracy. What do they think the government would have gained by exploding that extra building?

Exactly Redsdisease. Exactly.

What's with the melting thing? Steel very quickly loose it's structural capacity when heat is applied. Way before they melt, and I mean waaay before, the steel columns in a building will give and buckle. Obviously the steel would have been fire protected in some way, which I'm sure is described in some report. But most of that stuff would just burn off at the first whiff of jetfuel.

I'm guessing I haven't read the stuff above in enough detail to understand why the melting is of importance. Fleur why light concrete in your estimation of k-values above? Surely the floor and core would have been structural concrete with at best a k value of 1.5? Not that it makes a difference for your argument.

I'm going to come back to this later when I'm not cooking dinner but

Cooked:
The melting thing is that it's a big part of the conspiracy that molten metal was found in the WTC and they argue that a plane crashing into the building couldn't have generated enough heat to cause steel to melt. Obviously, as you say, the metal would yield and buckle before it melted and most of the girders recovered at the site were twisted, not melted. That some of the supports appeared to be cleanly sheared at a classic 45 degree angle is used as "evidence" that thermites were used as cutting agents, as opposed to it being a natural fracture caused by the principle tensile stress load.
As for the k-value of concrete, I have to say that's sheer laziness on my part. I was simply using the concrete type quoted in one of these Truther analyses of how the building came down. It's almost certain that they did use a higher density concrete, however it wouldn't have made all that much difference to my point. I should probably have not taken this as The Truth, given that this particular analysis came to the conclusion that a 767 hitting the Towers would have only raised the temperature in the building by a maximum of 258 degrees centigrade and hence couldn't melt metal and would have no impact on the building integrity. I can post you a link to this particular report if you like but I can't do it right now because it's not bookmarked on the computer I'm using right now and I don't want to wade through all the hundreds of fantasies again. It is funny though.

Open your eyes to the real Truth: 9/11 was caused by a Balrog. The dwarves of Manhattia delved too greedily and too deep, awakening shadow and flame. It's obvious to anyone who looks at the subject with an open mind. I'm working on a film that explains everything. It'll be available for purchase once I clear up a rights issue with the Tolkien estate.

Seriously though, 9/11 was a massive event with massive ramifications. There will always be some measure of ambiguity surrounding such enormously complicated happenings. That doesn't mean one should throw out all actual evidence and just make shit up. That's what the main Truthers do, taking advantage of most peoples' shallow understanding of complicated, sciency things and willingness to entertain alternative "explanations." I'm sure with enough motivation and time I could sufficiently exploit ambiguities and seeming-contradictions in the 9/11 events that would convince some gullible people of the Balrog thing.

A Balrog? Surely it was The Mother of Dragons who showed up with her fantastic offspring?

I really do have very short windows of time to post right now and I'm hoping that my Friday night doesn't turn out to be a total bust.

I'm not at all surprised that 9/11 Truthers are so entrenched in their beliefs because it's getting harder and harder to find anything online which contradicts this. If you try searching for anything you'll come up with hundreds of pages of this stuff and anything else is pushed further down the rankings. This is possibly as a result of conspiracy theorists compulsively checking and pushing these sites up the rankings or, and probably far more likely, most people have just moved on. It was 12 years ago. I was trying to link to an article about Erik Swartz but it was just 404ed. It had been taken down. A lot of stuff has happened since 9/11 and people have other things to do than obsess about something which happened over decade ago.
An Affirming Flame is right, Truthers do take advantage of people's narrow understanding but there's also other stuff in there, such as anomalies which defy any obvious explanation. But that's part of every day life, there's always stuff which cannot be adequately explained. We simply do not and cannot know everything about everything. The passport thing for example. No-one was objectively observing what happened to it and how it got there. They also found the severed arms of a flight attendant on the ground, unburnt and still bound with plastic ties, unmelted. Is anyone really going to suggest that black-ops put those on the ground too? The trouble with Truthers is that they take these oddities and where there is a void of absolute knowledge, they fill it with supposition and that becomes The Truth. There will never be a full and complete knowledge about 9/11 because no-one was in a position to objectively observe it. They were either running for their lives, dying or in the case of the firefighters, who this theory so disrespects, running into the buildings. No-one can tell us what it was like in the floors above or adjacent to the planes because they're all dead. You can piece together camera footage and sift through the debris but a complete account cannot be had. The Truthers want to make one and it's bad enough what happened without making things up, based on a flawed version of the world and an infantile need to explain the unexplainable. You talk about having an "open mind" but there's nothing more closed minded than not being able to accept that you don't know everything and taking that absence of the absolute and filling with something with something which is essentially quite absurd in order to fit it into your theories.
9/11 really did change the world in so many ways but it didn't change the way the world works. It's the same shit. People find conspiracy theories comforting because it represents a really simple way of explaining this shit and proposes some really simple solutions. Only, it's not really a conspiracy is it? It's all out there in plain sight but it's all a little bigger than a cabal of shady interests, whether it's made up of the Carlyle Group, Rothschilds, the Lizard Kings or whoever. The bankers are not pulling all the strings, the banks are just one part of the functions of capitalism but it's a bit big isn't it? It's far easier to imagine there's a conspiracy of a discrete group of interests orchestrating this. If only we could defeat these guys, it'll all be alright. None of this stands up to any serious scrutiny and anything which contradicts automatically comes under the conspiracy umbrella. You don't agree, that's because you're just too stupid, naive to get it. Or your part of it. I mean really?

However, my point is that you are misusing your knowledge in these fields to go out of your way to justify something that you know has something wrong to it.

Why the fuck would I want to misuse knowledge.....to justify something that that I know has something wrong to it? How the hell do you know or presume to know what I think? Do you really think that I'm trying to brainwash you, subvert your thinking? Do you think I'm "one of them?" I know there's nothing wrong with the science behind how the towers fell, as far as we are able to ascertain, because again we will never know everything. Do you really think all those people experienced, educated, qualified, knowledgeable years ahead of the events of 9/11 are really just trying to pull the wool over our eyes, bending the laws of physics and engineering, or were educated and skilled in fake theories and science simply to be able to fool the people in the future? Do you really think that the vast majority of scientific opinion, people who really know their stuff are lying? Or stupid? And don't go quoting the Scholars for 9/11 at this point, not only are they the minority but their theories do not stand up to scrutiny. If it did THEY WOULD PUBLISH IT PROPERLY.

I will come back and critique your movie and explain why it's obvious that OBL and Al Qaeda were behind 9/11. Meanwhile, I'm having some beers.

TAEHSAEN:

I've just had a moment of clarity in relation to why you are so obsessed with the passport and why you think it's really significant. I couldn't work out why you were so fixated on minutia. Firstly, you do realize that one of those planes penetrated the tower so far that the nose came out the other side? Where do people keep their passports? On or very close to their person. The force of impact would have thrown everything forward, think of a car crash but multiply it. The change in pressure from the impact and blast would have put the windows out, at the very least and stuff in the cockpit would have been propelled out. But that's not the important thing. You keep referring to the fact that it was intact, that's because you think the plane went up in a fireball, which would have incinerated everything. You've seen the footage, there's a really spectacular ball of fire on impact. However it doesn't take a lot of fuel to generate a big fire. If you had read the Manchester report, you will see that a whole plane in a few minutes went up on only "a modest amount of fuel." If you look at a Zippo lighter, you get a big flame from a minute amount of lighter fluid. That fireball was not the whole fuel tank going up.

In the case of the twin towers however, ALL the fuel exploded in a ball of fire - causing a fire inside the building to start.

It didn't.
We've all seen disaster movies with really big and impressive explosions ( I really liked the A-Team movie. No-one else did but there were some really impressive explosions in that one) but real life doesn't actually behave like the movies. Not only did it NOT go up in an instantaneous fireball, if it did no-one would be talking about how the towers FELL.
This idea is complete nonsense because 10,000 litres of jet fuel cannot burn in an instant. Total energy generated by burning fuel is not time dependent, only the heat transfer of absorption is time dependent. So no matter how long it took for the fuel to burn it would create the same amount of energy.
If it all burnt out at once in this hypothetical fireball, this is called an explosion, it would have the same energy as if it burnt out more slowly, except if this happened the materials in the building wouldn't have absorbed it as heat, it would have just been a force on it as it expanded. It would have then been very far from an adiabatic combustion, because you are now changing the pressures. IT WOULD HAVE BLOWN THE BUILDING APART INSTANTLY. This did not happen, nor could it have. It is a hypothetical scenario. 10,000 liters cannot all burn instantaneously, go up all together at the same time, it's impossible, there simply isn't enough oxygen. We've already gone over that things don't burn in the "open air" only the surface area burns. And even, hypothetically if the aviation fuel was spread molecule thin and it all went up, there wouldn't have been enough oxygen available for it to combust. If it all went up, it would have instantly sucked the so much air from the building it would have asphyxiated people. This did not happened. Some discussion here about whether or not the towers would implode or explode at this point but they didn't. It burned at the rate aviation fuel always burns at. There was no special kind of magic to make it do otherwise.
I know it looks like a giant fireball engulfed the plane, especially in the zeitgeist movie where they show them slamming into the buildings again and again and have have superimposed those side effects on it - no-one heard those noises on the ground. Whether they foleyed it with generic explosion side effects or taken the actually sounds and altered and amplified them, that wasn't what people on the ground heard. People see things in the movies and special effects are really good now so they think they know what a giant fireball of exploding fuel looks like. And it would look to them that the flash bang of the plane impact in those towers look like that. But you can't make fuel burn any faster than it burns at. You can't make a lump of coal burn faster than a lump of coal burns at. It's the same with aviation fuel. It's about oxygen availability and there is a speed of flame, a maximum speed of chemical reaction. If it were even possible that it all went up at the same time, then refinery fires would flame out instantly. They don't, they take days to put out. Similarly, the train full of heavy fuel oil which crashed into Lac Mégantic last month took biggest part of a week to put out. Even if vaporized, which it wasn't, 10,000 liters of aviation fuel would take the same amount of time to burn no matter what the circumstances. If this was the case, fuel would be so unstable we wouldn't be able to use it at all. Fortunately this is not the case.
So the passport, not only could it easily have been propelled out and away from the building, the idea that it can't exist because all the jet fuel went up and incinerated everything is built on a fallacy.

Other points.
Your evidence for why explosives had to be used. Why didn't it fall in the path of least resistance. Firstly, as already explained, there was an active force bringing it down. If there were explosives in the basement as you suggest, in order to bring such a big building down they would have had left evidence of large, active explosions. The footprints of the towers were remarkably intact given the circumstances. And why would you assume the path of least resistance was anything but down? Because of a hole in the side near the top which was very small in relation to both the surface area of the exterior and the surface area of the floorspace? That hole would have made very little difference. As opposed to the collapsing, pan-caking floors beneath. As the towers collapsed they were being contained and guided by the metal girders which made a frame for the building, which up until the point of collapse were keeping enough structural integrity to hold it up. It would crash the direction of least support and follow the path of maximum load. And buildings do collapse onto themselves, such as high-rise buildings collapsing onto themselves during earthquakes. No, they weren't built by 10 year olds with Lego but no-one was playing Jenga with them either. They were never designed to withstand 767s slamming into them, you argue that they were designed to high safety standards and couldn't possibly be brought down by this. Putting aside that they took a lot of damage in the first Al Qaeda attack in 92 and that it's impossible to design a building not to take substantial damage in an explosion, kind of no shit they were destroyed. Nobody took the idea that someone would turn a plane full of fuel into a missile and fly it into it when they designed the WTC. They couldn't have imagined it happening. On the other hand, the building designed to withstand missile attacks, the Pentagon, was relatively undamaged.

Nitpicking about plane design.
Obviously you don't know much about planes. My friendly expert who has seen the wreckage of the Manchester does. Yes there was a steel strut in the aft (bit at the back) of the wing. Plane structures, the skeleton if you like, are made of steel and aluminium, depending on the placing and the loads, although the new Dreamliner is replacing much of this with carbon-fiber. You say steel struts are a little far fetched. You've got to be kidding me, right? Have you every seen how big these things are? And how heavy? The load capacity of aluminium is not sufficient to carry the forces. It needs something stronger to carry it. I won't refer you to plane designs of the 1930s, as you suggested, mostly because the best material available at the time was wood and it wouldn't be relevant in any case because the jet engine didn't go into mass production until the mid 1940s (there were prototypes in the late 30s.) They were flying turbo-props and were much lighter. They also burnt real fast. You asked why they wouldn't reinforce engines with metals which don't melt away. They do. Turbine engines use metal alloys with active film cooling systems. No-where in that report does it say that the engines had melted. It was the aft of the wing. Some of your points and questions are quite ridiculous, you have quite clearly not properly read what I said or pointed you to and you evidently cannot be bothered to do the research yourself, I suspect because if you muddied your arguments with any actual facts it would be very obvious that the basis of your argument is founded on junk science and ignorance.

My "ridiculous vacuum theory." Are you suggesting that oxygen burning in a building, ie being removed, does not cause a vacuum? Did you never do the Bell Jar experiment at school? If not, look it up. No-one is suggesting that an absolute vacuum was created, which is almost impossible to do when in the earth's atmosphere. A partial vacuum will do the job. If you don't like the standard accepted word, let's call it a pressure change. I will be using my pressure change cleaner later to suck up the dog hair on the carpet. Works better for you?

I'm sure there's other stuff in there that you've nitpicked over but you so clearly do not have anything approaching an open mind when it comes to any rational scientific explanation, I'm not sure I can be bothered to go through it. I've only done it now because it is so infuriating that people are spouting such completely inaccurate and unsupportable theories and are so utterly resistant to questioning them.

Let me back-track to some of the things you've said.
"All of my lies and manipulative distortions." Any good reason why I would lie and distort information? You think I'm part of the grand conspiracy to cover up the truth? Do you really imagine that I would be a regular poster on an anarchist website if my actual purpose in life was to protect the interests of the US government? You think I'm just fucking with you? That I've fabricated the opinion of an expert in aviation, specifically aviation failures and crashes, just to get my jollies? That I've put forward my "pathetic claims" just to upset you personally?

Straw poll, anyone who is familiar with me on this website? How do you feel about this statement? -
"By this point people begin to realize your compulsion to lie all the time."

Anyone feel that's anything more than a statement by someone who feels that having something they believe with all their heart challenged must be a lie. It's not what I think, you're lying! Not listening! You're only doing it to get at me! It's a bit like what conspiracy theories do to people really. Paranoid, persecuted and unable to think outside the narrow parameters of the conspiracy. It's symptomatic of basing your belief systems on something which has such a poor grasp of history and political reality.

So, TAE, how many more of your points do you want to admit defeat on after that?

I never really use this term, but damn TAE, you were pwned!

wqwqrwttty

35352532

The problem is, TAE, precisely that you're not keeping an open mind.

You've been presented with detailed, clear scientific evidence which contradicts the Truth Movement claims. Instead of actually looking into that further, you decide to immediately dismiss Fleur as a liar. This is not the reaction of someone with an open mind.

Also, just curious, why would Fleur (a libertarian communist with a zingy critique of capitalism and structures of authority) deliberately lie about this? Why would she spend her time fabricating this stuff? Why would that be in her interests? Also, could you give a specific example of one of these "lies"?

Fleur has used demeaning remarks? What about all your sexist bullshit? (which you haven't even acknowledged or apologised for, by the way).

Finally, you feel sorry for people who base their opinions and ideas on scientific evidence and logic. Amazing.

safsafsfsafs

Seriously, TAE, you're going to open yourself up for another round of debunking?

I'm pretty sure people who claimed that the attack of the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag, were ousted from society as loons and nutcases. People who claimed that the US govt. completely made up the story about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction were dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

See, now neither of these statements are true. Note here, that I didn't call you a liar. I'm just correcting your incorrect suppositions - which are, again, incorrect.

I mean, Jesus, even before the war in Iraq, UN weapons inspectors were saying there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Even Noam Chomsky is near the fence about 9/11.

Also, just not true.

Fleur on the other hand seemed like the type of person who would try to win at any costs

Man, you've got some serious deductive powers.

maybe it hurts his/her pride as an American to admit that her own govt. did it.

One, Fleur is not American. Two, you obviously don't understand anarchism if you think anarchists are blinded by their love for their countries.

Look, it's not that I don't get it. You've obviously spent years peddling this and you've just had your argument disemboweled. That's got to be rough. But, after asking people to watch your dumb hours-long movie and to fact check it, you then refuse to read Fleur's post because it's too long. I mean, WTF?

Is calling people honey sexist? Just wow.

Finally, wow, just wow.

I'm not going to bother addressing the other astounding logical deficits at this point. Let's just get stuck into this bag of putrid meat -

OMFG. Sexist remarks? I am sexist just because I assumed Fleur was a girl?

Slightly sexist for that one, yes. But I wouldn't hold that one against you, if it weren't for the following bullshit.

Is calling people honey sexist? Just wow.

Yes. Talking down to women in this way is sexist. Just curious, would you have called a poster you believed to be male honey?

If you're referring to my rape analogy (which was harsh, but not sexist in any way), then I have nothing to say.

Well, that just shows you to be a completely insensitive person who doesn't give a shit what traumas others may have been through and is happy to rub those traumas in people's faces.

Oh and guess what, trivialising rape is sexist.

if anything, I was being sexist against guys for using a guy as the aggressor rather than a girl

The world must be a scary and confusing place for you. This is one of my favourite sentences ever.

Also, in case this slipped your mind, you called Fleur manipulative, a liar, compared her understanding of science to that of a child, and (before being called out on your sexism) refused to believe that someone with a vagina could possibly know more about the melting tempuratures of metal than you.

So yeah, that's what's sexist and needs apologising for.

TAE, for you:

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=flipbook

Tell you what, TAE, you read this, I'll watch Zeitgest. Then we'll compare notes.

Now, who's up for a game of bad argument bingo?

asfassa

So when was the last time you called a man (or someone you assumed to be a man) "honey"?

Also, the person calling folks "manipulative" "liars" has the nerve to talk about arrogance? Pfff....

err.. I don't think our definition of the word "sexist" is the same at all... Calling someone honey is NOT sexist.

Not your call to make buddy.

safafafs

safasfasf

Shit. You got me. I'm mentally ill. That's the only reason I find sexism offensive. I guess neither you nor chilli can decide what's offensive, but how can we trust women to either? They're all fucking mental! They get all annoyed when you casually throw around rape analogies and talk to them like they're fucking children and show a disturbing level of venom towards them. And then they expect you to fucking apologise! Don't they know that men get raped?!

Anyway, boy, I felt a little sorry for you when I thought you were just a sad harmless fucker who's been sucked in by some fairy tales, but now I find you're a sad nasty fucker who's been sucked in by some fairy tales. Less sympathy.

(sorry for flaming)

Why hasn't this sexist moron been banned yet?

I see you took the weekend off too. Only, I didn't entirely slack off here. I have seen the Zeitgeist movie, although not at all recently, so I decided to watch it again. As you said yourself, you haven't bothered checking any of the points you made (your entire basis of your argument is from the very hinky Truther resources) I have at least done you the courtesy of examining your primary source.

Firstly, you have been called out as a sexist, having exhibited sexist behaviour. Of course you refute this. It is classic Truther behaviour, if someone says something you don't like you just deny it. In your mind, as you say you were not being sexist in any stretch of the imagination. However, in your mind you adhere to a conspiracy, which at it's core stretches back hundreds of years and is firmly rooted in anti-semitism. Have you investigates the origins of this theory at all? Also, in your denial you called Commie Princess mentally ill.

Have you actually lost your mind? Are you schizophrenic?

If you really think I was being sexist in any way, then go see a doctor. Period.

So we can throw ableism in there as well. This, is neither surprising or new. Peter Joseph often accuses people of being mentally ill when they disagree with his theories or contradict them with any inconvenient facts. Also, Steven Jones is in the habit of instructing Truthers in exactly what they are supposed to say. Not exactly a sound foundation for having an "open mind." Incidentally, when it comes to Jones, how do you reconcile the Truther theory that religion is a fallacy designed for social control and your blind faith in a man who's body of work includes vast amount of time seeking, and in his opinion proving, the veracity of his own Mormon religion?

So, I said I'd give my opinion on the film and here it is, having rewatched it yesterday.

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen it, the Zeitgest Movie (henceforth referred to as ZM here) is 2 hours long and split into 3 parts, the first debunking Christianity, the second part how 9/11 was an inside job and finally an overview of how the world is managed, essentially by an international conspiracy of bankers, to keep us in a perpetual state of war, in order to keep them in profits. It doesn't specifically say Jewish bankers but it's heavily implied. You would have to be woefully ignorant of history not to pick up on that one. It's a conspiracy theory which extends back for hundreds of years and the movie is not exactly dog whistling because it's audible to anyone with a glancing knowledge of history.
ZM has a narration and a series of voice-overs, some of which are not very clear who they are.You have to be paying serious attention to work out who is talking a times and there's also a lot of audio statements stating things as fact with no attribution or context at all.
It also helps to be familiar with all the usual suspects, Jordan Maxwell, Lyndon Larouche, Alex Jones and the Illuminati, the latter two not being at all overt but they're in there. It also uses the conveniently dead Bill Hicks and George Carlin. Personally, I would love to know what they would have thought of Zeitgeist. I don't suppose it would be pretty.
It has the overall production values of a political ad or TV commercial, channelled through the X-Files, filled in with lots of stock footage; natural history shots, historical figures, old movies (I can't believe they haven't been sued for this,) and emotionally charged news footage from 9/11. Skip the first 13 minutes, it goes absolutely no-where.
At the same time it is incredibly manipulative and I can see how it could be persuasive to someone with little or no knowledge on the subjects touched upon. It's endlessly repetitive, it could have said all it has to say in a quarter of the time but choses to drill the same points into you with little or no qualification. It's also something which only looks at the world from an American point of view. It falls utterly flat at times when look at it from outside the US borders and US interpretation of history.

Part 1.
This is 40 minutes debunking Christianity. There's really nothing in this which is new. I can see that for someone whose only real knowledge of religion is Christianity, of the literal interpretation of the Bible, which has such a loud voice in the US, that it might be surprising or interesting, but to anyone who has ever read about the religious mythology of other cultures there's nothing revealing here. ZM basically says that Christianity has borrowed heavily from Ancient Egyptian religion. It says it over and over again. Also that ancient cultures were seriously into sun worship and astronomy, which is not exactly a revelation, given that there'a archaeological evidence for this from Stonehenge, to South America, to Egypt and beyond.The ancient Chinese were building astrological observatories in 2300 BCE.
It explores various aspects of Christianity which have occurred in other religions and talks about astrological constellations. A lot. It says "the age of Aquarius" so often I've had that awful song of the same name stuck in my head ever since. Repeat, repeat, repeat, just in case you didn't get it the first four or five times, that's the M.O. of the ZM.
It's no surprise that religions migrate and morph. Ancient people were far more migratory than we often give them credit for. Try and figure out the conundrum of the pineapple in Pompeii. The gods weren't any different from the people who believed in them, they moved and were adapted to whatever culture they ended up in.
ZM puts much emphasis on how Jesus was a retelling of the story of Horus, the virgin birth, resurrection etc. Virgin birth is common in many mythologies, however in many ancient languages the word for virgin was the same for girl, they were synonymous (unless you were Phoenician, in which case it was a whole different story. Resurrection is a common feature, not unsurprisingly given that gods are supposed to be immortal.
There's other, already common knowledge stuff, like Old Testament stories being lifted from Babylonian (ie pre-Judaic) traditions, like the Flood (Epic of GIlgamesh) and Moses ( Sargon of Akkad. Mesopotamian)
It's 40 minutes of saying stuff which has been said many times before, although surprisingly made no mention of ancient Persian religion, which probably had a far greater influence, structurally, on the Abrahamaic religions. None of this is new ideas, all of it is repeated constantly. Some of these things were drawn on heavily by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (not the Greek fash) whose members included WB Yeats and the greatest charlatan of them all, Alester Crowley.
FINALLY, 38 minutes in it says that religion is used for social control. It took that long to make that point. However, this laid the foundations for the "it's all a conspiracy to control us" theory.

*saving here, I don't want my internet connection to die and lose this*

Tyrion:

Why hasn't this sexist moron been banned yet?

Hold on, I haven't finished with him yet.

Zeitgeist movie part 2.
This opens with the planes slamming into the Twin Towers, 10 times in all, with obviously ovelaid fake sound effects. There is obviously no subtlety here. Words are repeated over and over again, over news footage of the attacks on the WTC. Demolition, demolition, demolition. I stopped counting how many times this was said. There's an unattributed voice saying that they were obviously destroyed by world class dynamite (which actually contradicts the Truther thermite idea.) Who says this? Someone else saying there were actual devices planted in the building. Again, who? There are lots of on the spot footage on 9/11 of people saying it looked like a demolition, which is what you would expect people to say. People always talk in metaphors when asked to describe something they've never seen before. "It looked like...fill in with something you are familiar with for comparison purposes..." Constant repetition of the words "demolition" and "explosions" just to reinforce the idea. And Truthers suggest that it is the other people who are brainwashed.
There's nothing much which hasn't been said in this thread already which is in the ZM about the collapse of the Twin Towers. Go read previous posts. There's Pentagon CCTV footage from the lobby and parking lots, which would never have picked up the sight of the plane anyway. The Pentagon hijacker was a bad pilot. Just how good a pilot do you need to be to slam a plane into an enormous target? ZM shows footage of the Pennsylvania crash and compares it to an unspecified Nigerian crash, obviously crashed on take-off with most of it's fuselage intact. As opposed to this crash site

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010705/world.htm

Or this one

http://www.pulsamerica.co.uk/2011/05/23/argentina-this-week-26/

Molten metal. Molten metal. Molten metal.
I get the explosions in the basement obsessions now though. There's people in the ZM who were in the basements saying that immediately before they heard they heard the planes hit they felt something they interpreted as explosions. That's simple harmonics, as well as transmitting the sound of the crash faster than through the air, the steel structure would have transmitted the vibrations to the basement. It would have shook the shit out of it. It didn't make it an explosion however.
The whole 9/11 footage, as well as being misleading, is as exploitative as hell, showing vulnerable, frightened people being questioned and their on the spot responses given in all this chaos and confusion as spurious "evidence" to back up these claims. The "experts" are the usual suspects; Steven Jones, another Scholar for 9/11 and Jones' partner in nano-thermite hoarding, Niels Harritt.
There's stuff about the 9/11 commission being a a cover-up. No shit, people weren't being very fulsome with the truth relating the the biggest security balls-up ever.Of course people and institutions were covering their asses, it doesn't automatically lead to the extrapolation that they did it themselves. Evidence of incompetence, yes. Evidence that governments and their agencies are not truthful with us. It's a huge leap to say that it's evidence that they did it themselves.
Then some of the opinion gets really interesting. It takes a whole 105 minutes before someone (Jones) finally says "false flag" and "wake-up." Finally, got there. This id followed by several minutes (lack of subtlety again) of repeating the word "terrorism" over and over again. Yes, 9/11 was used as an excuse for war. It's a large leap to say it was done deliberately to set one up. But this is "explained" later in part 3.
The next "expert" opinion is offered from "historian" Webster Tarpley, positively stating that 9/11 was a false flag operation, pre-planned to get the US into was with Afghanistan and Iraq. Tarpley has been weaving tall tales about false-flag, black-ops being orchestrated by Masonic Temples since 1980. He's also a former high ranking member of Lyndon Larouche's US Labor Party and former Senatorial candidate for this conspiracy theory party.
Next, we have former (Memphis, LA & Dallas) FBI bureaus chief Ted Gunderson, stating that the CIA were behind the Embassy bombings, Lockerbie, the attack on the USS Cole and 9/11. Gunderson's other investigations absolutely prove that there is a covert CIA group called The Finders, who are behind a massive operation kidnapping children for satanic ritual and sexual abuse, ritual murder, high-tech, secret weapons research on these children, mind-control research as well as child slave-labour for ALIEN CONTROLLED FACILITIES. This is Illuminati stuff here. Basically, Gunderson believed that the CIA was controlled by aliens. To be honest, the X-Files did this so much better. It does kind of make you question the quality and, well sanity, of his work. And this is a man who is offered by the Zeitgeist Movement as being an expert witness on the subject.
Goes on to say that Madrid and London were inside jobs as well and then uses Davis Shayler, at the period in his life when he was most media-hungry, given his enormous, mounting legal bills. The man had books to sell.

*saving again. btw, I'm not particularly checking for typos, I hope there's not too many.*

Part 3.
The real heart of the matter. Our puppet-masters and how they pull the strings.
One hour and thirty minute in and I was rapidly losing the will to live and would have probably welcomed a spot of alien abduction at this point. However I pressed on wearily.
The are tons of quotes, mostly taken out of context, by famous people alluding to shady powers manipulating things -THE BANKERS! The Thomas Jefferson quote hasn't been sourced at all, it's taken from a private letter, attributing it to Jefferson, but no primary source. He may have said it but we'll never know. There's a whole lot about the American Revolution (sorry, I completely zoned out at that point,) but it all adds up in the end to one thing; an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers. They don't explicitly say Jewish but it's massively alluded to. The banks they use as references were all Jewish-run or Jewish-founded. They use quotes from famous anti-semites, who were known to use the Jewish banker conspiracy to advance their anti-semitism, such as Charles Lindbergh and former mayor of NYC John Hylan. The ZM firmly plaes the blame for the 1908 banking crisis firmly at the feet of the four Jewish owned banks, Warburghs, Rockerfeller, Rothschilds and especially JP Morgan -coincidentally of course that JP Morgan was heavily implicated in the 2008 banking meltdown. Although, to be fair the biggest player in the 1908 crisis was the Knickerbocker Trading Company, but they're not around any more to picket on Wall Street.
The international conspiracy of Jewish bankers is centuries old. It was behind the 1190 massacre in York where the entire local Jewish population were herded into a tower and burnt to death because they refused to "loan" - it wasn't actually loans, it was extortion - any more money to finance the war effort. It was the ideology which underpinned the part of the Spanish Inquisition which slaughtered the Jewish population of Spain, it underpinned the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and it was the excuse which sent 6 million European Jews to their deaths in the gas chambers. It is a very old idea and it is the foundation of the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory. And, Taesaen, you have the temerity to call me a racist? Have you ever read any history except that outside the narrow parameters of the Zeitgeist movement? You have to be especially ignorant of the past to miss this one.
According to the ZM, the point of this banking conspiracy is that the bankers are manipulating the world to keep them rolling in cash from the business of war and to illustrate this it uses 3 particular instances to "prove" it.

1.
The bankers wanted the US to enter World War One and to do this they orchestrated the sinking of the Lusitania, in which many Americans were killed. The movie stated that the US then entered the War "a short time after." That is a blatant lie. The US entered the war a few weeks short of TWO YEARS AFTER. And this is an obvious case of only looking at history from an American standpoint. The US exited the war relatively economically unscathed. Europe on the other hand was devastated economically. Russia had a revolution, Germany had an (unsuccessful) revolution, the whole continent was economically wrecked and unstable. What advantage would this have for this international Jewish banking cabal? The European economy was in a far different condition to the US one.

2.
Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbour by cutting US trade in oil to Japan, by providing loans to China and military aid to Britain. I will concede that there is some evidence that British military intelligence did withhold information that might have suggested that there was an attack on US soil in the works - they were desperate for the US to get into the war, Britain and the Allies could not fight a war on both the European and Eastern fronts without the US - but the concept of US neutrality was bullshit from day one. It was inevitable that the US would enter the war eventually. It had been providing logistic, material and intelligence to the British from the get go, often through Canada. There's lots of sinister stuff about US businesses funding both sides in the war. Guess who? Yup, the Rockerfellers. Isn't this the normal function of capitalist enterprises to seek out profits wherever they can find them? And why would the banks behind these businesses want the US to enter this war, when it would automatically mean the closing down of these markets? They'd make more money from neutrality and continuing to do business from both sides. It also makes no sense in the argument that that the banks want to prolong wars; entry of the US would lead to a shortening of the conflict.

3.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. This was when an incident in 1964 involving a US warship was mistaken for an attack by the North Vietnamese, which prompted an escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. This is what is considered the beginnings of the Vietnam War, although in reality the US had been there since the early 1950s. They had been edging the French out of their colony, then called Indo-China. If you don't want to read a history book, try Graham Greene's The Quiet American, which is about creeping US control of Vietnam. It was written in 1951 (not published until 54.) The US had been escalating it's military presence in Vietnam foe years, sooner or later the Vietnamese would fight back, even if you completely ignore the fact that Ho Chi Min was a former CIA operative (sound familiar) who had felt that the US had reneged on it's wartime promises and by the 1960s there was a huge number of Vietnamese willing to fight. Whatever started the (official) war, it was inevitable. Learn a little about history and imperialism. It'll help you a lot.
ZM says that the war was provoked by the US easing trade restrictions to the USSR, who they KNEW were providing most of North Vietnam's military equipment. This another blatant untruth, USSR provided very little military equipment to N Vietnam. That was the Chinese. There was massive hostility between Russia and China at the time and there was no detente/trade between US and China until after the war, under Nixon. The USSR was in no position to fight a war with either the US or China, which would have been a likely consequence of moving into that area. ALso, ZM says that the Rockerfellers were financing these military factories in the USSR. Wrong again. USSR military factories were state-run and had no US funding, Rockerfeller or otherwise. In fact there was no American financing of Russia until the 1980s. But let's not let a few facts get in the way of a god conspiracy.
ZM also claims that the US rules of engagement were specifically designed to give N Vietnam a tactical advantage and thus prolong the war. This would be the same rules of engagement that the US never kept.

It took a whole hour and 40 minutes for ZM to invoke Godwin's Law and tell us to Wake Up! Brevity is not a concept valued by the ZM.

It starts wrapping up with a stellar analysis by Lyndon Larouche, recapping these points. Let's remember that Larouche is a convicted mail-fraudster, that he attempted to embezzle elderly people out of their savings, that he thinks that HIV was invented in a lab as a sort of biological warfare and that people with HIV should be interred in camps. That rock music was invented by British Intelligence (he uses the word British as code for Jewish) as a form of psychological warfare and that all classical music should be rewritten so that it performed in a particular pitch which he thinks is correct. And this is the man that the ZM feels is a reputable political and historical analyst to promote their opinions.
And the best for (nearly) last. Yup, it's the Rockerfellers again. A man called Aaron Russo is quoted spilling the beans on his former friend, Nicholas Rockerfeller, who had allegedly told him, prior to 9/11 how the whole thing was going to happen. False flag attack on US, including the WTC, Afghanistan, Iraq, the whole shebang. Russo, was probably best known for being a washed-up movie producer, his many bizarre interviews with Alex Jones and for founding these people

http://www.restoretherepublic.org/

He was also a former prospective Libertarian presidential candidate. Nicholas Rockerfeller, on the other hand is best known for not existing. There was a Nicholas Rockerfeller, a lawyer in California, who may have told people he was part of the dynasty, but he's not one of those Rockerfellers. Aaron Russo on the other hand was a has-been C-list celebrity with scant regard for the truth.
There's a bunch of stuff about the media and education, but honestly I can't be bothered with it. Zeitgeisted out.

The excruciatingly long ZM and ends with the words "If only people realized the truth" and apropos of nothing, photos of American liberal's darlings, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr and John Lennon.
The Revolution is Now. Apparently.

There you go, I sat through two hours of the most excruciating, half-truths, total lies, manipulations, endless stupefying repetition, junk science, crass simplification, masses of complete omissions about any other function of capitalism and government other than the IT'S THE BANKERS WHAT DONE IT. And I did it all sober. I quite honestly have no idea how anyone can be so ignorant and gullible to be taken in by this at all.

TAEHAEN:

At this point I can't be bothered to go back and go through all your new posts, I'll look at them later but I could do with a Zeitgeist break right now. I'm sure they're much of the same, feeling personally persecuted by someone disagreeing with you, paranoid ramblings about anything not part of your dogma being lies and manipulations and quite possibly part of the very conspiracy you're so convinced of. You feel sorry for people who base their opinions on scientific theory and logic, do you? As opposed to what? Fantasy? Quasi-mystical clap-trap?
At this point I can only agree with Commie Princess, you're closed-minded, unwilling to look at anything which contradicts your Truth, as you see it. You're delusional and offensive. There's no arguing with you, is there? You think any argument contrary to your faith is false and manipulation and as a consequence of the argument, in your opinion is in itself very evidence of your theory. You go round in ever tighter circles, feeling more and more persecuted. This is why we end up with people like Charles Manson, Timothy McVey, the Unabomber, all conspiracy theorists, with zero grip on reality. Why you chose to bring this here, to a libertarian communist site is a mystery to me, when there are plenty of message boards where you can all swap your tall tales and feed into each other's paranoia.

I will give you my opinion as to why OBL and Al Qaeda were behind 9/11 if you're interested. But you're not interested, are you?

To everyone else:

I'm not going to advise you to watch the ZM or not, if you haven't already seen it. But it is bloody awful. If you've got two hours to spare. It's a very long two hours though.

safasfaas

I'm not sure this will help, but there's a difference between doing something sexist (something that just about all men - even those with the best of intentions - and most women will do from time to time) and being "a sexist".

When you spoke down to presumed women (disregarding their opinions and calling Fleur "honey") and spoke much more respectfully to me (calling me "man"), that's a sexist act. It's a double standard and a manifestation of patriarchy.

When called out on, you lashed out incredibly defensively and started questioning the womens' mental state. This is, again, classic patriarchal behaviour. Don't make me tell you about that etymology of "hysterical" (google it).

And, mate, if a women calls you sexist for, in their eyes, trivializing rape - don't say "men get raped, too.'' Sure, that's true, but the vast majority of rapes occur towards women. And that's because rape is a crime of power and, in a patriarchal society, men have more power than women.

So, as you put it, "in your mind" you weren't being sexist. Fine, that's probably true. But if you're called out on sexist behaviour, have a f*cking think about it. It's when you fall back into ALL the standard defensive responses that you go from doing something sexist to being "a sexist".

TAE

I...backed out of this 9/11 crap

Sellout!!!!! The bankers have sucked you into the official story.

You used to be cool, man.

TAEHSAEN

I HAVE STATED THAT FLEUR IS MORE CLEVER THAN I AM NUMEROUS TIMES

Maybe she's part of the Jewish banker intelligentsia pulling the strings behind everything?

safsafsafsag

Dude, I was dismissive and made fun of you from the get-go! (See post #79)

If anything, Fleur was a lot more respectful in actually taking the time to explain shit to you.

HELLO FLEUR

PLEASE BELIEVE ME THAT DESPITE THE CAPITALS I’M NOT SHOUTING AT YOU. I STARTED IN CAPS WITHOUT NOTICING AND THEN JUST CARRIED ON AND IT SORT OF GOT AWAY FROM ME AND THEN I COULDN’T BE BOTHERED TO START OVER. THIS 911 STUFF CAN GET INFURIATING ENOUGH TO REALLY SUCK YOU IN AND I FIND MYSELF WITH A FEW POINTS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY/DISCUSS IF YOU’RE INCLINED TO, NO WORRIES IF YOU’RE TOO BUSY OR HAVE HAD ‘ENOUGH ALREADY!’

In W/mK, light concrete has a coefficient of 0.1 - 0.3 (almost nothing) , carbon steel is 43. It is very different, hence why I am asserting it is like a furnace. So the concrete is a very good insulator, keeping the heat within the floors and ceiling, made of concrete. It's like a furnace. The heat is not escaping. The math "proving" the case for the conspiracy theory totally ignores this. But, apparently it is really funny to read.

NO IT DOESN’T. IT EXPLICITLY ASSUMES FROM THE BEGINNING THAT NO HEAT ESCAPES:

‘The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.’

YOU PREVIOUSLY SAID:

“No-one can tell us what it was like in the floors above or adjacent to the planes because they're all dead.”

YET LATER IN THIS SAME ARTICLE THAT CONTAINS THE NINTH GRADE MATHS, THREE RELATIVELY UNHARMED SOUTH TOWER SURVIVORS SHOW UP:

‘Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."’

HOW LONG DOES A JET FLAME TAKE TO GET GOING? I’M OBVIOUSLY MISSING SOMETHING HERE BUT UNLESS THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE INEXPLICABLE THINGS THAT HAPPENS OFF THE CAUSAL CHAIN OR JUST ANOTHER CASE OF TROOFER ECONOMICAL ACTUALITE COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW SURVIVORS GOT THROUGH THE FURIOUSLY HOT CONCRETE CRASH FLOOR FURNACES TO THE GROUND AFTER SPENDING 15 MINUTES COLLECTING THEIR THOUGHTS?

To put it in context, the 10,000 litres of jet fuel the planes were estimated to be carrying at the time of impact ( the 767 can carry as much as 91,400 litres) and taking the latent heat of fusion of steel as 2.72 E05 JKg and specific heat capacity of 0.466 J/gK there was sufficient energy produced to melt 354000 Kg of steel (approx 70% of all the steel in one of the floors turned to a puddle.)

IN YOUR EMPHASIS ON THE LARGE QUANTITY OF FUEL HERE YOU SEEM TO BE CONFUSING HEAT, WHICH IS AS YOU KNOW AN EXTENSIVE PROPERTY THAT DEPENDS ON PARTICLE NUMBERS, WITH TEMPERATURE, AN INTENSIVE PROPERTY THAT DOESN’T VARY WITH THE QUANTITY OF MATERIAL. THIS IS FURTHER SUGGESTED BY YOUR USE OF THE LATENT HEAT OF FUSION, THE USE/MENTION OF WHICH ALSO MAKES IT APPEAR THAT YOU ARE ASSUMING WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ASSERT. IF YOU WERE TO FILL IN THE STEPS OF YOUR QUANTITATIVE REASONING LEADING TO YOUR ASSERTION IT WOULD REMOVE ANY DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR PROOF.

I'm not saying that it melted this much, not even nearly, it has the potential to melt this much. But even a minute fraction of this would be enough to bring down the building.

AND HERE TOO.

WHAT SORT OF FLAME ARE YOU CLAIMING AS THE CHIEF CULPRIT? DID THE FLOORS OF THE WTC CONSTITUTE A CONSTANT VOLUME CHAMBER WITH THE FUEL AND OXIDANT MIXED IN PERFECT STOICHIOMETRIC PROPORTIONS PRODUCING A JET BURNER FLAME WITH THE KIND OF HEAT OF FUSION YOU ASSERT? OR DID THE ADIABATIC CONDITIONS OF YOUR OXYACETYLENE TORCH PREDOMINATE? BUT THEN WHAT ABOUT THE BLACK SMOKE WE SAW THAT SUGGESTS A FUEL-RICH DIFFUSE FLAME OF LOW HEAT INTENSITY? THERE WAS CERTAINLY A LOT OF FUEL AROUND TO BE HEATED, WHICH WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE FOR HYDROCARBON BURNING IN AIR (WHICH IS AROUND 1300K I.E. NOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL) BY ABOUT A FACTOR OF 2. FROM WHAT I’VE BEEN ABLE TO GATHER EVEN WITH REDUCED RADIATIVE HEAT LOSS DUE TO SOOT AND FLAME VOLUME THE WTC STEEL WOULD NOT HAVE EXPERIENCED HIGHER TEMPERATURES THAN AROUND 1100K, NIST ASSERTS THAT THE IMPACT RIPPED THE INSULATION OFF THE STEEL. THEN AGAIN THEY ALSO SAY THAT 1273K COMPARED WITH 573K CORRESPONDS TO 7 TIMES THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER TO THE UNPROTECTED STEEL. I DON’T REMEMBER EVER SEEING THE DISTINCTIVE AND VERY PENETRATING BRIGHT WHITE ALUMINIUM FLAME IN ANY OF THE FOOTAGE I’VE COME ACROSS EITHER. I’VE HEARD IT SAID QUITE OFTEN THAT THE TOWERS WERE GIANT SAILS DESIGNED FOR WINDS OF UP TO 30 TIMES THE WEIGHT OF A 767 AND THAT DESIGN REDUNDANCIES IN THE PERIMETER COLUMNS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE REMAINING 1/3 OF THE COLUMNS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THREE TIMES THE STRESSES RESULTING FROM A 900K FIRE ON THAT VERY STILL DAY.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT KEVIN RYAN, THE FORMER MANAGER OF UNDERWRITERS LABS, A COMPANY COMMISSIONED BY NIST TO CONDUCT FURNACE EXPERIMENTS TO TEST THE FLOOR MODELS IN AUGUST 2004? IN HIS VERSION OF EVENTS, THOSE TESTS DISPROVED THE INITIAL ‘PANCAKE’ THEORY OF THE COLLAPSE BECAUSE THE FLOOR MODELS DIDN’T ACTUALLY COLLAPSE IN THEIR FURNACES, EVEN WHEN TESTED OVER MUCH LONGER PERIODS THAN THE ACTUAL COLLAPSES. HE ALSO SAYS THAT GOVERNMENT UPDATES ON THE REPORT STATED THAT TESTS ON ORIGINAL SAMPLES PROVED THAT THE TEMPERATURES WERE NOT HOT ENOUGH TO EVEN SOFTEN STEEL, THEREBY CONTRADICTING THE NIST SUMMARY STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE FLOORS DID COLLAPSE AND THAT THE STEEL DID SOFTEN. THE ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THIS HE SAYS WAS THE REASON FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ‘PANCAKE’ THEORY WITH THE ‘INWARD BOWING’ THEORY, WHICH WAS PRODUCED ENTIRELY BY FINITE ELEMENT METHODS ON THE COMPUTER USING TWICE THE FUEL AND TWICE THE TIME ELAPSED BEFORE COLLAPSE. RYAN WAS FIRED A WEEK AFTER HE PUBLICLY CHALLENGED THE NIST REPORT.

My friendly expert has refused to do the math to calculate just how hot it got in there because the official report has already done this very well and he's not doing it himself. It'll take about a month to do and quite reasonably doesn't feel this would be a valuable use of his time.

NO OFFENSE - AND I’M GLAD YOU GAVE THAT TAE CHARACTER A GOOD BEATING (WTF WAS THAT MESSED-UP ROPE/RAPE EPISODE?) - BUT I’VE NEVER FELT HAPPY RELYING ON ‘EXPERTS’ IF IT’S AT ALL POSSIBLE TO FIND STUFF OUT FOR MYSELF. I DON’T KNOW IF THIS A PARTICULARLY ANARCHIST ATTITUDE OR JUST ME.

WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECULATIVE EXISTENCE OF NANOSCALE PYROTECHNICS WITH EXCEPTIONAL PROPERTIES A QUICK SEARCH PRODUCED THIS 2004 PAPER FROM LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY:
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf

OR THIS ONE CALLED ‘ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES WITH SOL-GEL CHEMISTRY: SYNTHESIS, SAFETY AND CHARACTERISATION, AN ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY GASH, SIMPSON AND SATCHER TO THE 29TH INTERNATIONAL PYROTECHNICS SEMINAR IN 2002.’:
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf

WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS http://physics911.net/experiments-with-nanothermite/ IS IF IT ISN'T JUST A PIXIE FROM TROOFYLAND?

NONE OF THE ABOVE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SUGGESTING THAT THE US GOVERNMENT NEEDED ANY EXCUSE IN 2001 TO CONTINUE IN THEIR STARRING ROLE IN CAPITALISM. I THOUGHT I WAS MORE MATURE THAN THIS AND I FEEL A BIT EMBARRASSED BUT I’M REALLY INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, IF YOU HAVE TIME.

Jesus fuck, this is sad of me.

Tae

Post #78 – your first post
Post #79 – Chilli taking the piss
Post #82 – Fleur smacks up your bullshit
Post #84 – bizarre analogy with weird description of an unconscious woman who's been raped
Post #86 – Chilli sauce being a bit shirty towards you
Post #87 – Fleur smash!
Post #94 – The motherload: you say Fleur is being illogical, then she uses “low tactics”, manipulation, lies. Repeatedly
Then you say she either has a messiah complex, is ignorant, or is lying.
Then this “Well honey, do YOU understand simple real life physics that even children can understand?”
Then this: “I’m surprised at your low level of maturity”
Oh, then this: “You seem like the kind of person who believes that all muslims are violent.”
And this: “I really don’t have any respect for you as a person”
Post #97 – Chilli calls you a jackass. Then makes some excellent points.
Post #98 – You tell chilli that he “misunderstands you, man” and proceed to go an entire post without insulting him.
Post #99 – I tell you you're sexist (which you ignore)
Post #the rest – Fleur continues to smack shit up like a badass.

Chilli Sauce

Dude, I was dismissive and made fun of you from the get-go! (See post #79)

If anything, Fleur was a lot more respectful in actually taking the time to explain shit to you.

This forum in general is dismissive and rude to a lot of people. Anyway, libcom snobbery aside, my take on this topic? I think it completely possible the US state let these attacks happen and or had an actual hand in the attacks themselves.The Middle East in general is on capitals agenda as of late. After the fall of "communism" what are all the intelligence agencies to do? Who's going to stop capital from fully placing it's meat hooks into various regions of the middle east? How will they get the population to support this agenda? They say themselves that a "peal harbor like attack" would be necessary, this was in PNAC publication if I'm not mistaken. I also remember reading "The Grand Chessboard" years ago where were Brzezinski was being pretty honest about their agenda in the Middle East and Africa. Market expansion and US hegemony.

The thing with conspiracy theories is it leaves people with too much speculation and no real hardcore tangible evidence. People end up latching onto unprovable and sometimes silly theories. The "evidence" in the case of 9/11 is shaky, at best extremely circumstantial but this is why only theories are possible. There's no real hardcore evidence. I've actually read a book from David Griffin and watched a few documentaries so I'm familiar with the arguments. The "stand down order" Cheney gave which Norman Manneta overheard, the out of the ordinary training programs the air force had that morning, the cell phone calls from planes, the attackers passport being found in the rubble of the building, the lack of video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon, the failure of the Pentagons anti aircraft missiles, the oddity that was building 7 and on and on. There are some strange things about that day. It's not like the "conspiracy theorists" are seeing things that aren't there. Especially the way the buildings fell. All 3 did indeed look like controlled demolitions.

I think focusing on it and trying to "prove" the state would let something like this happen and or actually plan it is a waste of time. In the same way I think JFK was probably killed by the CIA- what difference does it make? I'm already aware the state is shifty, immoral and murderous. Especially the military and intelligence agencies. They're out of control but this is what's necessary in order for capitalism to function. Deception, coercion, duplicity, murder, war etc. There's all sorts of things going on "behind stage" that most people aren't aware of. Even various government agencies don't know what other government agencies are doing at times. This is capitalism and I'm of the opinion capital and the state could care less if a few thousand Americans are killed and some buildings are destroyed, especially if it's a spring board to maintaining capitalism as a system and further establishing western hegemony.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

I think those videos are far more in depth than that Zeitgeist film and are aimed at "debunkers". The likelihood of anyone sincerely watching 5 hours of video and doing a piece by piece critique of the information is quite nil though.That's a lot of time to devote to 9/11 so it would take some serious interest. I've watched various random parts of the three videos, maybe a hour or so. They bring up some compelling points. My mind isn't made up either way though.It could've been terrorists, it could've been the state. Who knows? Not me.

Every time a post of mine is voted down, which at this point is every post, it simply makes me want to be even more disliked on this site. What's the purpose of the down button anyhow? I wonder how many people you've managed to scare off with that silly contraption. I even jumped on the bandwagon and began downing my own posts. That'll show me!

safsafg

so as every part of your theory is proved false you retreat into smaller and smaller gaps that haven't yet been disproved. Ultimately this means you theory is unfalsifiable and is equivalent to believing in some random deity or claiming fictional character is real. There is always a little space where this can be fit into the world by some one who wants to believe enough, it doesn't make if probable or useful.

Just get over the fact that you're government is not the all powerfully that it claimed to be, and if it actually had done the attacks on September 11 2001 that wouldn't make the top 10 of bad shit its done, i doubt it'd even make the top 100, it wouldn't even be the worst shit they where involved with on a September 11th

Seriously stop being such an American centric arsehole obsessing over one tiny detail of history and learn a bit about the world.

factvalue:

I have some responses and clarifications for you, however they're really long and it's nearly midnight and I'm not going to try typing them up tonight. I'll see what I can do tomorrow, for now they're staying in my ever filling up notebook.

TAEHSAEN

Hey Mike, I'm really grateful that you've stepped in. I absolutely respect your opinion to the full extent and I'm really glad you spoke out (even though you said you don't want to pick a side).

I will definitely give those videos a watch over the weekends and I'm bookmarking that page :)

@everyone else, I hope you see what I meant all this time. Even though Fleur "debunked" some isolated events, he can never be able to dismiss the whole. As @factvalue pointed out, there were lots of problems with Fleur's "scientific" reasoning which I was not capable enough to answer. But I did try my best to remain honest and say what I know. At the end of the day, you can't really learn about 9/11 watching two people debate on online forums. It takes time, patience and commitment.

I hope all of you realize which side here is trying their best to be honest here. There are some people out there who will try to win arguments at any cost, even if it means giving out misinformation and misleading people who are genuinely trying to learn.

I am certainly not trying to force anyone here to believe my side of the story here. But being a human being who cares about others, I think its vital that all of you form complete and unbiased opinions regarding 9/11 because I believe THIS EVENT will turn out to be a monumental turning point in history.

I thank you all once again for reading and please do take the time to watch the video.

I'm not sure it's a worth while debate. I just had an interest years back when 9/11 was "fresh" or constantly being brought up. Fixating on it, especially as a political tactic, is a rather cumbersome proposal- this wasn't "Zeitgeists" only problem though. The free market banking conspiracy is rather lame, a totally backwards critique of capitalism and the "resource based economy" they advocate is essentially technocracy which isn't communism. Marx explained why workers themselves must have direct control over societies resources, production and distribution as whichever class controls these things controls society. The "Venus Project" and or the system Peter Jospeh advocates doesn't take this into account and would place "specialists" in control of resources, labor and distribution in so continuing hierarchical society which isn't communism. Not to mention there's absolutely ZERO talk of how capitalism is to end. I know the Venus Project people think they can build communes and make it all happen. It's utopian idealism, the sort of thing Marx scoffed at. The conspiracy theories as a political tactic fall into the realm of (philosophical) idealism as well. I find them entertaining at times and as I said I think it possible the US state let this happen or perhaps even had a hand in it but I really have no idea either way, and this after actually reading a lot on the subject. What I wouldn't do, even if I was convinced the US state did it, is use that information as a political tactic to end capitalism or "wake people up" to the nature of the state. Not without real hardcore tangible evidence.There's plenty of things we can actually prove that show how "evil" the state is.

Anyhow, I think part of why they're being rude to you is that's the culture that sprung up in reaction to the 9/11 truth movement. Ridicule is used a lot. Even further some of your comments (I just read the thread) were sexist but in lieu of name calling and ridicule I think people should've explained why what you said was sexist and what sort of impact things like that have have on women. It's much easier to just say "fuck you douche bag" or whatever. This isn't a problem just on this forum although the snark can get heavy on this site , the communist "community" in general has little patience with such things and more times than not employes scorn, ridicule and other backwards tactics to fight racism/sexism/homophobia in cases where it's not really a capital offense. Calling a woman "honey" is meant to place them on an inferior level based solely on their gender. Like when white people call black people "boy". You don't seem to be a total idiot frothing at the mouth racist/sexist/homophobe so I'm sure you're aware now and won't go around calling women "honey" with the intent to marginalize.

Back to 9/11. What do you think would happen if there was some actual evidence, real material undeniable proof that the US government facilitated 9/11? People would rage, maybe some riots would take place, a scape goat or scape goats within the government would be hung out to dry and most Americans would probably just take an even more right wing anti government stance. Nothing would really change systemically. It would probably play right into the hands of capital having everyone running around in fear of the government spewing right wing free market nonsense with a militia twist. Some new right wing free market political party would probably get voted in and we'd all be even more screwed by capital than we already are. If 9/11 was an "inside job" and it could be proven I find it extremely unlikely Americans would all of the sudden start advocating communism so what value would that information hold? What value does the current speculation and circumstantial evidence hold? None really. For me, at this point, it's entertainment. I read a 20 page article the other month on a conspiracy theory that laid out a theory saying John F Kennedy Jr's plane was sabotaged and thus he was assassinated. I was entertained but there is no real value in the information. Even if it could be proven what impact would it have?

The goal of communists is to expose the conflict between labor and capital and to analyze/explain the role of the state in legitimizing/maintaining the overall capitalist system. Outside of communists saying "see, the state will even kill it's own citizens to ensure the expanding profits capitalism needs" I see no real value in whether or not the state facilitated 9/11. The state kills people all the time and en mass, all of it is done to keep capitalism going. The real issue here is getting people to see that they're being subjugated by a hierarchical system which places a ruling class in almost complete control of society. The real issue is to get people to see that this class isn't necessary and is actually leeching off of humanity like a tick.

EDIT:

I think the Peter Joseph guy is trying to explain the system to people but he himself has a sort of self taught non communist/materialist critique of the system that really falls short in many many ways and ends up giving his fans (or whatever they are) the wrong world view and the wrong sort of "consciousness" if you will. And he's so pompous about it, totally convinced he has things figured out. The guy is a good speaker, I'll give him that. He could probably be a good salesman. He's almost trying to give a Marxist critique, using terms like "anarchy of the market" and he recently tried to give his version of historical materialism, explaining the history of modes of production and the rise of capitalism but it was laughable.

I noticed the impact the Zeitgeist Movement had at Occupy Oakland where all sorts of people were walking around saying things like "we just need a resource based economy" and " the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished" or the "price system is the problem". Basically a lot of well meaning people with the wrong ideas.

325ttew

TAEHSAEN

God forbid, unless there are people dying and starving in front of us in the streets, I don't think people will have enough motivation to revolt before then.

Fortunately, history has shown this to be quite untrue. You may be interested in reading about the uprising in France in 1968, which took place at time when the French working class was much better off in terms of wages than the American working class is now.

Steve Pieczenik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik

Pieczenik was deputy assistant secretary of state under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker.[3] His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare.[7] He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary.[8]

In 1974, Pieczenik joined the U.S. State Department as a consultant to restructure its Office for the Prevention of Terrorism.[2]

In 1976, Pieczenik was made deputy assistant secretary of state for management.

This guy recently came out and said a top ranking general told him the attacks were a false flag operation but he's Jewish and is a member of the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) so how can we trust him ;) he probably ignited the charges that blew up the buildings. That guy is definitely Mossad.

But seriously, his theory that Osama died in 2001 could also be valid seeing the military dumped the body in the ocean. Who fucking knows? I'm off to watch Cloak And Dagger.

Edit:

In this interview Richard Clark (the head of counter terrorism in the USA at the time) says he thinks orders were given at high levels of the CIA to keep information concerning a plan to attack the US away from him. That they knew the terrorists had just entered the country and they intentionally kept that information from the US counter terrorism organization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzP9YJpBubk

@ 4:40

The way he rationalized the CIA not telling the anti terrorist agency known terrorists began entering the country is that he thinks the CIA may have been trying to "convert" the terrorists into CIA assets in order to send them back to Al Qaeda to gather intelligence. That in order to turn them into assets they had to do it in secret without letting the USA's counter terrorism agency know. That just sounds absurd. I see it as circumstantial evidence the CIA probably let the attacks happen. For all I know the entire plan was concocted by the CIA in the same manner undercover cops try to get political activists to commit crimes. Who knows? All we're left with are little tidbits like the interview in the video above. When Richard Clarke looks at the interviewers and says "I don't know why the the CIA didn't tell us, you ask yourself why not?" I think he's trying to say something without saying it. (6:00 - 6:15 mark in the video)

There's a lot of small things like this that pop up and keep me unwilling to say for sure what happened. This particular interview makes it look like the CIA knew about it and let it happen.

3teew3

TAEHSAEN

Hey Mike, I'm really grateful that you've stepped in. I absolutely respect your opinion to the full extent

Well yeah, their name's Mike and not Flower Princess.

So, TAE, had you actually been interested in learning more about "Marxism", these are the sorts of questions you should have been asking (although while Marx is generally highly respected on this site, I don't think there's a single poster who considers themselves a "Marxist").

Instead, you dragged up some 3 year old thread and ended your first long, rambling post with "unless you want to remain ignorant" or some crap like that. Now, smiley face or no smiley face, that's going to get peoples' backs up.

Your understanding of communism, revolution, and the state is pretty different from what libertarian communists would suggest.

States can't be communist. Class revolutions aren't spontaneous. There needs to be a period of building up of class power and confidence first and I don't think any regular poster subscribes to the purely immiseration theory of revolution. And while Occupy had some exciting elements, it had some serious, serious shortcomings.

If I was you, I'd shut down your libcom account, read these, and then come back in a few weeks with a different attitude and perhaps some questions if, indeed, your goal here is to "learn":

http://libcom.org/library/libcom-introductory-guide

Joseph Kay

TAEHSAEN

Hey Mike, I'm really grateful that you've stepped in. I absolutely respect your opinion to the full extent

Well yeah, their name's Mike and not Flower Princess.

Princess Mike. You can call me that. If you like.

Taehsaen has a lot of respect for guys.

Factvalue:

I have some clarifications. It's a really long post so I'll put it up in several posts, I'd hate to have to have to type it more than once if the internet crashes (which it does a lot here ) and also I'm pretty sure I'l want to wander off for a tea break or a walk at some point.

You say

IT EXPLICITLY ASSUMES FROM THE BEGINNING THAT NO HEAT ESCAPES:

However, in it's calculations it includes heat loss to the whole mass of concrete, ie that the floors and ceilings heated up all the way through. Concrete is a very good insulator and in any reasonable time-frame ( ie 15 mins ) any net rise in temperature in the concrete would be negligible.

With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.’

Without taking time into account, this statement is misleading. If you are trying to calculate the maximum temperature reached, you cannot assume an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. My point being that the absorption of the heat will be predominately through the steel, which is a better conductor than concrete, and what has been calculated here is a hypothetical average of a closed system over an fully homogeneous environment. What they are assuming is that the inside and enclosing structure has exactly the same temperature. If you are looking at how hot it would have got then an average doesn't give you any indication at all. It doesn't give you peak temperature.
In reality in the Twin Towers (TT) the concrete would have taken hours to heat through fully, and even then you will have a temperature gradient, the outer surfaces hotter than the insides. This calculation assumes that the whole if the concrete absorbed the heat.
As I've already mentioned, concrete is a very poor conductor of heat. Using a simple example, I have a glass kiln which heats up to 1200 degrees centigrade, which is basically a concrete (with perlite) box with a heating element. Heated up to this temperature and maintained for half an hour, the interior is 1200 degrees but if I put my hand on the lid it is hot but not hot enough to cause a burn. This lid is only around 4 inches (no, I'm not going off and measuring it now :) )
The concrete in the building would have kept energy loss down, just like a furnace ie the heat's not leaving the system through it.
There's nothing wrong with the actual math in this article but the math required to calculate a maximum temperature requires more information than I actually have available, and presumably available to them, and far less straightforward than the math needed to calculate an average. You have to take into account elapsed time, oxygen supply, which wouldn't have been homogeneous, location of the fire, combustibles within the office/space, energy losses due to gas escape through open windows,energy loss due to conduction, energy loss due to the product water remaining - complete combustion of Jet A will result in carbon dioxide and water. This water will be held as steam, which relative to room temperature represents a significant energy loss. As you can see, it's bloody complicated and you won't get a definitive answer.
Typically in the aircraft industry people tell how hot a fire was by investigating what metals have melted, It sounds a like like doing it backwards but empirical evidence is my reliable than the modelling. And there is a whole range of metals present with known temperatures at which they melt. It's much easier than doing mathematical models in which you have to make all sorts of weird assumptions in order to make the math handleable. Any models always need to be tested in the physical world because they are unreliable. This is the difference between physics and engineering ;)
*saving and leg stretching*

I didn't realize that there were survivors from the crash site, it was 12 years ago and I don't remember all the details, my overall memory of the days after 9/11 have more or less coalesced into remember the sheer horror of what happened. Anyway, kudos to them. In the case of Donovan Cowan, he was in an elevator shaft and protected on three sides from the initial blast by the concrete lift shaft. The other two survivors were less specific (in the article quoted here) about where they were at the point of impact, but it's not a far fetched assumption that they must have been shielded to some extent from the initial flame by their surroundings.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW SURVIVORS GOT THROUGH THE FURIOUSLY HOT CONCRETE CRASH FLOOR FURNACES TO THE GROUND AFTER SPENDING 15 MINUTES COLLECTING THEIR THOUGHTS?

We're not saying that it would heat up instantly, which is why I keep mentioning time and the locality of the fire. Certainly the concrete floors would not have been too hot to impede movement after 15 minutes and the air temperature would depend on location.

How long does a jet flame take to get going? What do you mean by get going? I'll try to answer that one. Ignition is almost instantaneous. In laminar flame (roughly, the normal combustion following a steady flame front) the maximum speed of flame is slightly more than 36 cm per second. According to Donovan Cowan's eyewitness account, where he felt an intense heat for 15-20 seconds, this would suggest that the flame travelled much faster than the above laminar flame and hence was a turbulent flame, suggesting that it burnt very fuel rich, travelling with the expanding gas and oxygen supply, leaving behind it a large amount of unburnt material. This is consistent with what you can see on the footage of the crash, something which looks like a fireball and it would also suggest that the fuel tanks ruptured on impact, a scenario which would not be unexpected. After this initial burst, the remaining fuel and unburnt material would continue burning but at a rate controlled by oxygen supply. ie the initial flame burnt dramatically on exposure to the air and after that would carry on burning at a slower rate.The slower rate of burn, being in an enclosed environment, would cause it to burn sooty. The black smoke coming from the crash site would support this. There was an oxygen supply, not least from the gaping hole in the building but it was restricted. In addition, I would suppose that the other burning materials in the building, carpets, ceiling tiles, desks etc, would have added to the black smoke. I would suggest that after the initial flame, it burnt black due to unburnt carbon caused by burning fuel with the lesser oxygen supply, as you suggested.
I'll just clarify something I said in a previous post, saying that the whole fuel couldn't go up instantaneously, as there is a rate of burn. I should have added, although it didn't seem necessary at the time when addressing the giant fireball scenario, that there is a maximum rate of burn, depending of the oxygen supply. ie rocket fuel has a pressurized oxygen supply mixed with it to make it burn faster but the velocity of the flame has to be kept down, else it flames out.
This is why I emphasize the large quantity of fuel and I am not confusing heat with temperature. If the heat is not being conducted away, the temperature within the confined area or volume between the insulating floor and ceiling could locally rise to sufficient to melt steel. I'm not assuming that there was melted steel, I'm asserting that it was possible to melt steel in these circumstances. If we can agree that concrete will act as an insulator, then the temperature would continue to rise, even if the relative heat of the flame is insufficient. ie the 1 amp heating element in my kiln can raise the temperature over time and within an enclosed environment to 1200.
In short, I agree that it would seem to imply a low intensity flame in a fuel-rich environment. A 1200 K flame, as long as it is continuing to generate heat in a confined space will continue to raise the temperature
I'm not sure why you are only looking at radiant transfer? Is there something I don't know about the location of the fire?
I can see no evidence in the footage of a flash of white fire from the aluminium of the plane, but it wouldn't necessarily have been visible from the outside of the building anyway,it was enclosed. Aluminium from planes tends to melt (because it conducts heat so well) before it burns, so it wouldn't necessarily go up in one enormous fire.

I’VE HEARD IT SAID QUITE OFTEN THAT THE TOWERS WERE GIANT SAILS DESIGNED FOR WINDS OF UP TO 30 TIMES THE WEIGHT OF A 767

The impact would have been driven by momentum - how heavy x how fast it was going - and the area of impact, which is a lot smaller than the area of the the whole side of the building. It's a question of force over impact. The impact of the wind would have been spread over a larger surface area of the building. As for the load due to the weight of the plane, a vertical point load is different to an evenly distributed horizontal load. It was designed to take a horizontal force (over a larger area) but not the vertical point load of the plane on the floor. My floor's not strong enough to take the load of a large fish tank but the walls are strong enough to take a hurricane (fingers crossed.)

I'm afraid I know nothing about Kevin Ryan. Maybe I'll look into it but quite honestly I'm getting a little bit fatigued of 9/11

*bbl*

Thanks for taking the time to gently clarify your reasoning for me Fleur. I took an MEng out of curiosity a few years back and got a hard time from the course organiser for being the only physicist there (it was like being in a big brass band with a clarinet). You've certainly settled some things for me and - given the nature of this infuriating subject - also raised some new ones. So perhaps you should have a well earned break from 911 and I'll get back to you in a couple of days if I have anything relevant to say in reply.

factvalue

Thanks for taking the time to gently clarify your reasoning for me Fleur. I took an MEng out of curiosity a few years back and got a hard time from the course organiser for being the only physicist there (it was like being in a big brass band with a clarinet). You've certainly settled some things for me and - given the nature of this infuriating subject - also raised some new ones. So perhaps you should have a well earned break from 911 and I'll get back to you in a couple of days if I have anything relevant to say in reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

At the 56:26 mark in the video the "debate" between 9/11 people and the NIST official explanation for the collapse of the buildings takes place although it's not a debate it's essentially 9/11 truth "refuting" the "official story".

I can see how maybe perhaps fire weakened the structure at the impact site but what NIST refuses to do is explain how the small top section of the building completely demolished the remaining majority section of the building which was undamaged AND how it did so in about ten seconds.

deleted

Mike S.

I can see how maybe perhaps fire weakened the structure at the impact site but what NIST refuses to do is explain how the small top section of the building completely demolished the remaining majority section of the building which was undamaged AND how it did so in about ten seconds.

the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

I can see how maybe perhaps fire weakened the structure at the impact site but what NIST refuses to do is explain how the small top section of the building completely demolished the remaining majority section of the building which was undamaged AND how it did so in about ten seconds.

the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

1:15:12 and beyond, in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

I can see how maybe perhaps fire weakened the structure at the impact site but what NIST refuses to do is explain how the small top section of the building completely demolished the remaining majority section of the building which was undamaged AND how it did so in about ten seconds.

the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

1:15:12 and beyond, in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

nothing there contradicts what i said. if you think it does describe what and how, don't like to videos which just go on about the same point for minutes at a time

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

I can see how maybe perhaps fire weakened the structure at the impact site but what NIST refuses to do is explain how the small top section of the building completely demolished the remaining majority section of the building which was undamaged AND how it did so in about ten seconds.

the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

1:15:12 and beyond, in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

nothing there contradicts what i said. if you think it does describe what and how, don't like to videos which just go on about the same point for minutes at a time

The plane hit WTC1 between the 93'd and 99'th floors. This means about 90 floors were completely demolished, pulverized, in ten seconds. The NIST report says the building fell in ten seconds, this isn't from 9/11 truth people. First off, why would the top part of the building also not be demolished and how can 90 floors be pulverized in ten seconds? This means there was an almost simultaneous complete structural failure of the floors, the exterior support beams and the interior core beams.

Anyhow, 1:18:53 in the video is a little more precise concerning the question of why or how this happened. According to them the government agency given the task to explain the total simultaneous structural failure refused to do so. And you didn't even watch the video because, well, you responded to my post too fast.

And of course the building wasn't built to withstand the top 1/8 of the building falling down on the bottom 7/8 but don't you think there would be some resistance or would 9 floors per second just completely give next to no resistance, including the exterior columns and interior core beams. It seems the collapse would take longer. 9 floors per second is pretty spectacular.

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

I can see how maybe perhaps fire weakened the structure at the impact site but what NIST refuses to do is explain how the small top section of the building completely demolished the remaining majority section of the building which was undamaged AND how it did so in about ten seconds.

the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

1:15:12 and beyond, in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

nothing there contradicts what i said. if you think it does describe what and how, don't like to videos which just go on about the same point for minutes at a time

The plane hit WTC1 between the 93'd and 99'th floors. This means about 90 floors were completely demolished, pulverized, in ten seconds. The NIST report says the building fell in ten seconds, this isn't from 9/11 truth people. First off, why would the top part of the building also not be demolished and how can 90 floors be pulverized in ten seconds? This means there was an almost simultaneous complete structural failure of the floors, the exterior support beams and the interior core beams.

The top part undoubtedly took damage, but the dust from the collapse would have made this nearly impossible to see, and more importantly, every floor and structural element that was smashed added to the falling mass. The upper part of the building didn't smash through teh rest of the building, each floor it destroyed added to it.

Mike S.

Anyhow, 1:18:53 in the video is a little more precise concerning the question of why or how this happened. According to them the government agency given the task to explain the total simultaneous structural failure refused to do so. And you didn't even watch the video because, well, you responded to my post too fast.

i didn't watch the whole video because the bit i did watch was just going on and on about "how could the lower floor have been broken so easily" despite the fact that its quite obvious that they couldn't provided any real resistance to that mass of falling steal and concrete. Its like saying an avalanche must have been staged because the snow lower down the mounting didnt slow the snow falling for the top.

Mike S.

And of course the building wasn't built to withstand the top 1/8 of the building falling down on the bottom 7/8 but don't you think there would be some resistance or would 9 floors per second just completely give next to no resistance, including the exterior columns and interior core beams. It seems the collapse would take longer. 9 floors per second is pretty spectacular.

It did provide resistance, thats why it was slower than free fall.

Maybe this will help, it describes the collapse a little http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

radicalgraffiti, free fall would've been 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds is basically free fall. The undamaged exterior columns, core columns and floors all had to essentially evaporate simultaneously around the entire perimeter and within the core structure. What you posted is the "Pancake Theory" which the NIST tests themselves showed couldn't have happened in 10 seconds. NIST is the government agency given the task to explain the collapse. They essentially, after doing lab tests on models and discarding the "Pancake Theory", refused to explain the collapse any further than this:

The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

They explain the initiation of the collapse as being caused by heat bowing the perimeter columns but their own tests couldn't account for the almost complete lack of resistance in the ensuing collapse(s). In fact, the speed would have had to actually accelerate so in lieu of the remaining in tact/undamaged structure slowing down collapse it actually sped up as the building disintegrated.

Please also note I don't consider myself a "truther" and am not deeply emotionally invested in whether or not it was foreign terrorism or if the the US state had a hand in it. My big thing that keeps me from 100% saying it was "terrorism" is I remember reading "The Grand Chessboard" before 9/11 happened, I remember the emphasis put on how important it was for America's future to control the Middle East both for resources/profit but more importantly to have a big economic and military presence in "Eurasia" to keep any one nation on the entire "Eurasian" continent from being able to challenge US hegemony. The subsequent PNAC publication (which I wasn't aware of until after 9/11) was basically echoing Brzezinski's main points that it was absolutely vital that the US control resources in the Middle East and get a large military presence in 'Central Asia and North Africa' while adding HUGE amounts of funding to the military. They wanted to be able to side step the UN and gain support of the US population for overseas military operations. The future of America, as they saw it, depended on this happening. They said it would be an extremely unlikely scenario unless a "new Pearl Harbor" type attack took place. One year later a new Pearl Harbor type attack took place.

Even if it wasn't a controlled demolition, and I'm perfectly open to the collapse not being a controlled demolition, there's still the possibility the CIA used terrorists to attack the US and or let it happen. I think it could also very well be just a bunch of coincidences, the supposed stand down order, the CIA not telling the Anti Terrorism unit about the terrorists entering the US, the strange aerial maneuver the pilot did approaching the Pentagon in so hitting the building from ground level in a scarcely populated section of the building, the terrorists passport being found in the rubble, the refusal to release any viable footage of the Pentagon crash, the head of Pakistani ISI allegedly sending funds to the hijackers and on 9/11 having a meeting with Richard Armitage (a former member of PNAC)....on and on.

In the end neither of us will be able to prove it was simply terrorists or that the US intelligence agencies let it happen or had a hand in planning it. At the end of the day the representatives of capital in the USA got what they wanted- a new Pearl Harbor attack, a population ready to support foreign intervention, a population willing to increase the military budget, a "global pass" in the UN to wage war basically anywhere "terrorists" are hiding etc and so on. Another coincidence. I'm still undecided. I'm not sure why so many people think the US government wouldn't kill 2,000 of its own citizens. They kill millions elsewhere on a fairly routine basis (historically speaking).

you early said the NIST didn't investigate how the collapse proceeded once it began, now your saying they did tests on it?

radicalgraffiti

you early said the NIST didn't investigate how the collapse proceeded once it began, now your saying they did tests on it?

And their own tests disproved their "Pancake Theory" at which point they dropped trying to explain why the in tact portion of the building gave no resistance. They stopped addressing the issue all together and only focused on what caused the initial failure in the area where the planes hit. I'm pretty sure they ignored building 7 all together.

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

you early said the NIST didn't investigate how the collapse proceeded once it began, now your saying they did tests on it?

And their own tests disproved their "Pancake Theory" at which point they dropped trying to explain why the in tact portion of the building gave no resistance. They stopped addressing the issue all together and only focused on what caused the initial failure in the area where the planes hit. I'm pretty sure they ignored building 7 all together.

i'm pretty sure you dont know what your talking about, i posted a link the NIST report on building 7 earlier in this thread, do you get all your information on what they said from truther propaganda?

Look, it's simple. When a building collapses, everyone on the internet becomes an expert in structural engineering. When a war starts in the Republic of Whateverarea, everyone on the internet becomes an expert on Whateverarean politics and history. That's how the internet works.

2343trew

The rule of the game is that anything that goes against the official story is automatically a conspiracy theory and only crazy people believe in these theories.

I'm pretty sure that the official line is that free markets and capitalism are, ya know, the bench marks of democracy, freedom, and progress. I don't think socialists are labeled conspiracy theorists, despite their opposition to the "official story".

What does approach a conspiracy, however, is the idea bankers are consciously pulling all the strings in some dark room somewhere, as opposed to the logical and often unconscious working of capital as a concept and a social relationship.

Which brings me to my next point, I don't think anyone on libcom considers themselves a Leftist. Seriously, TAE, if you're going to try and engage folks on this site about politics, either ask some questions first or read those intro threads I linked to a while back.

Finally, terrorism isn't about "strategic advantage", war is. Terrorism is about, essentially, terrorizing people. Attacking a high profile, highly symbolic target like the WTC is incredibly effective terrorism. It leaves people feeling scared and vulnerable. And that's the point of terrorism.

Everyone on these forums knows the War on Terror is a farce. I mean, Jesus, we've all read Chomsky. The US gov't is undeniably the largest terrorist organisation in the world and the "war on terror" is a thinly-veiled attempt to enact imperialist foreign policy objectives. No f*cking sh*t. Don't f*cking patronize us.

How did the US know it was Bin Laden? Probably because they'd had their eye on him for decades, he'd attacked the WTC before, and that they'd had vague warning that something was in the works. Also, I don't remember OBL ever denying responsibility, can you provide a link?

TAEHSAEN

The CIA coined the term conspiracy theory and the media portrayed these conspiracy theorists as nuts and loons.

Not that I want to bring your scholarly research skills into disrepute or anything, but a cursory thirty second wiki search reveals that the OED cites the first use of "conspiracy theory" to 1909 and other sources to at least forty years earlier than that. Now the CIA was formed in 1947, so unless they've had their Time Travel Department working overtime to plant misinformation throughout history, I think you are barking up the wrong tree with that one.

I'd also point out that the media (both entertainment and news) does quite a lot to push conspiracy theories itself, and conspiracy thinking, rather more so than it disparages conspiracy theorists (which it certainly does do, sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly). Movies depicting government/corporate conspiracies are extremely common in Hollywood - and arguably this line of argument is used to steer people away from structural and class theories about how capitalism and government operate (and cooperate). Also, Glen Beck et al.

Also I can't remember if anyone already mentioned this: http://libcom.org/library/against-conspiracy-theories-why-our-activism-must-be-based-reality

YESSS!!!!

Edit: Yes, as in that's an awesome post. Not that someone has suggested that piece before.

I don't know if somebody else have already linked this, but if Taehsaen has the time, he should also give this a try: http://libcom.org/library/how-overthrow-illuminati.

Even if 9/11 was an inside job, and the conspiracy theorists somehow prove to the world that it is all true, where is it going to lead us? Revolution? I mean, what's the point? Are they finally going to abandon their internet career, and step outside for once and absorb the fresh air?

What do you want TAEHSAEN? What do you want? Do you want to prosecute the Bush administration? You want to see "justice" or something like that? Is the world going to be purified of its sins?

I could only imagine what a big budget Hollywood movie would be like if it was created by conspiracy theorists. The film that explains it all after the "truth" has been revealed.

Factvalue:

Thanks for taking the time to gently clarify your reasoning for me Fleur.

You're welcome. I'm totally impressed that you took an MEng "out of curiosity. That's some serious curiosity you've got. :) I figured that a Zeitgeist break was a good thing too, it's so utterly infuriating a subject. However, where was I......?

You have to bear in mind that I am discussing this with a mechanical engineer who thinks, as I do, that of all the theories, this is the most plausible. This seems to be the majority opinion, especially amongst engineers with expertise and experience in the aerospace business. He has never met anyone in the last 12 years with relevant experience about aircraft crashes who disagree with the theory that the TT collapsed as a consequence of being hit by planes. The NIST hypothesis fits the available evidence. However, like all theories, it is only a theory, which is essentially imperial and based on current knowledge and experience. The very nature of the event, ie it has never happened before, previous experience is incomplete, and given the total destruction of the "crime scene" much evidence is lost.
However, this theory is in the majority opinion of people, with pertinent experience, is the most likely. That's the best you can expect. People who search for the absolute "Truth" won't find it. And those who claim to know the Truth are wandering into the realms of belief and speculation, rather than evidence-based investigation. The Truth is out there? No, it's not, only reasonable extrapolation from the evidence presented. The NIST report never claimed to be the Truth, only a detailed investigation of evidence and presented a theory. Truthers who hold up the NIST report and find things in it which they don't agree with and use this as evidence of a conspiracy are missing the very point of what it is. It's not the Truth, it's a report.
What is particularly infuriating about the conspiracy theory is that it presents itself as The Truth. This is at the very least naive. No investigation, whether it's a car crash, a plane crash or a fire ever claims to be the Truth. They are reports on the most likely causes and effects and are often presented as an opportunity to learn. Looking at a disaster retrospectively, evidence is destroyed, factors are unknown, data is incomplete, it is only possible to extrapolate from what you have. The absence of absolute proof doesn't mean that the entire theory is flawed, you go with the most plausible explanations. There is a temptation to fill gaps with speculation, but it is just that, speculation. And there will always be gaps. We do not know everything about anything.
The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are by far the minority opinion. They are entitled to their opinions but it is worth noting that amongst the 130 or so of them there are very few with actual pertinent experience. They include computer engineers, chemical engineers, hydraulic engineers, electrical engineers. 130 sounds like a lot but you have to bear in mind there are around 14,000 engineers working in New York State alone. They are very few. Their very title is unscientific - Engineers For Truth. You cannot claim to have found The Truth, only reasonable explanations. The Truth isn't going to rise from the rubble. If you want to find the Truth, go see a priest. He'll tell you that he has it.
We're we lied to, we're things covered up concerning 9/11? Hell yes. Authorities and individuals do this all the time. So many things leading up to and on 9/11 failed, do you really thing that there wasn't a shit load of ass covering going on? But Truther logic in this is a bit like if it looks like a duck, then this bit of logic happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Absolutely agree with you on the ‘truth’. I’ve always wondered at Troofers lack of self-awareness in positing an oxymoronic scientific truth – there can’t be many philosophers of science among them. Then again, empirical knowledge is impossible without theory and historically, physics in particular has progressed by sticking out its theoretical neck to open up new domains of empirical research.

Anyway I’ve a few more things I’d like to run past you but I don’t want to waste your time if I can find the answers for myself. Apart from that I’ve had the most surprising and appalling gut rot over the past 30 hours and although off work have not been too inclined to look at screens for too long. But it’s a breath of fresh air to hear sensible opinions on this subject and I will run more stuff past you when I get a break if you’re game.

I also think that this misconception of science as divine is very widespread and certainly not restricted to conspiracy goonies.

Joseph K wrote;

Look, it's simple. When a building collapses, everyone on the internet becomes an expert in structural engineering. When a war starts in the Republic of Whateverarea, everyone on the internet becomes an expert on Whateverarean politics and history. That's how the internet works.

That’s disgraceful, surely they haven’t been properly ordained! What you describe sounds a lot like bog standard scientific peer review, which although often effective tends to work to protect expected results and conventional experiments. In peer review there isn’t any real reason to try to replicate other peoples’ work, unless it’s of true significance or when fraud is suspected, which rarely happens. This is particularly the case since scientific journals only value original research. It can often take a long time before requests to see others’ data are answered. And where external supervision is in place, such as when new synthetic foods are tested for safety falsified data is found all the time.

But results in accord with the current expectations and prejudices of normal science are welcomed by the mainstream majority and fraud regularly goes unseen and unchallenged by peer review, particularly if it is perpetrated by ‘experts’ from our top elitist institutions. Acceptance of fraudulent results is the flip side of the usual resistance to uncomfortable or challenging ideas. In order to protect their reputations and expense accounts and mortgages reviewing scientists bet almost exclusively on what they believe to be safe research and refuse to review anything really controversial for fear of ostracism. These results are then published in big name journals and sometimes, after a decent interval has elapsed, they are withdrawn with as little fuss as possible when they are shown to be fraudulent or incompetent, so as to save face and to protect one or another article of scientific faith. They are also hushed up for the obvious reasons of protecting the institutions’ reputations and maintaining science in its position as the first truly global belief system. See anything on Jan Hendrik Schoen, the nanotechnologist at Bell Labs, who won three prestigious awards and who had twenty-eight papers published in Nature and Science after peer review, or Marc Hauser, professor of biology at Harvard and vocal atheist, whose published research had claimed evidence that morality is an inherited instinct. Neither of these frauds were detected by peer-review.

For the high priests of science, the validity of scientific results is only narrowly more important than our belief in it. So one article of scientific faith is that fraud is rare and unimportant because science is self-correcting, effectively perfect, like god. Heretics and whistleblowers are aware that they will be persecuted should they dare say anything.

This is not to say that the opposite pole is to be preferred:

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/disinfo_wars_alex_jones_war_on_your_mind/

Factvalue:

Concerning nanothermites. I concede that nanothermites exist (and look pretty cool) what I won't agree to is that the line that the Truthers take, that they're very special, only available from secret military, hush-hush, block-ops labs, used in covert operations. They're just thermites, but small. Hence nano. Thermites being a pyrotechnic mixture of metal powder fuel and metal oxides. What I won't agree is that the nanothermites allegedly found at Ground Zero are real, and given that Jones won't hand them over for independent analysis I would suggest that no-one else has the capability to decide whether the Ground Zero nanothermites are real too.
The first paper you posted actually highlights that the infrared signature of iron oxides are very difficult to differentiate from each other. ie you cannot differentiate between thermites and, say rust. Then, in the video posted, which uses Jones' investigations on the subject, the signature of iron oxides is posted and because it looks similar, it concludes it's thermite. It could in fact be any of a number of things which you would expect to have found at Ground Zero.
Which brings me to that video . The paper they are talking about is the one produced by Jones et al and they describe it as being published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. It was actually published in a Bentham Science Publishers journal. Bentham is an organization which has been variously described as a vanity press or a scam. They're generally regarded as a nuisance by many academics, who are spammed with solicitations for submissions of papers, often on subjects they are not qualified in. The peer review process is a joke. There was one occasion when a computer-generated paper of utter gibberish, in the names of fictitious academics, from the Center for Research in Applied Phenology CRAP , was submitted to Bentham and it was accepted, the acceptance letter clearly stating that it had been peer reviewed. They're basically run out of a series of PO Boxes and will publish any old crap, if you're willing to pay for it. This is the only publication Jones has submitted his nanothermites at Ground Zero paper too and this was too much even for the associate editor at that particular Bentham publication, who resigned because they published it without showing it to her or anyone else. Similarly, he won't submit his samples to anyone else outside his little group. However, for the bargain price of $20 plus p&p, you can buy a DVD from Jones, in which he can flog you his flawed bill of goods.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/steven-jones-is-literally-selling-his-nanothermite-story/

Whatever they made in that Truther video (not the Jones one, which I haven't seen), and it might well have been thermite, it didn't even blow up the pyrex flask it was in. It damaged the lid but the flask was intact. So much for the idea that they are super-explosive micro-particles, which when applied to a thin layer of paint on the ceilings of the TT they would bring the building down. That would have to be one seriously thick layer of paint.
The issue of nanothermites is controversial even in Truther circles, that is some people feel that it's so far-fetched that it makes the whole movement look ridiculous. I found this video, rather conveniently planted by the Rockerfellers I expect, which gives a plausible explanation as to why the components which can be found in thermites were found at Ground Zero - they're all common components in the building materials, building contents and the planes. And notably, explains which by-products would be present if there had been, in Jones' estimation, 300 pounds of thermite. They're not there. Not even Jones has found them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do&feature=player_embedded

Which brings us to that whole it looked like a controlled demolition theory. Er, no it didn't. Firstly, in my opinion the bringing down the WTC in a controlled demolition doesn't bear scrutiny, not least because it would have been a colossal operation to set up and carry through. Sometimes I think people have simply lost sight of just how big those buildings were. The whole building would have had to be rigged. So people went in there, prior to 9/11 and painted the place with enough nanothermite to bring it down? This would take weeks, months or a team of black-op decorators, in buildings which employed tens of thousands of people, which had people on the premises 24/7, and nobody noticed this?
Thermites, nano or otherwise, in themselves are not sufficient to cut through such large girders as in the TT and would require massive amounts of explosives. Also, no-one noticed this, as the CIA interior design crew were setting this up. Let's also remember, the WTC was a highly security conscious building, having had already one attempt by Al Qaeda to blow it up. (Or was that a set-up too?) So, presumably the maintenance department and the security department were in on it too? And by extrapolation, the Port Authority? It seems to me that the bigger a conspiracy grows, the more likely it is to collapse in on itself. The amount of explosives needed to sever the enormous steel girders in the TT is estimated to have generated a blast of 130-140 decibels and could have been clearly audible half a mile away, which is a far cry from the smaller explosions going off in the building as a result of exploding transformers etc.
In addition, to the controlled demolition taking weeks to set up, unnoticed, a demolition of a building this size it would have required the girders to have been pre-cut, rendering the building unstable and dangerous for the people inside. Surely someone would have spotted this? Did nobody notice a crew of people going in and cutting the girders? I would have thought it was something out of the ordinary. Finally, explosives would have had to be rigged throughout the floors, not just at the bottom. Given that Zeitgeist makes such a big deal of the poor piloting skills of the hijackers, how do you suppose they managed to so skillfully pilot those planes into just the right places so they didn't detonate some of these explosives on impact?
The thing is, when everyone says that it looks just like a controlled demoltion, it didn't really. It's just a question of comparing something you've never seen before to something similar. The building clearly starts collapsing from the top down. In a controlled demolition the building is demolished from the bottom up. In this article, there's a really cute little animation how this works. Just push the button.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

The controlled demolition theory is just where people have filled in gaps by speculation and of course you cannot definitively disprove it, despite the lack of solid evidence. On the other hand, I cannot definitively disprove that god didn't push the towers down, under his giant invisible thumb. You know god? He's the father of the guy who Steven Jones scientifically proved had definitely been on on road trip around America.

TAEHSEAN

Yes, there are lots of Muslim extremists who I passionately hate (for example those people who whip girls for getting raped)

:wall:

Yeah, those bloody MUSLIM EXTREMISTS not acknowledging or examining their own sexism.

Factvalue:

Happy to discuss further (seriously, I owe my engineer big time for this :) ) just give me a few days though.

I accept that peer review is not unbiased, or necessarily by peers, and that fraud happen. You can't fail to take into consideration, certainly is the case amongst people I know, that funding is often dependent on getting papers published, so economic factors are also at issue.
My problem with Jones, however, is that he won't submit his work or "evidence" to anyone outside his clique, making it impossible to evaluate. It's all very well selling DVDs, and giving powerpoint presentations but there's nobody else independently checking his work.
I also have a huge problem with the reverence accorded to science, treating it as you say the "first truly global belief system." Personally, I find it especially infuriating with the new breed of militant atheists, who seem to have substituted God and the church with science and it's high priests. People put their faith in "scientific fact" as if it's immovable, the one truth and not subject to change or even differences of interpretation

Apart from the Bentham fiasco Jones has also done some seriously dodgy work on a version of 'cold fusion', not to be confused with low energy nuclear reactions, which are currently being researched by over 200 communities worldwide. I started off wanting to believe that the new atheists were proto anarchist communists and I would still want to give them a chance to gear up if it wasn't that the ones I've come across personally seem to me to fit into the worst pattern of 'clash-of-civilizations' frightened, scientifically illiterate poltroonery.

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

you early said the NIST didn't investigate how the collapse proceeded once it began, now your saying they did tests on it?

And their own tests disproved their "Pancake Theory" at which point they dropped trying to explain why the in tact portion of the building gave no resistance. They stopped addressing the issue all together and only focused on what caused the initial failure in the area where the planes hit. I'm pretty sure they ignored building 7 all together.

i'm pretty sure you dont know what your talking about, i posted a link the NIST report on building 7 earlier in this thread, do you get all your information on what they said from truther propaganda?

You're right, I'm not shooting up 9/11 info like heroin. I think the 9/11 commission report left out building 7. Forgive my transgression. Like I said I don't much care if the buildings were demolished or not or if the US state let the attacks happen or planned them. I'm simply open to the idea that they did. I hesitantly take part in this conversation. At the end of the day the intelligentsia within the US state apparatus got what they wanted. A new "Pearl Harbor" type attack that would let them attempt to fulfill their geopolitical goals. The Brzezinski book I read back in 2000 even mentioned the need for a new Pearl Harbor attack. So we have Obama's national security adviser and the previous Neoconservative advisers (PNAC) saying (in 1998 and in 2000) the US needs to have a new Pearl Harbor type attack in order to gain support of the US population and to be able to side step the UN in order to achieve their geopolitical objectives and a couple years later one happens. That to me is just kinda...you know...very convenient.

Would they be that stupid to publicly speak about the need for attacks on the US and then go and facilitate them? I would think if the US state had anything to do with the attacks it was a case of the political intelligentsia speaking and the intelligence agencies listening to them. I wouldn't think the political establishment would have their hands in it. What I will say is I completely think it possible the US intelligence agencies had a hand in planning these attacks or let them happen. Just like I thin it completely possible JFK was killed by US intelligence. Just like I think it possible they let Japan attack Pearl Harbor so they would gain the US populations support to join WW2. What does this have to do with the fight for socialism? Not much at all.

TAEHSAEN

But as preachers of the extreme left, you people will have to remember your own teachings.

Stopped reading there. Sorry.

Chilli Sauce

How did the US know it was Bin Laden? Probably because they'd had their eye on him for decades, he'd attacked the WTC before, and that they'd had vague warning that something was in the works. Also, I don't remember OBL ever denying responsibility, can you provide a link?

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

[youtube]9WDhtthQwg8[/youtube]

TAEHSAEN:

Given that I've been so bogged down in talking about the events of 9/11, I have neglected to criticize some of the other things you've posted, such as

But as preachers of the extreme left, you people will have to remember your own teachings. Leftist people are the ones who say that no one is inherently evil and that our progression as a society is most important. Yet you go against these very beliefs when you buy into the massively ignorant concept that "terrorists attacked WTC just because they hate America's freedom and liberty". If Osama Bin Laden actually wanted to hurt US, he would have strategically planned it (given that he was a CIA agent in the past). He would have formed coalitions and attacked US military bases and ships to cripple them in the middle east. He would not waste his time attacking buildings that will give him no strategic advantage.

Firstly, this is not a leftist site. It would be to your advantage if you were to do some investigation of your own into political ideologies. For one thing, you confuse TZM for Marxism and you certainly have scant idea what libertarian communism/anarchism is.
But specifically, this

If Osama Bin Laden actually wanted to hurt US, he would have strategically planned it (given that he was a CIA agent in the past). He would have formed coalitions and attacked US military bases and ships to cripple them in the middle east. He would not waste his time attacking buildings that will give him no strategic advantage.

And also, somewhere earlier you said that he would have formed a coalition with Middle Eastern countries to attack Israel. Are you confusing Al Qaeda for some kind of mighty military force? Do you have some particular inside track on what was going on in the mind of OBL? So, he'd form a coalition. Him and whose armies? You do know that they were living in caves in Afghanistan, in exchange for wads of cash given to the Taliban, because they were persona non-grata everywhere else? So where's this coalition coming from? Let's have a little Cooks tour of some of the various governments in the region at that time. Syria, run by Assad and the Alawite minority. No, not very sympathetic to Al Qaeda's ideology there. Jordan, run by a royal family with historical ties to the British, American educated and pro-western king. Not natural allies. Yemen, dirt-poor and unstable since unification. Not exactly armed to the teeth. Not a good candidate for taking on the US and Israel. Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, very friendly to US interests. Iraq. Immensely hostile to Al Qaeda and the feeling was mutual. For all the atrocities committed by Saddam and the Ba'ath Party, they did the one thing OBL really despised - they established a secular government in the middle east. Iran, not Arab,a Shi'ite theocracy, not exactly compatible with OBL's Wahhabi ideology. And let's think about all those monarchies in the Gulf region. Oil-rich and extremely close to western powers. Would you think they wanted to be replaced with OBL's ideal Wahhabi Caliphate? Also, do you really imagine, that for all their rhetoric, any of these governments actually give a toss about the plight of the Palestinians? Do you see much evidence of this? Little clue in 2nd, 3rd generation Palestinian refugees still living in refugee camps. Can we just completely discount any ridiculous idea that OBL was going to get together a coalition of Arab counties and take on the US and Israel. It's beyond absurd that anyone is going to attack Israel, nuclear armed, massive amounts of conventional weapons and the biggest back-up in the world. It doesn't take much imagination to think what kind of retribution would happen. And dollars to donuts, Europe would defend Israel too.
So, no nation and therefore army is going to join a coalition with OBL. What about the people, you may ask? You do realize that Al Qaeda enjoys little popular support? You don't think that just because a lot of people in the middle east are hostile to their governments and western intervention that they are naturally inclined to the ideologies of OBL? It's a bit, my enemies enemy is your friend bullshit. So we have very little support, none amongst people who actually have any military. So what do they do? They employ terrorist tactics. And on that strength, it was very successful, and raised Al Qaeda from a small, localized entity to a global one, now able to recruit in the west.

attacked US military bases and ships

They did this. You do realize that the attack on the USS Cole was attacked by Al Qaeda? There were Al Qaeda attacks on US interests, military and otherwise going back to the 1990s? The Yemen Hotel bombing in 92, where US troops were billeted on their way to Somalia, The WTC in 93, American military killed in the Saudi National Guard Training Center 95, the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 98, as well as many attacks on non-US targets in Saudi Arabia. But none of these got the publicity or the impact of 9/11 and it's kind of difficult attacking the military, if you are not an army yourself. It is far easier to attack non-military targets, and given OBL had repeatedly stated his attention to attack America, and expressed opinions to have another go at the WTC, I was absolutely astounded on 9/11 that it took the news media so long to work it out. I am, however, even more astonished in 2013 to find myself arguing with someone who thinks that Al Qaeda had no motivation or strategic plan in doing so.

I read this philosophy lecturer's draft of a paper - Critical Thinking About Conspiracy Theories - back when the Loose Change films were coming out. I can't remember much about it other than that the outcome for me was rejecting the 9/11 conspiracy theories and the dodgy thinking around them... So I'm just leaving it here (with no promise about its quality!)

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Which brings us to that whole it looked like a controlled demolition theory. Er, no it didn't. Firstly, in my opinion the bringing down the WTC in a controlled demolition doesn't bear scrutiny, not least because it would have been a colossal operation to set up and carry through. Sometimes I think people have simply lost sight of just how big those buildings were. The whole building would have had to be rigged. So people went in there, prior to 9/11 and painted the place with enough nanothermite to bring it down? This would take weeks, months or a team of black-op decorators, in buildings which employed tens of thousands of people, which had people on the premises 24/7, and nobody noticed this?

The 9/11 theorists also say weeks before the attack there were entire floors shut down, having no office tenants in them, with some type of construction taking place where the elevators wouldn't even stop on the designated floors and there was also a large revamping of electronic systems which had a lot of various workers in the building with access to the elevator shafts during which, in the first time in the buildings history, a power down took place which took out ALL of the security systems for a day (36 hours). I can find the videos where they interview the WTC security team and various workers who heard strange drilling and construction noises talking place weeks prior to the attacks. I'm sure you'll request this so give me some time to find it. The important part is there was crews with access to the elevator shafts which is the only way to access the core beams. Workers described hearing extremely loud banging, drilling and moving of heavy objects that actually shook the floor weeks prior to the attacks.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

1:00 - the 6:30 mark in the video they talk of the construction and power down. There's another interview I can find with a security worker talking about it.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Thermites, nano or otherwise, in themselves are not sufficient to cut through such large girders as in the TT and would require massive amounts of explosives. The amount of explosives needed to sever the enormous steel girders in the TT is estimated to have generated a blast of 130-140 decibels and could have been clearly audible half a mile away, which is a far cry from the smaller explosions going off in the building as a result of exploding transformers etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec5npXUR3KI

fleurnoire-et-rouge

The thing is, when everyone says that it looks just like a controlled demoltion, it didn't really. It's just a question of comparing something you've never seen before to something similar. The building clearly starts collapsing from the top down. In a controlled demolition the building is demolished from the bottom up. In this article, there's a really cute little animation how this works. Just push the button.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

That's simply not true. Buildings are demolished from the top down as well. Would you like to see some videos of top down demolitions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

The 6:35 mark in the video above addresses your point concerning controlled demolitions taking place from the bottom up.

I have no comment on Steven Jones and his alleged chips of nanothermite what I will say is they shipped off most of the steel before an actual investigation could take place which would be routine in any other structural failure of that magnitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

^ 1:18:53 mark and beyond in the video. How did the top piece of the building simply pulverize the lower half which wasn't damaged? This hasn't been explained. Just a total simultaneous structural failure with no resistance? If you feel like "debenking" something watch the video above, it's about ten minutes, and give your opinion on how the top part of the building simply cut through the majority of the undamaged building like butter, well, like it was thin air.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

TAEHSAEN:

. For one thing, you confuse TZM for Marxism and you certainly have scant idea what libertarian communism/anarchism is.

Which is painfully obvious in this debate:

[youtube]vUtv5E6CkLE[/youtube]

Let me count the ways in which I could rip apart anarcho capitalism with sound materialist analysis, mainly historical materialism showing how the rise of the modern state went hand in hand with the market system in so showing the impossibility of stateless capitalism. The Peter Joseph guy means well but he simply doesn't have the knowledge base to understand the system and defend communist(ic) goals while deflecting classical liberal theory. I give him an A for effort though.

SCIENCE, CONSPIRACY AND REALITY go figure

SCIENCE, CONSPIRACY AND REALITY go figure

Jason Cortez

SCIENCE, CONSPIRACY AND REALITY go figure

Ya, some people have the ability to separate speculation and materialist analysis. Go figure.

Mike S.

Chilli Sauce

How did the US know it was Bin Laden? Probably because they'd had their eye on him for decades, he'd attacked the WTC before, and that they'd had vague warning that something was in the works. Also, I don't remember OBL ever denying responsibility, can you provide a link?

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

[youtube]9WDhtthQwg8[/youtube]

Well, fair enough, I did not remember that.

And, going back to Chomsky here (it was his book 9/11 that played a large part in my radicalisation as a teen) he points out that what should have happened is that there should have been some sort of international trial of Bin Laden - instead of a series of 'unlawful' invasions. Again, though, the lack of the US to follow international law, doesn't make a conspiracy (not saying you believe that, btw, Mike).

The whole internal dynamic to conspiracy theorists or truthers/birthers etc. is that anyone who doenst agree with them are somehow corrupted or duped by 'the system'. Even if they have a more radical and rational view of both the current system and possibilities. Classic cultish behaviour.

It may be, in fact, that the greatest conspiracies are maintained by the complicity of people who know very well what is going on but do not or cannot act. This would be a conspiracy of knowing silence, rather than a conspiracy maintained, as many “-ers” assume, by ignorance. If information leaked tomorrow that Obama secretly received a promise of campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry in return for watering down his healthcare proposal, or from Wall Street executives for not seeking a tax on financial speculation, then there would be a new “-gate,” but no newly vindicated “-ers,” precisely because no one would be remotely surprised to learn that power and influence flows just as we all suspected. This is not conspiracy based on mystification. Maybe the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was not convincing people he didn’t exist, as the old adage says, but convincing people that they were the only ones to believe in him. Perhaps what maintains the worst conspiracies is not that people are so easily corrupted or manipulated, but that they tend to think that other people are. In the case of “-ers,” this lack of faith in others may go a long way toward explaining the appeal of “being” one of them.

http://anthronow.com/online-articles/conspiracies-are-u-s-on-making-up-truthers-birthers-and-deathers-part-2

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

My problem with Jones, however, is that he won't submit his work or "evidence" to anyone outside his clique, making it impossible to evaluate. It's all very well selling DVDs, and giving powerpoint presentations but there's nobody else independently checking his work.

It being 911 there are of course wheels within wheels within lobsters so of course there is also a lot of speculation about Jones being an agency plant to discredit both the trooph movt and genuine cold fusion with his antics:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=60

200 posts on conspiranoia? *sigh*

Capitalism. It's the real conspiracy. And it's not a secret.

ocelot

200 posts on conspiranoia? *sigh*

Capitalism. It's the real conspiracy. And it's not a secret.

totes, I just woke up in a start with the horrible feeling that I'm about to toddle off to be exploited (along with billions of others) by a class of people who own the means of production. :-(

ocelot wrote:

200 posts on conspiranoia? *sigh*

Capitalism. It's the real conspiracy. And it's not a secret.

Yeah, I feel a bit embarrassed by my itch to understand the event physically but I think you're a bit too strict, all 200 posts aren't just about da troof, some touch on much broader issues. And I haven't checked but I'm pretty certain there's a wee bit more about capitalism on libcom than there is about this stuff.

Factvalue:

It being 911 there are of course wheels within wheels within lobsters so of course there is also a lot of speculation about Jones being an agency plant to discredit both the trooph movt and genuine cold fusion with his antics:

Sigh. It's a wonder there's not more people living in tin-foil lined cabins in the woods.

Ocelot:

Capitalism. It's the real conspiracy. And it's not a secret.

Yes. This. It's not a conspiracy, it's all there in plain sight. But conspiracy theorists, whatever the prevailing conspiracy is at the time, believe that if only you can uncover the conspiracy, prove it and deal with the conspirators then everything would be resolved.

Mike S:
I'm not going to request that you post me links to the security crew interviews. For a subject I haven't given much thought to for years, I have seen so many videos, powerpoint presentations, ploughed through arguments, debates and tittle-tattle, quite frankly at this point I don't really care if it was OBL, the Cylons, Thor having a bad day or a butterfly flapping it's wings in Taipei. My point is that the explanation offered by the investigation fits as many of the facts as we know. There is never complete data and a full, impartial observation of any disaster and the Truthers are leaping on this as proof of a conspiracy, filling in the gaps, quite often with very shaky science, complete speculation and a very poor understanding of how government and capitalism works. Governments really don't need to be carrying out a rolling series of false flag operations to do what they do and even if they did, why would they have done 9/11? It would have been such a mammoth operation to pull off, involving months maybe years to set up, needing the co-operation of multiple agencies, large numbers of people involved, very precise skill sets - do the CIA have controlled demolition professionals on their pay-roll?- the bigger a conspiracy gets, the more likely it is to break down at some point. If the US government wanted to pull off a false flag attack on US soil, why not go for something easier like, thinking off the top of my head, hitting the Superbowl? Or one or more of those enormous cruise ships? A controlled demolition of two huge buildings in Manhattan, coupled with hitting them with 767s would be an absurdly difficult thing to do and so much could have gone wrong, I would have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that they were even competent enough to do this.
The problem I see with so much of the Truther "evidence" is they often quote people, incompletely and out of context, and the videos are often footage with a voiceover telling you what it is you're looking at. People often say that they trust the evidence of they're own eyes, and I don't mean this in any kind of a malicious way, but it's not very reliable. To use an analogy, if you ever see a half-decent street magician at work, you're watching and concentrating and trying to work out how it's being done but you still end up with that whoa, how did that happen moment? You have no plausible explanation as to how they did it. I'm not suggesting that people actually think it's magic but people need to fill in the gaps to how things happen. This is what the Truthers are doing, filling in the gaps, either in the investigation findings, where there is so much that can never be known, or filling in the gaps of individuals' knowledge because there aren't many people who know a lot about air crashes or building collapse. The problem with searching for the Truth, as I've said before, is that you're not going to find it. The best you're going to get is the most plausible. Pretty much everything in life is riddled with inconsistencies, differences of opinion and perspective, factual mistakes and uncertainties. The Truthers take these things use them to fit their story, which has become so complicated and vast and so contradictory in places it would require a co-operation between so many people and agencies and an organization of virtually superhuman abilities, I simply do not feel that they are capable of. What I do, however, think that our governments are capable of is taking the fear, anger, confusion and shock of the the attacks on the WTC and using that to their own advantage. People were massively manipulated through the media, the press office, that ridiculous terror alert system, and a 101 other things. Grand conspiritors? No, I don't think so. Opportunists? Very much so.

I'll come back later and answer your questions but I have other stuff to do now.

Yeah, just wanted to add a general point going off some of what Fleur and Mr. Jolly posted.

Most people who work in the government are regular, working slobs. People who go in, put in a day's work and hope it's good enough to keep their boss from breathing down their neck, then go home, eat dinner and watch TV. Just like the rest of us. I lived in Washington, DC for 12 years and knew lots of people who worked in government or had family members that did, but even just logic will tell you this.

Even the CIA and FBI are mostly filled with people who have pretty mundane, ordinary jobs with narrow parameters.

Point is, I'd wager that the vast, vast majority of people who work in government agencies (I guess excepting ideologically-driven top dogs and some hardcore black ops goons) would fucking mutiny if they got a whiff that they were being asked to cooperate in an outright massacre of their fellow people. This wasn't crushing a strike or cracking down on a cult - things that have propaganda/ideological covering - but simple slaughter of people going about their business.

So it's complete fantasy that the top brass in the government and military would be able pull off an 'inside job' 9/11 thing just on this basis alone. It would require the direct cooperation of thousands of individuals. Sure, some of them could be kept in the dark about the ultimate aims, but I don't think the workers who supposedly were spraying explosives all over the Twin Towers and cutting beams would have been under any illusions about what they were doing. And in the aftermath you can bet that many people who didn't know for sure would figure it out and freak the fuck out. You'd have seen waves of revulsion rippling across the bureaucracies and I can guarantee you that quite a few of them would have gone to the press. Trust me, anonymously talking to reporters is DC's favorite hobby.

As Fleur said, there are a thousand different types of spectacular attacks that could have been pulled off with just a hard core of maybe a few dozen conspirators. 9/11 was not one of them.

So these conspiracies thrive on yet another form of ignorance: that of how the state and its bureaucracies actually function. They don't and can't have hordes of mindless goons to carry out their nefarious schemes like some James Bond villain.

Mike S:

The 9/11 theorists also say weeks before the attack there were entire floors shut down, having no office tenants in them, with some type of construction taking place where the elevators wouldn't even stop on the designated floors and there was also a large revamping of electronic systems which had a lot of various workers in the building with access to the elevator shafts during which, in the first time in the buildings history, a power down took place which took out ALL of the security systems for a day (36 hours). I can find the videos where they interview the WTC security team and various workers who heard strange drilling and construction noises talking place weeks prior to the attacks. I'm sure you'll request this so give me some time to find it. The important part is there was crews with access to the elevator shafts which is the only way to access the core beams. Workers described hearing extremely loud banging, drilling and moving of heavy objects that actually shook the floor weeks prior to the attacks.

There's nothing in there which couldn't be explained by rational explanations. Would it not be at all plausible that empty floors were being remodelled before being being let to new tenants? I would have thought new businesses moving into these spaces would want to have them refitted to meet their specifications. As for elevators not stopping on these floors, since when are the general public allowed to move freely around construction sites? I would imagine that it would be at the least a health and safety issue, not letting random workers from other floors stroll around a building site. Why would a revamping of the electronics system automatically point to nefarious activities? And given the size of the building, it would require a lot of workers working on it. Presumably they needed access to the elevator shafts in order to access the elevators, which would have been integrated into the electronics.Strange drilling and construction noises, described anecdotally by security crew just means they heard strange noises. Strange noises could be anything and most people aren't familiar with and can identify different construction sounds. Banging, drilling and moving heavy objects. Also inconclusive of anything. Noisy construction. A power down which took down the security system for 36 hours. I don't suppose that had anything to do with revamping the electronics? In any case 36 hours wouldn't have been sufficient to do anything. It would have taken weeks, maybe longer to set up an controlled demolition and most significantly, it would have rendered the building very unstable. Buildings rigged for demo are completely stripped to the bare bones, removing any extraneous weight. There were 10s of thousands of people working in that building, moving about, it was still laden with all the tonnes of equipment, furniture, elevators and everything which rigged buildings would have had removed first, this being extra weight which could have brought down a building compromised by this process. And the supporting steel girders would have needed to be severed rendering it extremely unstable. Why would the conspirators take this sort of risk, the amount of movement, vibrations and weight in the TT would make a prepared building structurally unsound. What if some of the floors started to sag before the planes hit? Or started wobbling about in high winds? How would they have explained that? As Affirming Flame said, it would take so many people to do this. Why go through all this trouble, where so many things could go wrong, so much opportunity for someone to blow the whistle on it, when there would be much simpler ways to pull off a spectacular event?
Controlled demolitions from the bottom up is very much the norm in tall buildings, unless there's some serious structural reason not to. They are very much more stable and far more easier to get a building to collapse down on itself. Presumably that would have been the desired effect, not wanting to risk the building toppling over and wiping out half of that valuable real estate in Manhattan. And supposing there were explosives placed at the top of the building, why were they not detonated when the planes hit? Were the hijackers such good pilots that they were able to pinpoint the places where the explosives were placed and slide between them?

I'm not sure what the youtube video named Linear Shaped Charge detonation was supposed to demonstrate. It didn't say what it was supposed to be doing. As far as I could see it was a small piece of flat metal leaning against a tree trunk and blown up. No-one is disputing that thermites plus explosives can sever metal. I don't suppose it took much effort to blow up a piece of metal that small. What I am saying that thermites alone, even in the quantities suggested by Truthers could not severe the girders the size of the ones in the TT. As for the shot of the firefighters reacting to the sound of the explosion. As I have already said, there were bound to be explosions going on in a fire. Now that would be a mystery, worth investigating if there weren't. As for the firefighters' reactions, they hardly broke their stride, carrying on making their phone calls. I suspect they had heard similar things before.

I'm going to say I haven't seen Sept 11 - The New Pearl Harbour by Massimo Mazzucco and I'm not going to cherry pick bits out of it with no context. It's 5 hour long. It was bad enough sitting through 2 hour of Zeitgeist. There's only so much more of this I can take. Nor have I seen his New American Century. I know a lot of people think highly of it but I'm really not into this grand conspiracy thing. But I will admit a bias against Mazzucco's films based on his film Cancer - The Forbidden Cures, in which he takes a perfectly sound starting point, that big pharmaceuticals make an obscene amount of money and that the drugs used to treat cancer are toxic, which they are, and extrapolates that there's been a grand conspiracy to cover up the real cures to cancer and that it can be actually cured by things like baking powder, Linus Pauling's completely discredited idea that vitamin c cures everything ,and mistletoe. Now Suzanne Somers may claim her cancer was cured by mistletoe but there again she can also claim she's never had a face lift ;)
Now as much as I despise the way Big Pharma operates, pharmaceuticals keep people I love alive and people I love have died for lack of appropriate, effective drugs. I found his pushing a conspiracy and coming out in favour of snake oil salesmen dubious to say the least. As a consequence I cannot say in all honestly that I would be able to trust anything much that he said. I have a bias.
However, I did watch one of the segments you pointed to in that film, which says that the collapse lead to the destruction of 80,000 tons of a perfectly healthy structure. Sorry, he lost me right there. Unless the TT were made of a special kind of steel which didn't conduct heat there was no way that structure was "perfectly healthy" at the point of collapse. That and the fact that it demonstrated the collapse of the TT couldn't have happened as the NIST report said by using two blocks of snow. Now if there's one thing I know a shit load about it's snow. It's nothing like 110 floors of steel and concrete.

I was going to say, before the site went down and was in a mad panic to save, that people shouldn't take that Sherlock Holmes quote too much to heart -

'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'

Finding the Truth is rarely that easy and far from being improbable it's often quite prosaic.

An Affirming Flame wrote:

This wasn't crushing a strike or cracking down on a cult - things that have propaganda/ideological covering - but simple slaughter of people going about their business.

It seems even more unlikely that they would attack their own people when you consider that the work many of them were doing in the trade centre couldn’t accurately be described as innocent. At the time of the attacks there was a lot of speculation about whether bond brokers Cantor Fitzgerald (which until the day of the attacks had handled about one-quarter of the daily transactions in the multi-trillion dollar treasury security market) had been deliberately targeted. However unlikely that is, they were the world’s number one bond brokers and they lost about a third of their highly specialised and experienced staff, including the brother of the CEO. It seems peculiar that murderous financial capital would attack itself in this way in order to increase its influence.

Apparently there's evidence that conspiracy theories in general are often a projection of the conspiracist's cognitive processes, e.g. "some people think ‘they conspired’ because they think ‘I would conspire’.". That doesn't speak to the truth or falsehood of any given conspiracy theory though, of course. but it perhaps suggests that an understanding of how impersonal forces produce structured outcomes without the need for conscious intention - e.g. how the logic of statecraft is to exploit a terrorist attack whoever was behind it - would reduce conspiratorial speculation.

The problem with 9-11 is, even if there was some conspiracy, it's much more likely to have been a very tight circle 'letting it happen' rather than this vast plan involving fake hijackers and controlled demolitions. But that would be very hard to distinguish from regular incompetence or oversight. The intelligence services have a huge amount of raw data and very little clue how to turn it into actionable counter-terrorist intelligence. For example the NSA have conceded that they lied about all the supposed terror plots they've foiled with dragnet surveillance.

So it's entirely likely they had information which could have disrupted the plot, but missed it in all the noise. Adam Curtis (contrarian though he may be) has argued 'the real state secret is the intelligence agencies aren't very good at their jobs and don't know very much about the world.' The problem with conspiracy theories is they take the omniscient, all-powerful image of the secret state from popular media at face value, when i suspect incompetence, bureaucracy and dysfunction are the norm.

The problem with conspiracy theories is they take the omniscient, all-powerful image of the secret state from popular media at face value, when i suspect incompetence, bureaucracy and dysfunction are the norm.

We tend to be rather schizoid about the people in charge. They are either a bunch of dim stumbling Hooray Henrys or a secret cabal of plotters almost superhuman in their intellect and ability to manipulate the fabric of reality.

Joseph Kay

Adam Curtis (contrarian though he may be) has argued 'the real state secret is the intelligence agencies aren't very good at their jobs and don't know very much about the world.'

On that last point, I gather that during the Cold War, the US government/military sacked many of their experts on Russia/China, etc, on the grounds that they might be spying for the other side, leaving them clueless as to what was actually going on in those parts of the world. I think Chomsky's said something along these lines. Which might partly explain why they tended to interpret national independence movements as some sort of "communist" plot to take over the world (although they have plenty of other reasons for pushing this line of argument).

Blue!! How did you make the text blue!?

[/I always thought you were a lizardy poster, Omen.....]

Chilli Sauce

Blue!! How did you make the text blue!?

[/I always thought you were a lizardy poster, Omen.....]

Um, the text was a URL I quoted, hence blue. :confused: (I just added bold to part of the text.)

[color=blue]If you want plain blue text, then you just had to ask![/color]

[color=pink]Or how about pink?[/color]

And because it's Friday and I am declaring for myself a conspiracy theory free weekend (unless I run into any of the Larouche people because they are the most fun to rile up,) something I forgot to put in previously -

What about building 7?

According to TZM, building 7 is the only high-rise, steel-framed building ever to collapse as a result of fire only. They've obviously never seen this one.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

fleurnoire-et-rouge

There's nothing in there which couldn't be explained by rational explanations.

You said people who work at the WTC would have noticed people in the building prior to the attacks placing explosives- i provided the "truther" info interviewing people who noticed construction crews in the building drilling, banging and generally doing construction type stuff in the weeks prior to the attack. Explain that away however you will, obviously no one can prove this provided a cover for people to place explosives in the building.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

I'm not sure what the youtube video named Linear Shaped Charge detonation was supposed to demonstrate.

You said people would have heard explosions. I provided a video with explosion sounds which you previously said were just "normal" explosions.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

I'm going to say I haven't seen Sept 11 - The New Pearl Harbour by Massimo Mazzucco and I'm not going to cherry pick bits out of it with no context. It's 5 hour long. It was bad enough sitting through 2 hour of Zeitgeist. There's only so much more of this I can take. Nor have I seen his New American Century. I know a lot of people think highly of it but I'm really not into this grand conspiracy thing. But I will admit a bias against Mazzucco's films based on his film Cancer - The Forbidden Cures, in which he takes a perfectly sound starting point, that big pharmaceuticals make an obscene amount of money and that the drugs used to treat cancer are toxic, which they are, and extrapolates that there's been a grand conspiracy to cover up the real cures to cancer and that it can be actually cured by things like baking powder, Linus Pauling's completely discredited idea that vitamin c cures everything ,and mistletoe.

So you just completely ignore the information in the video and then point out how crazy the video makers views are on other subjects. I've met a lot of Christians in my time, people who think a sky god is in control of the universe but they still understand other concepts that aren't related to their silly views. Essentially what you've done is ignored the fact I posted information that completely demonstrated your previous post was wrong so you're back tracking into ridicule at this point.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

However, I did watch one of the segments you pointed to in that film, which says that the collapse lead to the destruction of 80,000 tons of a perfectly healthy structure. Sorry, he lost me right there. Unless the TT were made of a special kind of steel which didn't conduct heat there was no way that structure was "perfectly healthy" at the point of collapse. That and the fact that it demonstrated the collapse of the TT couldn't have happened as the NIST report said by using two blocks of snow. Now if there's one thing I know a shit load about it's snow. It's nothing like 110 floors of steel and concrete.

Ya, like the 15 minutes of footage was just focused on snow. Now you're saying the entire building was so hot the steel simply gave no resistance and the small top part of the building evaporated the lower half in ten seconds. If anything, conspiracy or not, one would think NIST would try to scientifically explain this. They haven't because they can't.

"Da troof. Tin foil". This is pretty much what you guys are posting after post 192. I'm aware conspiracy theory culture is bizarre and filled with people who simply don't understand the world but is it really that far fetched for you to acknowledge US intelligence agencies could have perhaps either let the attacks happen or even had a hand in them? I'm not by any means suggesting this should be a topic central to class struggle in any way shape or form I'm simply of the opinion the political intelligentsia wanted something like this to happen and then, all of the sudden, it happened.

When you have the political intelligentsia placing the entire future of US hegemony on a "Pearl harbor" like attack then one happens a year later don't you think that's a little suspicious? Focusing on this or that detail, on the buildings destruction or the Pentagon or whatever conjecture is pretty much a waste of time, as this entire discussion is pretty much a waste of time but at the end of the day my opinion is the US state could have either let the attacks happen or even had a hand in them. This opinion warrants scorn and ridicule, I'm aware of this, but, I don't really understand why people are so closed to the idea the US state would either let these attacks happen or even have a hand in them.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And because it's Friday and I am declaring for myself a conspiracy theory free weekend (unless I run into any of the Larouche people because they are the most fun to rile up,) something I forgot to put in previously -

What about building 7?

According to TZM, building 7 is the only high-rise, steel-framed building ever to collapse as a result of fire only. They've obviously never seen this one.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

That wasn't a total and complete structural failure with the entire building collapsing into it's foundation in a few seconds. That looks like a building that had fires and suffered some structural failure as a result. Building 7 looks like an entirely different scenario. Again, you dint address post 192 in any meaningful way but at the end of the day what can you or I "prove"? All of this boils down to opinion and conjecture, although they could have figured out what caused the total and complete structural failure in the 3 buildings if they didn't ship all the steel off to China/India. That in and of itself is strange.

Chilli Sauce

Mike S.

Chilli Sauce

How did the US know it was Bin Laden? Probably because they'd had their eye on him for decades, he'd attacked the WTC before, and that they'd had vague warning that something was in the works. Also, I don't remember OBL ever denying responsibility, can you provide a link?

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

[youtube]9WDhtthQwg8[/youtube]

Well, fair enough, I did not remember that.

And, going back to Chomsky here (it was his book 9/11 that played a large part in my radicalisation as a teen) he points out that what should have happened is that there should have been some sort of international trial of Bin Laden - instead of a series of 'unlawful' invasions. Again, though, the lack of the US to follow international law, doesn't make a conspiracy (not saying you believe that, btw, Mike).

The entire point of a New Pearl Harbor like attack, as Brzezinski and the Neoconservatives put it, was so the US could side step international law. Anyhow, dumping his body in the ocean was just, you know, strange. The whole thing is bizarre. Almost begging for conspiracy theories.

Mike S.

"Da troof. Tin foil". This is pretty much what you guys are posting after post 192. I'm aware conspiracy theory culture is bizarre and filled with people who simply don't understand the world but is it really that far fetched for you to acknowledge US intelligence agencies could have perhaps either let the attacks happen or even had a hand in them?

Given available evidence and a capacity to critically evaluate possibilities - yes.

Mike S:
Don't you think they might have noticed a shit load more than a bit of construction? I should have thought that 110 storey buildings needed maintenance and construction from time to time.You expect me to take the evidence that there was construction and entirely changed my opinions based on a few interviews? Don't you realize what a leviathan task prepping such a huge building for demolition would be? Have you seen just how huge those supporting girders were? And what a ridiculous idea it was that they would rig it for demo, leaving it structurally unsound with tens of thousands of people moving around it, the cumulative vibrations alone would be enough to make it unstable. Maybe someone should calculate the mass of all the stuff in the TT and see whether a a building with it's supports compromised could support it. Probably not, which is why in real controlled demolitions everything extraneous is stripped out. Why would someone go through all this effort to covertly set up the TT for demolition and then run the risk of the building becoming unstable before the planes hit?
No, I cannot "prove" anything. That's rather my point, if you had been paying attention to myself and other posters. When you wander into the realms of "proving" the "truth" you are entering the realms of belief. Your "proof" appears to be amateurish videos and speculation. Taking some small coincidences and gaps in the data which will never be filled because the thing was smashed to fucking smithereens, and turning it into "proof." No investigation, no matter how long it takes is ever going to find all the answer. Perhaps you watch too many crime dramas if you think they do. And you accuse me of having "silly views."
And what was that explosion video supposed to prove? That there were explosions? No shit.
And no, I wasn't going to plough through 5 hours of a film, when I have seen other work by him which is predicated upon bullshit. What would be the point, there's not a chance in hell I'd have an open mind, not to mention the tedious methods he employs of endlessly repeating the same points over and over again. And no, the 15 minutes was not entirely based on snow, it was based on the ridiculous idea that the building was a perfectly healthy structure up until the point of collapse. The demonstration of knocking down snow was just the final infantile nail in it's coffin.
The information you posted, I did not ignore, I watched the fifteen minutes and and found it lacking. And the explosion video is entirely worthy of ridicule. All it did was demonstrate that there were explosions, which no-one is denying and that it is possible to blow up a small bit of metal. If you think I'm going to watch 5 hours of a Mazzucco video, you are clearly mistaking me for someone who doesn't have a life.

I've met a lot of Christians in my time, people who think a sky god is in control of the universe but they still understand other concepts that aren't related to their silly views.

So what exactly are my silly views? That it's unlikely to say the least that thousands of people were willingly involved in a convoluted plot to commit mass murder? A plot so difficult to pull off that it could have failed at any time, when 101 other things would have been so much easier to do?
Life's not really like the movies, is it? The good guy doesn't always get the girl, the square jawed hero doesn't always walk out, head held high and there's no S.P.E.C.T.R.E. behind the scenes pulling the strings. In my opinion, my "silly view" that the bulk of the evidence fits the case that two planes ploughed into the TT and they fell down is far less silly than that there is a secret, nefarious organization plotting and capable of pulling off this massive task and far less silly than taking "evidence" which could have numerous more plausible explanations an spinning it into a grand conspiracy.

And btw, that really is me out of here for the weekend now, because I do have better things to do.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Mike S:
Don't you think they might have noticed a shit load more than a bit of construction?

You said people would have noticed things out of the ordinary weeks prior to the attack. I provided information showing people did notice things out of the ordinary. This is how this conversion will go on int the future. You'll say something untrue, I'll provide information showing it was untrue and you will act like it didn't happen.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

I should have thought that 110 storey buildings needed maintenance and construction from time to time.You expect me to take the evidence that there was construction and entirely changed my opinions based on a few interviews?

I don't really care about your opinion. I simply quoted your post and showed 99% of it to be untrue.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Don't you realize what a leviathan task prepping such a huge building for demolition would be? Have you seen just how huge those supporting girders were? And what a ridiculous idea it was that they would rig it for demo, leaving it structurally unsound with tens of thousands of people moving around it, the cumulative vibrations alone would be enough to make it unstable.

First you said explosives would be necessary to cut the girders, I provided a video where you can clearly hear explosions but you'll just chalk it up to "transformers" exploding. They have witnesses who saw explosions in the basement but again, just transformers. And girders can be cut without explosives. Your assertion that they would have to be cut long before the attacks is bunk.

http://cms.bsu.edu/features/global/makinganimpact/supertorch

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Maybe someone should calculate the mass of all the stuff in the TT and see whether a a building with it's supports compromised could support it.

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."

A quote from John Skilling, the structural engineer who built the WTC.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Probably not, which is why in real controlled demolitions everything extraneous is stripped out. Why would someone go through all this effort to covertly set up the TT for demolition and then run the risk of the building becoming unstable before the planes hit?

Why do you assume a person had to cut the beams before the attack? There were many loud explosions heard that day before the building fell. You simply say they were "transformers". An explosion was witnessed just before the plane hit as well. I can post videos showing interviews of people who witnessed the exploitation but I guess they have to be lying. The way NIST tried to explain the explosions in the basement was by saying the jet fuel traveled down the elevator shaft to the basement but the design of the elevators makes that highly improbable. There's only one elevator that runs the entire course of the building and people weer in it at the time of the explosion.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

No, I cannot "prove" anything. That's rather my point, if you had been paying attention to myself and other posters.

I did pay attention to your post which I have shown to be 99% wrong in post 192.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

When you wander into the realms of "proving" the "truth" you are entering the realms of belief. Your "proof" appears to be amateurish videos and speculation.

You said demolitions always take place from the bottom up. I posted a video showing you were wrong. You said people would have noticed crews in the building rigging it with explosives. I posted a video showing interviews of people who noticed out of the ordinary construction on entire floors, another large job taking place within the elevator shafts and that the entire security system went down for 36 hours prior to the attacks. You said explosives would be necessary to cut the beams. I posted a video where you can clearly hear explosions and a video showing steel being cut without explosives.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Taking some small coincidences and gaps in the data which will never be filled because the thing was smashed to fucking smithereens, and turning it into "proof." No investigation, no matter how long it takes is ever going to find all the answer.

Actually yes, when buildings suffer structural failure investigations take place but most of the steel was shipped out immediately after which made an investigation impossible.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Perhaps you watch too many crime dramas if you think they do. And you accuse me of having "silly views."

Just stop. I said Christians have silly views but it doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And what was that explosion video supposed to prove? That there were explosions? No shit.

Well, if you insist steal cant be cut without explosives one would think I might post a video with audio of explosions that day. Here, I'll do it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And no, I wasn't going to plough through 5 hours of a film, when I have seen other work by him which is predicated upon bullshit.

I actually requested you watch the last ten minutes of the video I posted where engineers discuss the total structural failure of the three buildings that day.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

What would be the point, there's not a chance in hell I'd have an open mind

This is obvious.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

not to mention the tedious methods he employs of endlessly repeating the same points over and over again. And no, the 15 minutes was not entirely based on snow, it was based on the ridiculous idea that the building was a perfectly healthy structure up until the point of collapse. The demonstration of knocking down snow was just the final infantile nail in it's coffin.
The information you posted, I did not ignore, I watched the fifteen minutes and and found it lacking.

How so? How did NIST explain the top part of the structure completely demolishing, no, pulverizing the structure below? They had to eventually admit their "pancake theory" was wrong and simply ended up saying "just look at the video, you can see what happened". I find that explanation is lacking.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And the explosion video is entirely worthy of ridicule. All it did was demonstrate that there were explosions, which no-one is denying and that it is possible to blow up a small bit of metal. If you think I'm going to watch 5 hours of a Mazzucco video, you are clearly mistaking me for someone who doesn't have a life.

Well, you've been pretty opinionated in this thread so I decided to demonstrate that your post was completely incorrect. Sorry about that.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

So what exactly are my silly views?

Re read my post and seriously tell me I was saying you have silly views. Just stop.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

That it's unlikely to say the least that thousands of people were willingly involved in a convoluted plot to commit mass murder? A plot so difficult to pull off that it could have failed at any time, when 101 other things would have been so much easier to do?

Thousands of people? If they simply let the attacks happen I would think that would be limited to a few people within a specific intelligence agency (and I have provided a video interview with the head on the Counter Terrorism agency saying the CIA deliberately didnt tell him the terrorists entered the country). If they planned them I would think they would use actual terrorists and at the most 50 or so people. The intelligence agencies in the USA had the motive and means to pull something like that off.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Life's not really like the movies, is it? The good guy doesn't always get the girl, the square jawed hero doesn't always walk out, head held high and there's no S.P.E.C.T.R.E. behind the scenes pulling the strings.

No, the CIA and NSA are just above board organizations who aren't into all manner of skullduggery and the political intelligentsia, liberal and conservative, in the USA weren't calling for a "new Peal Harbor" type attack in order to achieve their geopolitical goals. You can patronize me all you want but it doesn't change the fact these people were depending on a 9/11 type attack to maintain US hegemony on into the future. These weren't just some scrubs or men role playing they were actual advisers, policy makers and politicians. I don't find it hard to believe the CIA/NSA would listen to their views as their entire existence is to maintain US hegemony.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

In my opinion, my "silly view" that the bulk of the evidence fits the case that two planes ploughed into the TT and they fell down is far less silly than that there is a secret, nefarious organization plotting and capable of pulling off this massive task and far less silly than taking "evidence" which could have numerous more plausible explanations an spinning it into a grand conspiracy.

By their very nature the intelligence agencies are secret nefarious organizations tasked with the goal of maintaining US hegemony. The political intelligentsia, just prior to the attacks, were publicly focused on what would keep America dominant into the future and it relied on the US being attacked so as to side step international law and gain support of the population for a military presence in "Eurasia".

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And btw, that really is me out of here for the weekend now, because I do have better things to do.

Well, ya, I would expect you to run away from the conversation seeing I showed that demolitions don't always take place from the bottom up, that steel can be cut without explosives, that workers at the WTC noticed out of the ordinary maintenance and construction prior to the attacks etc. In reply all you've done is patronize me and be rude. Yes, please do walk away from the conversation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NiHeCjZlkr8#t=78

Is this video above just plain wrong? This is pretty much the question I have concerning the buildings destruction. Primarily the fact that the top 12 floors would have been destroyed at the same rate as the floors below and if Pancake theory, as NIST said, doesn't explain the total destruction then what does?

Mike S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NiHeCjZlkr8#t=78

Is this video above just plain wrong?

that video is shit.

Mike S.

This is pretty much the question I have concerning the buildings destruction. Primarily the fact that the top 12 floors would have been destroyed at the same rate as the floors below

that is bullshit, i have told you why

Mike S.

and if Pancake theory, as NIST said,

provide a quote of them saying this, and a link to where they said it, not another of those shity videos

radicalgraffiti

that video is shit.

So you think the top part of the building completely pulverized the 90 floors below without pulverizing itself. This might sound plausible if the top part of the building was made of titanium and the bottom part out of glass.

radicalgraffiti

that is bullshit, i have told you why- the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

Like a knife through butter with next to no resistance pulverizing everything in its path in a little over ten seconds while somehow staying a solid block all the way to the ground floor.

radicalgraffiti

provide a quote of them saying this, and a link to where they said it, not another of those shity videos

For whatever reason NIST was shut down and their website is no longer functioning. It's a known fact NIST discarded pancake theory and vaguely agreed with the "Pile Driver" theory but they didn't provide any data showing how this happened they solely focused on what caused the initial collapse of the top part of the buildings.

From NIST

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon

The entire point of a New Pearl Harbor like attack, as Brzezinski and the Neoconservatives put it, was so the US could side step international law.

Sorry, I just don't buy that. The US had been sidestepping international long before 9/11.

Again, this feels like the main trap of conspiracy theories: we don't need conspiracies to understand the interests and actions of states - nevermind the most powerful state in the history of humanity. I mean, seriously, when has int'l law ever been an impediment to the actions of the US gov't?

Chilli Sauce

The entire point of a New Pearl Harbor like attack, as Brzezinski and the Neoconservatives put it, was so the US could side step international law.

Sorry, I just don't buy that. The US had been sidestepping international long before 9/11.

Again, this feels like the main trap of conspiracy theories: we don't need conspiracies to understand the interests and actions of states - nevermind the most powerful state in the history of humanity. I mean, seriously, when has int'l law ever been an impediment to the actions of the US gov't?

Well, why would the nations top political intelligentsia say what they said? I didn't say it. Brzezinski said a serious new threat would be necessary to both mobilize the people and gain international support for military presence in and thus domination of the Eurasian continent (the Middle East being the most strategically important region in his opinion). He was focused on side stepping what little democratic process the US and global community does have. The Project For A New American Century authors take it even further. These aren't just people playing politics on the internet these are actual foreign policy advisers, policy makers and military brass. People who in fact said an attack on the US would be necessary to both gain the support of the US population for foreign intervention and to gain the support of the global community.

Brushing that aside as just "wonky conspiracy theory" is rather disingenuous. Here we have the nations leading political intelligentsia saying an attack on the US would be needed to fulfill their global agenda and one year later one happens. If I publicly said "my life will drastically change for the worse if my neighbor doesn't die soon" then shortly after my neighbor ended up dead you can best believe the police would be investigating me.

Also, read the PNAC publication and Brzezinski's book for yourself. They said what they said. It wasn't to only side step international law it was also to completely control space, the internet and the Eurasian continent as a whole while gaining trillions in military spending and controlling resources in central Asia. And....that's what the US is currently trying to achieve. Goals foreign policy advisers and the political intelligentsia said wouldn't be possible without an attack on the US.

Well, why would the nations top political intelligentsia say what they said? I didn't say it. Brzezinski said a serious new threat would be necessary to both mobilize the people and gain international support for military presence in and thus domination of the Eurasian continent (the Middle East being the most strategically important region in his opinion).

Why would they want such a situation? Because it would make it easier to achieve their foreign policy goals and create less resistance in the populace? And, again, just because they're totally prepared (in advance) to exploit such a situation, it doesn't mean they made it happen.

But, short of that, the US would still have followed through on it's imperial ambitions - attack or no attack, international law or no international law. You don't need a police investigation to determine that.

Chilli Sauce

Well, why would the nations top political intelligentsia say what they said? I didn't say it. Brzezinski said a serious new threat would be necessary to both mobilize the people and gain international support for military presence in and thus domination of the Eurasian continent (the Middle East being the most strategically important region in his opinion).

Why would they want such a situation? Because it would make it easier to achieve their foreign policy goals and create less resistance in the populace? And, again, just because they're totally prepared (in advance) to exploit such a situation, it doesn't mean they made it happen.

But, short of that, the US would still have followed through on it's imperial ambitions - attack or no attack, international law or no international law. You don't need a police investigation to determine that.

How would the US dominate the Eurasian continent, completely control the internet, get trillions in budget boosts to the military, control the resources in central Asia and keep any one nation on the Eurasian continent from economically challenging the US without the "communist boogeyman" to point to? They needed a new boogeyman and they got one. Maybe you can write all of them e-mails and ask them why they thought it necessary that the US be attacked if the US was to achieve it's geopolitical goals in the "new century".

Well, to be fair, post Berlin Wall, they fabricated the War on Drugs to continue foreign policy objectives in South America. And, lest we forget, the first Gulf War also occurred after the fall of Communism. And even, more recently, Syria was about "chemical weapons" and the "rule of law".

No to mention that even before 9/11, Islamic radicalism had provided decades worth of excuses for the tension with Iran and US objectives in the Middle East vis-a-vis Israel.

When all else fails - and as those last few example attest - there's always the old standby of "democracy", "tyranny", and "human rights".

Are these utterly hypocritical justifications? Of course. But they always find a way - no matter how thin the cover.

And, again, just cause they thought it was necessary, it doesn't mean they did it.

Why would the CIA not tell the head of counter terrorism (Richard Clarke) and the Department Of Defense that known terrorists (the 9/11 hijackers) had entered the country? Richard Clarke said the only way he was not informed of their arrival is if the CIA consciously decided not to tell him. He said they had to purposely keep that information from him. To explain why the CIA told no one about this major information he said he thought the CIA was maybe trying to "turn the terrorists into assets" which meant they were doing their spy game and the counter terrorism agency nor the DOD had no need to know. Even if THAT is true it would mean the CIA was monitoring the terrorists activity leading up to the attacks. For me this kinda makes it look like, at the least, the CIA let these attacks happen or are they that inept? Would they not be monitoring known Al Qaeda terrorists who they were seeking to turn into assets?

4:37 through 6:17. The 11:30 mark is of interest as well.

[youtube]bl6w1YaZdf8[/youtube]

So the CIA sat on that info for 16 months then a few weeks before Sep 11 decided to tell low level FBI agents Al Qaeda entered the country and that they lost track of them. Clarke said they would have begun an investigation into CIA "maleficence and misfeasance" if the top brass of counter terrorism knew, at the time, they withheld such important information. Clarke, at the end of the video, admits his theory that the CIA was simply covering it's own ass is just a theory that he can't prove- that he's just trying to work out why it happened.

Well, one, you didn't actually address my posts.'

Two, incompetence and lack of communication between government agencies (US security agencies are notorious for this - even within different branches of the armed forces) is not particularly compelling evidence for conspiracy.

And, even then, there's a world of difference between letting it happen and making it happen. Although, for the record, I've haven't seen compelling evidence for the former or the latter.

Chilli Sauce

Two, incompetence and lack of communication between government agencies (US security agencies are notorious for this - even within different branches of the armed forces) is not particularly compelling evidence for conspiracy.

You didn't watch the video. Richard Clark explains how he was updated on all important matters concerning terrorism. He explains why the CIA would have to make the decision not to inform him. He explains that the CIA could have told him in high level meetings and didn't. He explains the directer of the CIA and he were good friends and even the director kept the information from him.

Chilli Sauce

And, even then, there's a world of difference between letting it happen and making it happen. Although, for the record, I've haven't seen compelling evidence for the former or the latter.

Of course you haven't. You didn't even watch the video I posted.

Chilli Sauce

Well, to be fair, post Berlin Wall, they fabricated the War on Drugs to continue foreign policy objectives in South America.

There's always been a sort of quiet understanding that the western hemisphere "belongs to the US". The US has pretty much gotten a "pass" since the cold war for subversive operations in South America but yes they did fabricate the drug war - even with that 'unspoken pass'. The new objective according to the political intelligentsia was to dominate the entire Eurasian content in so far as not allowing another superpower to challenge US hegemony economically or militarily. A sort of new 'post communism' plan for global domination into the future.

Chilli Sauce

And, lest we forget, the first Gulf War also occurred after the fall of Communism.

The UN supported the first gulf war as Saddam refused to withdraw from Kuwait. It was a "coalition of the willing".

Chilli Sauce

And even, more recently, Syria was about "chemical weapons" and the "rule of law".

Some would say Russia put a stop to US military action/occupation in Syria. Even so, what the political intelligentsia began to articulate was that America, if it was going to remain the worlds lone superpower, had to "step up it's imperial game" so to speak. This would obviously also benefit the old 'western bloc' nations but the goal was also to keep any one nation from emerging that could challenge US hegemony. They began to focus on dominating Eurasia via the Middle East during the latter part of the 1990's.

Chilli Sauce

No to mention that even before 9/11, Islamic radicalism had provided decades worth of excuses for the tension with Iran and US objectives in the Middle East vis-a-vis Israel.

Well, of course the global political arena is complex and of course the US state positions itself against Iran in "defense" of Israel. One would think there's a multitude of interlocking political agendas.

Chilli Sauce

When all else fails - and as those last few example attest - there's always the old standby of "democracy", "tyranny", and "human rights".

Those are just the standard propaganda lines the US tells it's population. After 9/11 the USA had the support of the population and global community to do whatever it wanted- including passing all of the domestic spying programs which essentially gave them complete control over the internet and or any communicative electronics. Including an illegal war. Including military operations anywhere in the globe if it fits into the "fighting terrorism umbrella". Including trillions in defense spending. Including the maintenance of US hegemony.

Chilli Sauce

Are these utterly hypocritical justifications? Of course. But they always find a way - no matter how thin the cover.

And, again, just cause they thought it was necessary, it doesn't mean they did it.

I don't think the political intelligentsia had anything to do with it. I would think they're responsible for setting a sort of objective while stating that objective would not be possible without a new exterior threat. One year later the most 'spectacular' terrorist attack in the worlds history happens.

Chilli Sauce

Well, one, you didn't actually address my posts.'

Two, incompetence and lack of communication between government agencies (US security agencies are notorious for this - even within different branches of the armed forces) is not particularly compelling evidence for conspiracy.

Watch the interview. Watch the entire video and come back to this thread and say you think it was incompetence and a lack of structural communication between the CIA and counter terrorist division within the FBI and Department Of Defense that led to the information not being shared. Same goes for the people hiding behind their keyboards who keep downing every single post I make. It's blatantly obvious, after watching the Richard Clarke interview, that the CIA intentionally kept the information from both the DOD and FBI.

The question then becomes....why? Richard Clark (the head of the FBI's counter terrorism unit) seems to think the CIA was trying to 'turn' the terrorists and make them assets. He even says he thinks they had a Saudi connected CIA handler at one point who gave them money and a place to live. He then says he thinks, maybe, the terrorists played the CIA. That they became 'double agents'. He also said they wouldn't have been hard to track/find as they were using their actual real names with credit cards and such all the way up to the attack (so, in other word, it's not like the CIA lost track of them).

Chomksy's comments on 9/11 strike me as relevant to this.

Noam Chomsky

Every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11 and it was immediately predictable. I remember my first interviews with journalists a couple of hours afterwards. First question I was asked about this I said: ‘Look, every power system in the world is cheering, the Russians love it. It’s giving them an excuse to increase their atrocities in Chechnya under the pretext that they’re defending themselves from terror. The Chinese love it. They’re going to step up their atrocities in western China against the Uyghurs claiming it’s defense against terror. Indonesia loves it. They’re going to go on a rampage in Aceh and massacre everyone because they’ve got to defend themselves against terror. Ariel Sharon will go wild and occupy territories because we have to protect ourselves from terror.’ And so it continues, in fact, just about every country… I mean the more violent ones just extended their own violence, but the less violent ones, say like England, United States or France, immediately imposed what they called ‘the protection against terrorism’-act. Which had almost nothing to do with terror, but a lot to do with disciplining their own populations. So, if you take a look around the world at what are called the more democratic nations, they instituted mechanisms of control of their population under the pretext of defending themselves against terror. And this, I mean, was completely predictable. Even after an earthquake, things like this happen. Power systems will exploit it to expand their own power over their primary enemies, which are their domestic enemies, their own population. And if they happen to be carrying out violent repression they’ll extend it.

So, if the Bush administration gained from it? Well, that’s true, but it doesn’t seem to tell you anything. It just says they’re one of the power systems in the world, so they gained from it.

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

that video is shit.

So you think the top part of the building completely pulverized the 90 floors below without pulverizing itself. This might sound plausible if the top part of the building was made of titanium and the bottom part out of glass.

radicalgraffiti

that is bullshit, i have told you why- the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

Like a knife through butter with next to no resistance pulverizing everything in its path in a little over ten seconds while somehow staying a solid block all the way to the ground floor.

this missrepresents what i said, you will notice (well you probably won't but people in general) will notice that i previously mention the top part did not go though the lower part, rather the broken bits of the tower added to to the failing mass, I can only presume based on your response that you belive the broken parts vanished into air like tetris blocks.

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

provide a quote of them saying this, and a link to where they said it, not another of those shity videos

For whatever reason NIST was shut down and their website is no longer functioning. It's a known fact NIST discarded pancake theory and vaguely agreed with the "Pile Driver" theory but they didn't provide any data showing how this happened they solely focused on what caused the initial collapse of the top part of the buildings.

From NIST

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon

Must be because of the "government shutdown"
This is about how the collapse began, it doesn't contradict the idea of how the collapse could have proceeded once it started that i suggested

Mike S:
Firstly, post 220
“Well, ya, I would expect you to run away from the conversation”

If you look at my post 213 I clearly stated I would’t be posting over the weekend. Instead of arguing 9/11 truth, I was prioritizing my kid’s birthday, spending time with my family, catching up with a friend who’s been out of town for a few months ( who I obviously should have been ignoring and talking to you instead,) as well as some of those mundane things which need to be done over the weekend. I am sorry to have inconvenienced you by not standing and fighting with you on your schedule but I made a decision as to what was the best uses of my time and talking about 9/11 wasn’t high on that list.

I said that people would have noticed that the building was being prepped for demolition and you provided me with a list of things which could easily be explained by other much more mundane things, which I have already said.

“You said people would have noticed things out of the ordinary weeks prior to the attack. I provided information showing people did notice things out of the ordinary. This is how this conversion will go on int the future. You'll say something untrue, I'll provide information showing it was untrue and you will act like it didn't happen.”

Again, there was nothing there that was significantly out of the ordinary which could have been easily explained and certainly these things which prove what I say to be “untrue” are certainly not out of the ordinary enough to be taken as proof that an operation of such a magnitude as prepping the TT for demolition was going ahead.

“I don't really care about your opinion.”

That’s fine and dandy because I’m not going to lose any sleep over yours either.

“First you said explosives would be necessary to cut the girders, I provided a video where you can clearly hear explosions but you'll just chalk it up to "transformers" exploding. They have witnesses who saw explosions in the basement but again, just transformers.”

You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect. And then you link a video with explosions. What were you trying to prove? That there were explosions? Has anyone said there wasn’t explosions? There is a world of difference between something exploding and an explosion caused by explosives. I will come back to this later. Then you link to an article showing a steel cutting tool. Why? Something about girders can be cut without explosives. Yes, I know. I’m not sure why the existence of the Supertorch proves anything is bunk.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Maybe someone should calculate the mass of all the stuff in the TT and see whether a a building with it's supports compromised could support it.
"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
A quote from John Skilling, the structural engineer who built the WTC.

Presumably John Skilling was talking about the WTC in it’s healthy, non-structurally compromised form. It would have not been in this condition if it was a controlled demolition. Would you like to make up you mind if it was a controlled demo or not? Because it would have been possible to go ahead with a controlled demo without preparing for it. Without prepping, it’s not a controlled demo.

“Why do you assume a person had to cut the beams before the attack?”

Mostly because that’s what structural engineers specializing in controlled demos have said. I will be posting more information further down.

“There were many loud explosions heard that day before the building fell”

Yes. Again. An explosion does not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. I’ve exploded things quite dramatically in the microwave without ever needing to call on the presence of dynamite.

“An explosion was witnessed just before the plane hit as well. I can post videos showing interviews of people who witnessed the exploitation but I guess they have to be lying”

Go ahead if you like, I can post up videos of people swearing they’ve been abducted by aliens. I will also be posting up documents pertaining to the fact that there were no seismic spikes, which would be absolutely present in the event of explosives being detonated, prior to the points at which the planes hit the building.

“I did pay attention to your post which I have shown to be 99% wrong in post 192.”

You quite clearly have not been paying attention otherwise you wouldn’t keep going on trying to “prove” that there were explosions. No-one has ever said there were not. As for anything else, you have not proved anything with speculation and tittle-tattle.
I explained the top down demolition thing. If they were doing a controlled demo on the TT a top down demo wouldn’t have been appropriate, nor would the explosives placed at the top of the building have failed to detonate when the planes hit, or shortly afterwards. As for the video showing steel being cut without explosives, we are not talking about a poxy little square of metal propped up against a tree, we are talking about the massive supporting girders on the TT. I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives. There will be video later.

“fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Taking some small coincidences and gaps in the data which will never be filled because the thing was smashed to fucking smithereens, and turning it into "proof." No investigation, no matter how long it takes is ever going to find all the answer.

Actually yes, when buildings suffer structural failure investigations take place but most of the steel was shipped out immediately after which made an investigation impossible.”

Structural failure investigations did take place, Including one carried out by engineers specializing in controlled demolitions (will be posting up,) as they usually do -not in situ. Where was it “shipped out”to? As far away as Staten Island. Did you really think that they would just leave it there at Ground Zero? Or would you think that clearing up one of the most densely populated parts of the US wouldn’t be something that was a priority? I’m just going to quote a document I will be posting in full later explaining:

"According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to “rush” or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals – working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise – came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas".

Presumably the many people handling the steel at Fresh Kills Landfill, SI, from the many different entities involved were all in the thrall of this conspiracy too. Then it was shipped to China and other countries for recycling purposes in much the same way other large quantities of steel are sent for recycling. In case you haven’t noticed most ship-breaking and other industrial scale recycling takes place in countries such as India or China these days.

“Well, if you insist steal cant be cut without explosives one would think I might post a video with audio of explosions that day. Here, I'll do it again:”

Again, I never insisted that steel cannot be cut without explosives. Pay attention. What I said was the ENORMOUS steel supporting girders could not be cut with thermites alone. In order to properly prepare them for controlled demolition (unless you suggest they were amateurs) they would have to be pre-cut. And no, I’m not watching your mind-bogglingly stupid video again. However, I will be posting a video which demonstrates how steel cannot be cut by the application of thermites alone. It is one of the Truther theories of how they cut through the steel girders during the controlled demolition of the TT. It’s how they get around the inconvenient little problem of how absolutely no trace of detonators was found in the debris.

“I actually requested you watch the last ten minutes of the video I posted where engineers discuss the total structural failure of the three buildings that day.”

I did and I already explained to you why I thought it was crap.

“fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
So what exactly are my silly views?
Re read my post and seriously tell me I was saying you have silly views. Just stop.”

It was by implication, which I have to say is far more subtle than your usual repeating the same thing over and over again in an attempt to get someone who doesn’t agree with you to change their mind.

“Thousands of people?”

Yes, thousands of people, given all the agencies which would have had to be involved in order to pull off an event, and it’s cover up, of this magnitude. Also, make up your mind if it’s a controlled demolition or not. Just let it happen? So it wasn’t a controlled demo? As for the other video, all that suggests is that the CIA made an almighty cock-up if they were trying to turn the Al Qaeda operatives and it has been well known for decades that there has been a systemic lack of co-operation between the FBI and the CIA bordering on outright hostility.

The questions about the top 12 floors have already been answered by other posters but you clearly do not like those answers so you are going to keep repeating it until a) you get one you do like or b) people just give up and walk away.

Mike S:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/911-science-and-conspiracy/

Because you enjoy video so much, here’s one which I have decided to post up. It’s from National Geographic and it examines the 9/11 truth conspiracies and gives the Scholars for Truth, including renown theologian David Ray Griffin, full opportunity for rebuttal. As well as using a two year investigation from Purdue University, which specializes in science and technology, in which they construct exact scale replicas of the TT and the planes, as well as using extensive computer modeling. ie not snow. In addition they seek the opinions of people who specialize in controlled demolitions of high-rise steel framed buildings and people who are specialists in explosives. If you cut to minute 21 you will see how supporting beams are pre-cut prior to carrying out a controlled demolition and you might also notice that this is being done on a building of some 8 or 9 floors. Not even near the 110 floors of the TT. You may notice the extensive work done to the building prepping it for demolition, not something which could go unnoticed by people working in a building, not something which can be explained by some construction on a few floors. Also, the opinion given by the controlled demolition specialist was that it would take 3 -4 maybe even 6 months to prepare the TT for demolition. Also, there was no detonator evidence found in the debris. The truthers explain this by saying that they did not detonate the explosives in the conventional way, rather they used these illusive superthermites that the construction industry does not know about. Quote Gage concerning this, they used

“detonation mechanism technology not known by Blanchard (structural engineer) or much less us.”
So they, the Scholars for Truth, don’t even know how it works. Speculation. When asked why the controlled demolition industry has extensively refuted their theory, the truthers just retreated into the “they work for the federal government” answer. Lame.
Also, the columns in the WTC debris did not have the distinctive cut of a shape charge with it’s permanent copper residue.
They also did an experiment to see whether thermite alone can severe a column, it did not (thermite is not explosive) but there again it was refuted with the “it’s a top secret military grade thermite.” And they probably keep it at Area 51.

On the morning of September 11 2001 there was a private demolition monitoring company working in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, Protec Documentation Services, and they had working seismographs at several sites. These machines documented the tremors of the falling towers and the seismic spikes at the moments of impact of the two planes, but no ground vibrations which would have been present if there were demolition charges or bombs. In addition, Columbia University had seismic monitoring equipment in use at the time, which also captured the same data. The truthers have used the seismic data from Columbia as “proof” of explosives, where they actually show nothing of the sort. None of this monitoring picked up any detonations either prior to the planes hitting, prior to the initiation of collapse nor any explosive detonations during the collapse, suggesting that there were charges laid which enabled the floors to be “pulled down.”
Here is a link , a rebuttal of the claim that the the seismic data is in fact proof of the detonation of explosives

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#seismic

And here is Columbia’s own analysis of the seismic data, note the seismic data plotted on pages 6 and 8.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

But there again, I suppose that they were in on the conspiracy too.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

This was authored by Brent Blanchard, senior editor for Implosionworld.com and director of field operations for Protec (see above)

Quote:
Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribute to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack.

Just read it. It covers every engineering aspect relating to the 9/11 truther theories on why it had to be a controlled demolition and refutes them. But there again, the demolition industry is in on the conspiracy too.

Fleur, I applaud your patience.... :eek:

Arbeiten:

Fleur, I applaud your patience....

Thank you. My patience, however, is wearing very thin by now though.

but what about WTC7????

yeah why the fuck would they bother to demolish it as well as the twin towers????
it must the key to the whole thing.

Turns out it is, if you look closely at this video for seven hours straight you will see lines running from the twin towers to WTC7.

radicalgraffiti

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

that video is shit.

So you think the top part of the building completely pulverized the 90 floors below without pulverizing itself. This might sound plausible if the top part of the building was made of titanium and the bottom part out of glass.

radicalgraffiti

that is bullshit, i have told you why- the top part of the building weighed thousands of tonnes, and once it started to fall it was moving at several meters a second, this means it hit the lower sections with far more force than they could possible have been built to withstand

Like a knife through butter with next to no resistance pulverizing everything in its path in a little over ten seconds while somehow staying a solid block all the way to the ground floor.

this missrepresents what i said, you will notice (well you probably won't but people in general) will notice that i previously mention the top part did not go though the lower part, rather the broken bits of the tower added to to the failing mass, I can only presume based on your response that you belive the broken parts vanished into air like tetris blocks.

Mike S.

radicalgraffiti

provide a quote of them saying this, and a link to where they said it, not another of those shity videos

For whatever reason NIST was shut down and their website is no longer functioning. It's a known fact NIST discarded pancake theory and vaguely agreed with the "Pile Driver" theory but they didn't provide any data showing how this happened they solely focused on what caused the initial collapse of the top part of the buildings.

From NIST

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon

Must be because of the "government shutdown"
This is about how the collapse began, it doesn't contradict the idea of how the collapse could have proceeded once it started that i suggested

How do you think a total simultaneous collapse took place without either Pancakeing" or the top part of the building completely demolishing the undamaged bottom half? NIST refused to even attempt to explain how this happened. Most everyone can't because most all of teh steel was shipped off before a proper investigation could take place and yes it's routine to investigate structural failures. NIST closed it's site and was shut down long before the 'government shutdown' but it's common knowledge they rejected pancake theory and refused to explain how the building collapsed past the initial point of the top parts collapsing. They valley said they agreed with the theory that the top part of the building completely demolished the bottom part.

[youtube]b4meFC1ee7Q[/youtube]

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Firstly, post 220

I said that people would have noticed that the building was being prepped for demolition and you provided me with a list of things which could easily be explained by other much more mundane things, which I have already said.

Entire floors shut down with elevators that don't stop at those floors and one of the largest electronic systems renovations in the buildings history which gave a multitude of crews access to the elevator shafts where at one point power went down for 36 hours in so disabling all of the security cameras and locks in the building. You said nothing out of the ordinary took place, or that people would have noticed something. Well, out of the ordinary things took place and people noticed. Back track all you want but the point is out of the ordinary construction was taking place prior to the attacks and the power went down for 36 hours. That information addresses your original claim that nothing strange happened or no one noticed anything.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Again, there was nothing there that was significantly out of the ordinary which could have been easily explained and certainly these things which prove what I say to be “untrue” are certainly not out of the ordinary enough to be taken as proof that an operation of such a magnitude as prepping the TT for demolition was going ahead.

Of course it's not proof. It shows there was opportunity. Opportunity you denied by saying people would have noticed demo crews in the building. Opportunity you denied by saying security in the building is tight (security went down for 36 hours).

fleurnoire-et-rouge

You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect.

Yes, there were dozens of explosions that day before the buildings fell. Lots of them.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And then you link a video with explosions. What were you trying to prove? That there were
explosions? Has anyone said there wasn’t explosions? There is a world of difference between something exploding and an explosion caused by explosives.

An demolition explosives expert now are we?

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Then you link to an article showing a steel cutting tool. Why? Something about girders can be cut without explosives. Yes, I know. I’m not sure why the existence of the Supertorch proves anything is bunk.

You specifically said that the amount of explosives necessary to cut the girders would have been astronomical. Explosives aren't even necessary to cut beams and girders. Heck, explosives aren't even necessary to cause structural failure (hydraulics can be used) but you'll deny that as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaJaUt_ujyE

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Maybe someone should calculate the mass of all the stuff in the TT and see whether a a building with it's supports compromised could support it.
"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
A quote from John Skilling, the structural engineer who built the WTC.

Presumably John Skilling was talking about the WTC in it’s healthy, non-structurally compromised form. It would have not been in this condition if it was a controlled demolition. Would you like to make up you mind if it was a controlled demo or not? Because it would have been possible to go ahead with a controlled demo without preparing for it. Without prepping, it’s not a controlled demo.

I can't prove if it was a controlled demo or not. What I've been saying is there's enough info out there for me to entertain the the idea. I also have said numerous times even if the building naturally imploded in on themselves from the planes hitting alone there's still enough info out there that makes me think it possible the US state had a hand in the attacks.

You're going to ignore this but oh well- NIST itself had to acknowledge the pancake theory of collapse was impossible. They ended up not explaining the collapse past the initial point of the failure of the top section of the building. From there they simply said the top section pulverized the lower part of the building. This is the "pile driver" theory of collapse. The problem with the pile driver theory is the top section would have also been pulverized long before it made it to the ground level.

“Why do you assume a person had to cut the beams before the attack?”

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Mostly because that’s what structural engineers specializing in controlled demos have said. I will be posting more information further down.

How long did it take for the building to fall after the planes hit? And other structural engineers and demo experts have said shape charges can do the same job. I'll post more information on that which you'll ignore. Demolition experts have said as a matter of routine demolition they cut key support beams and remain in the buildings to work hours afterwards.

“There were many loud explosions heard that day before the building fell”

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Yes. Again. An explosion does not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. I’ve exploded things quite dramatically in the microwave without ever needing to call on the presence of dynamite.

The video I posted was of a shape charge going off on a different day/at a different place than NYC compared to the explosions sounds that were recorded on 9/11 in NYC. This one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I84-_hcbtyU

There were more than one of those explosions on 9/11. Some news reporters said there were dozens.

“An explosion was witnessed just before the plane hit as well. I can post videos showing interviews of people who witnessed the exploitation but I guess they have to be lying”

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Go ahead if you like, I can post up videos of people swearing they’ve been abducted by aliens. I will also be posting up documents pertaining to the fact that there were no seismic spikes, which would be absolutely present in the event of explosives being detonated, prior to the points at which the planes hit the building.

I read your next post and will address it after I do some reading. I'm admittedly not an expert in seismic readings but this is what I'll be reading if you want to "debunk" it before I have a chance to make my next post:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

“I did pay attention to your post which I have shown to be 99% wrong in post 192.”

fleurnoire-et-rouge

You quite clearly have not been paying attention otherwise you wouldn’t keep going on trying to “prove” that there were explosions. No-one has ever said there were not. As for anything else, you have not proved anything with speculation and tittle-tattle.

I never said I proved anything. What I did do was show your original statement to be incorrect. Now you say "well, all of that can be explained". The fact is you said people would have noticed demo crews in the building prior to 9/11. I posted information showing WTC workers noticing entire floors under construction, a huge renovation project going on with access to the elevator shafts (where the core beams are) and security going down for 36 hours. You said demolitions always take place from the bottom. Not true. Does this prove anything? Yes, it proves your initial statement was incorrect. Does it prove the buildings were controlled demolitions? Of course not.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

I explained the top down demolition thing.

LOL, ya, lets hear that again please. How did the top 1/8 of the building pulverize the bottom 7/8? What you said was demolitions always take place from the bottom. That's simply not true.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

If they were doing a controlled demo on the TT a top down demo wouldn’t have been appropriate,

What would be appropriate if the goal was to murder a few thousand people and bring buildings down from the top? If planes hit the top and the collapse started from the bottom don't you think that would look a little fishy? What you said was all controlled demolitions take place from the bottom. I showed that your opinion was wrong. Admit this or not- I don't care about your ego.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

nor would the explosives placed at the top of the building have failed to detonate when the planes hit, or shortly afterwards.

Demolitions experts have been interviewed stating shape charges can be placed in protective shells that would keep then from exploding from fire. I'm sorry but you're wrong again. Does this prove the buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition? Of curse not. It just shows that your line of reasoning to disprove it is incorrect.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

As for the video showing steel being cut without explosives, we are not talking about a poxy little square of metal propped up against a tree, we are talking about the massive supporting girders on the TT. I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives. There will be video later.

Ya sure, you use military grade thermite on a daily basis and demolition cutting charges to cut steel.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Taking some small coincidences and gaps in the data which will never be filled because the thing was smashed to fucking smithereens, and turning it into "proof." No investigation, no matter how long it takes is ever going to find all the answer.

Actually yes, when buildings suffer structural failure investigations take place but most of the steel was shipped out immediately after which made an investigation impossible.”

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Structural failure investigations did take place, Including one carried out by engineers specializing in controlled demolitions (will be posting up,) as they usually do -not in situ. Where was it “shipped out”to? As far away as Staten Island. Did you really think that they would just leave it there at Ground Zero? Or would you think that clearing up one of the most densely populated parts of the US wouldn’t be something that was a priority? I’m just going to quote a document I will be posting in full later explaining:

"According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to “rush” or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals – working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise – came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas".

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage"

N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for study

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm#description146pieces

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Presumably the many people handling the steel at Fresh Kills Landfill, SI, from the many different entities involved were all in the thrall of this conspiracy too.

Now you're just being an asshole. Why would some people at a landfill or salvage yards doing their job be "in on it"? The fact the majority of the steel was swiftly recycled, put in landfill or shipped off is what made a complete investigation impossible not the people just doiong their jobs.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Then it was shipped to China and other countries for recycling purposes in much the same way other large quantities of steel are sent for recycling. In case you haven’t noticed most ship-breaking and other industrial scale recycling takes place in countries such as India or China these days.

No kidding, the fact is the majority of the steel was shipped off and only a relative few pieces left for investigation. What's hard to understand about that?

“Well, if you insist steal cant be cut without explosives one would think I might post a video with audio of explosions that day. Here, I'll do it again:”

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Again, I never insisted that steel cannot be cut without explosives. Pay attention. What I said was the ENORMOUS steel supporting girders could not be cut with thermites alone. In order to properly prepare them for controlled demolition (unless you suggest they were amateurs) they would have to be pre-cut. And no, I’m not watching your mind-bogglingly stupid video again. However, I will be posting a video which demonstrates how steel cannot be cut by the application of thermites alone. It is one of the Truther theories of how they cut through the steel girders during the controlled demolition of the TT. It’s how they get around the inconvenient little problem of how absolutely no trace of detonators was found in the debris.

4:20 - 5:05
[youtube]u5IgqJXyLbg[/youtube]

Ignore it. Ignore it all. Post something about recycling workers being in on it and your microwave exploding.

“I actually requested you watch the last ten minutes of the video I posted where engineers discuss the total structural failure of the three buildings that day.”

I did and I already explained to you why I thought it was crap.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

So what exactly are my silly views?
Re read my post and seriously tell me I was saying you have silly views. Just stop.”

It was by implication, which I have to say is far more subtle than your usual repeating the same thing over and over again in an attempt to get someone who doesn’t agree with you to change their mind.

What I said was Christians have silly views, they believe in a sky god but this doesn't mean they can't be correct in other areas. I said this because you attacked some information that came from a person who has some rather questionable views on other topics. You then said I was implying you have silly views. That simply wasn't true.

“Thousands of people?”

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Yes, thousands of people, given all the agencies which would have had to be involved in order to pull off an event, and it’s cover up, of this magnitude. Also, make up your mind if it’s a controlled demolition or not. Just let it happen? So it wasn’t a controlled demo?

Would it take thousands of terrorists to pull off 9/11? As far as the alleged cover up I'm not sure why the Pentagon won't release clear video of the plane hitting it. I'm not sure why the CIA didn't tell the FBI terrorists had entered the country. I'm not sure how the top 1/8 of the building imploded the bottom 7/8. I'm not sure how building 7 came down at free fall speed in what clearly looked like a classic controlled demolition. I'm not sure why they shipped off the majority of the WTC steel right away. I'm not sure how they found the terrorists passport in the rubble. I'm not sure how phone calls were made from airplanes. I'm not sure why there was massive war games exercises going on that morning on the east coast which made military interception of the panes impossible. I'm not sure why the plane that hit the Pentagon did a spectacular areal maneuver in order to approach the Pentagon from ground level to hit ion an empty area under renovation. Would all of this e take thousands of people?

To illuminate your standards for the amount of people necessary to pull this off all I need to do is look at your absurd assertion that recycling and landfill workers would have to be in on it as well. It would presumably only take a few score people in high level positions of power. The rest is psychological. Institutions and people not willing to accept the state may have done this so everything said or done to explain the attacks is done so not because they're a part of it but because to even question it is too much of a tabboo. This is why originally people like Howard Zinn were demanding an independent investigation but swiftly changed course and became critical of anyone demanding an independent investigation. This is why you're so hell bent on denying the US state could have pulled this off- the social pressure is enormous and the conspiracy theory culture isn't exactly something people want to be associated with and with good reason. Most of them are batshit insane. The thing is, the US state is even more batshit insane and they had the motive and means to pull this off.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

As for the other video, all that suggests is that the CIA made an almighty cock-up if they were trying to turn the Al Qaeda operatives and it has been well known for decades that there has been a systemic lack of co-operation between the FBI and the CIA bordering on outright hostility.

You didn't watch it nor did any of the people who downed that post. Watch the entire video and come back to this thread and say that again with a straight face. You wont. You'll refuse to watch the whole video. There was ZERO hostility between Richard Clarke (the head of the counter terrorism unit) and the head of the CIA. It was also the state department and Department Of Defense that he CIA didn't inform and they had ample time and opportunity.

Another thing, if they were trying to turn the terrorists that means they had them under surveillance. As Richard Clarke said in the video the terrorists were using their real names and credit cards up to the attack. He said if he was given the information his agency could have found them within hours. Your post is simply not true.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

The questions about the top 12 floors have already been answered by other posters but you clearly do not like those answers so you are going to keep repeating it until a) you get one you do like or b) people just give up and walk away.

No it hasn't been answered by anyone. Even the government agency tasked with answering it refused to do so.

Tyrion

Chomksy's comments on 9/11 strike me as relevant to this.

Noam Chomsky

Every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11 and it was immediately predictable.

So, if the Bush administration gained from it? Well, that’s true, but it doesn’t seem to tell you anything. It just says they’re one of the power systems in the world, so they gained from it.

Good for Chomsky. What he didn't address was the specific left and right wing intelligentsia in the United States laying out a plan to ensure US hegemony into the future with the entire plan relying on a new threat and "New Pearl Harbor" type attack on the USA (in their own words). They put forth their imperial plans in the years 1998 and 2000 then in 2001 a new enemy emerged that attacked the US in a "new Pearl Harbor" type attack. The rest of his analysis is lame. Generically implying various states will take advantage of the situation is again completely ignoring where the attacks happened and what the geopolitical strategy the US intelligentsia laid out was.

Look, I know it's taboo to question what happened on 9/11 but if you're capable of at least an ounce of honesty you'll admit the US intelligentsia (especially if you actually read what they said) placed the future of American dominance on attacks happening and then they happened shortly after. Why are people so willing to just ignore this? Why are you personally willing to ignore that? The people who wrote both the PNAC piece and "The Grand Chessboard" aren't internet scrubs playing politics they were high up military brass and foreign policy advisers- the people who "set the tone" if you will, within the State department, the DOD and various intelligence agencies. When you have the leading political and military intelligentsia saying the future of America depends on an attack happening on American soil then one happens a little over a year later do you not see a problem with that?

Mike S:
Oh, where to start. I guess I'll just have to find a spot to jump into the circles you're going around in. I suspect you're not even reading what I have posted, you've certainly not read or made any attempt to digest the structural engineering analysis which addressed all this. Go back and try again. And for someone who's complaining that no-one is watching the videos you're posting, I can only assume you've not watched the one I posted up because it also covers the things you are saying, as well as giving the so-called Scholars For Truth a platform, but there again it disagrees with the mountains of toss which are published on Truther websites.
Mike S discussion technique:
WATCH THE VIDEO! GO ON WATCH IT AGAIN! AND KEEP WATCHING IT UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN WHAT I'VE TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD BE SEEING! STILL NOT SEEING IT? WATCH IT AGAIN!

Now you're just being an asshole

Absolutely. 100% The one thing we can agree on. I'm just simply mirroring your behaviour back at you.
Also, I'll copy you're massively irritating habit of copying and pasting vast tracts, making it really tedious to read for anyone who is perfectly capable of glancing up the page or retaining something they've read a few minutes earlier.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Firstly, post 220
I said that people would have noticed that the building was being prepped for demolition and you provided me with a list of things which could easily be explained by other much more mundane things, which I have already said.

Entire floors shut down with elevators that don't stop at those floors and one of the largest electronic systems renovations in the buildings history which gave a multitude of crews access to the elevator shafts where at one point power went down for 36 hours in so disabling all of the security cameras and locks in the building. You said nothing out of the ordinary took place, or that people would have noticed something. Well, out of the ordinary things took place and people noticed. Back track all you want but the point is out of the ordinary construction was taking place prior to the attacks and the power went down for 36 hours. That information addresses your original claim that nothing strange happened or no one noticed anything.

Nope, still not a very convincing case for the controlled demolition of the buildings. Refer back to the Nat Geo video - go on, WATCH IT - it would be something that would take up to 6 months to do. A whole 36 hour eh? Did they get the Flash in?

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Again, there was nothing there that was significantly out of the ordinary which could have been easily explained and certainly these things which prove what I say to be “untrue” are certainly not out of the ordinary enough to be taken as proof that an operation of such a magnitude as prepping the TT for demolition was going ahead.

Of course it's not proof. It shows there was opportunity. Opportunity you denied by saying people would have noticed demo crews in the building. Opportunity you denied by saying security in the building is tight (security went down for 36 hours).

Great googliemooglies! Opportunity. For 36 hours.Do you really think that if you just repeat the same things at me over and over again then you're going to force an agreement out of me. Jeez, I bet you're fun at parties.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect.

Yes, there were dozens of explosions that day before the buildings fell. Lots of them.

Yes, there were explosions. Oh the great and wonderful Mike, you have got me to agree to the fact that there were explosions. Not that anyone said there weren't. WTF are you arguing about that one for? Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't know the difference between explosions, things that sound like explosions and actual explosives (of which there was no evidence of on 9/11.)

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
And then you link a video with explosions. What were you trying to prove? That there were
explosions? Has anyone said there wasn’t explosions? There is a world of difference between something exploding and an explosion caused by explosives.
An demolition explosives expert now are we?

No, I am not a demolition expert, which is why I posted up the opinions of actual demolition experts as well as seismologists, whose data concludes, rather conclusively, that there were no detonated explosives in the TT that day. I assume people who spend their professional lives analyzing seismic data both for controlled demolition companies and for the seismology department at Columbia University might know a thing or two about what they are looking at. No, I am not a demolition expert, but then humble little me, who has never blown up a building in my life, knows the difference between explosions and explosives. It is clear that the Truther ramblings on this subject have been written by people who do not.

Explosives aren't even necessary to cut beams and girders.

Jesus Christ, let's go back again. Do you know just how big these buildings were? How large these girders were? The load capacity they had to support? Would you like to go back and read the stuff I've already posted up by the structural engineers or watch the video again, because it's really boring having to repeat myself over and over again. Basically, in very, very simple terms, they would have had to be pre-cut and then explosives applied to initiate failure.
Hydraulic jacks. You really do have to be shitting me now. I'm assuming that you've moved onto hydraulic jacks because deep down, there's a little part of you that suspects the complete absence of traces of these explosives in the debris, no detonation devices, no evidence on the videos of controlled explosion (again read the report, 70% of the contents of the TT was air, explosives would cause a massive displacement of air, it would have had to go somewhere, it would have blown the windows out, this did not happen.) But there again Truthers belive it was brought down by thermites -which are not explosives -, super secret thermites no less that no-one knows how they work, ignoring the fact that that there was no trace of the chemical signatures of the by-products of thermites in the debris. So in the absence of nothing which backs up the theory of explosives, it's hydraulic jacks now.
So, instead of pre-cutting the girders and applying explosives, you postulate that engineers physically removed a section of girder and replaced it with hydraulic jacks. For a building of 110 floors. Presumably several girders, if you take into account design redundancy and safety margins. I doubt if the TT were designed in such a way that if one girder was compromised that it would all fall down. Do you know how hydraulics work? Do you know that pressure equals force over area? Since the contact area would be limited, the cut surface of the beam, what are you suggesting that they were using as hydraulic fluid in these jacks, supporting this massive pressure? It would have to be something which was totally incompressible, liquidized carbonite maybe. And why were there none of these massive hydraulic jacks or remnants of found in the debris? Oh yeah, because it was spirited away to Staten Island, where the people handling the debris took actually took longer than usual to deal with it than they would do in a normal salvage and recycling situation.

There were more than one of those explosions on 9/11. Some news reporters said there were dozens

Jesus fuck, enough of the explosions already. Nobody said that they're weren't any.

I read your next post and will address it after I do some reading. I'm admittedly not an expert in seismic readings but this is what I'll be reading if you want to "debunk" it before I have a chance to make my next post:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

This will be my last post. And no, I'm not reading ahead because I have read quite enough of the sort of speculation, junk science and pure bullshit which is published by the Journal of 9/11 studies already. I'm looking forward to deleting the sheer volumes of nonsense they've published that I've now got saved on my computer. To be honest, RationalWiki put it far better than I do:

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer- crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to JAQ off. Some high-profile Truthers like David Ray Griffin have written articles for the journal. Ironically, in their attempt to appear "credible" and "serious," they've run a number of articles debunking the egregiously unhinged theories like Judy Wood's "space beams"[1] and stuff they've run in their own journal, like the "elephant plane" theory.[2] The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.[3]
In 2011, they ran out of "peer-reviewers" and sent out a request for someone to review two papers defending the "official" account of a plane hitting the Pentagon. The Screw Loose Change blog remarked:
“”Great, so after 10 years of cutting edge research and truthseeking they finally figured out what the rest of us knew that Tuesday morning. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously?
—You Too Can Be A Peer Reviewer![4]
But now 9/11 conspiracy theories must be taken seriously, because, look, this research is "peer-reviewed!"

Peer review of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is by someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about. I prefer my conspiracy theories in the form of comic books, not pseudo-scientific clap-trap.

Demolitions experts have been interviewed stating shape charges can be placed in protective shells that would keep then from exploding from fire. I'm sorry but you're wrong again.

Bullshit, I don't think I've been wrong at any point and your attempts to prove me so are just going around in circles based on fallacious ideas.To what temperatures can these protective shells withstand? Are they habitually designed to survive the impact and energy/heat generated by a 767 crashing into them? I think they are better described as flame resistant. And even if they have some kind of super magic coating which could have withstood this, shape charges are unable to bend the rules of matter. They would have left copper residue on the steel, which was not found. Metal can melt, it can burn, it can combine to make alloys but it cannot simply disappear.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
As for the video showing steel being cut without explosives, we are not talking about a poxy little square of metal propped up against a tree, we are talking about the massive supporting girders on the TT. I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives. There will be video later.
Ya sure, you use military grade thermite on a daily basis and demolition cutting charges to cut steel.

Silly theatrics from you. You're not even reading what you are writing yourself now. You said that steel could be cut without explosives. I said of course they bloody can. Where's the fucking argument? And no, I never said that I use military grade thermites every day. But there again that's you buying into the Truther theory that there are super secret military grade thermites, that no-one knows about right there

No kidding, the fact is the majority of the steel was shipped off and only a relative few pieces left for investigation. What's hard to understand about that?

What's so hard to understand that they were unlikely to keep every last bit indefinitely, they'd still be poring over it well into the next century if they did that, until it finally turned into a pile of rust. I would have thought that they would have investigated the parts which would have been relevant to a structural failure investigation, not hung onto every last rivet and beam. This is standard investigation procedure.

“Well, if you insist steal cant be cut without explosives one would think I might post a video with audio of explosions that day. Here, I'll do it again:”

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Again, I never insisted that steel cannot be cut without explosives. Pay attention. What I said was the ENORMOUS steel supporting girders could not be cut with thermites alone. In order to properly prepare them for controlled demolition (unless you suggest they were amateurs) they would have to be pre-cut. And no, I’m not watching your mind-bogglingly stupid video again. However, I will be posting a video which demonstrates how steel cannot be cut by the application of thermites alone. It is one of the Truther theories of how they cut through the steel girders during the controlled demolition of the TT. It’s how they get around the inconvenient little problem of how absolutely no trace of detonators was found in the debris.

Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. God, I really hope I'm never stuck in an elevator with you.

Ignore it. Ignore it all.

Are you describing yourself there?

Would it take thousands of terrorists to pull off 9/11?

No. It took 19 hijackers and some ground support. On the other hand a conspiracy to blow up the TT, shoot down a plane in rural Pennsylvania, fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, while "disappearing" the hijacked plane, set up a controlled demo, involving the CIA, FBI, various branches of the military, the NTSB, FAA, air traffic control, the police, the port authority, the emergency services, government at municipal, state and federal level, not to mention the Jewish Bankers, which is what it would involve if the whole what it would take if 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation in order to create a new Pearl Harbour.

The rest is psychological. Institutions and people not willing to accept the state may have done this so everything said or done to explain the attacks is done so not because they're a part of it but because to even question it is too much of a tabboo.

And I feel very sorry for you if your attitude to humanity is that they are all too stupid to work any of this shit out, that all these people who were caught up in this alleged conspiracy were incapable of any kind of critical thinking. They're just willing to be complicit in mass murder.

It would presumably only take a few score people in high level positions of power

Oh really?! When have only a few score people on high level positions of power ever done any of the work themselves? Which was why I made the point about the landfill workers. It would have been a huge task, nearly all of which would have been delegated out to others, all of which were mindless automatons incapable of seeing their manipulation. I find this entirely antithetical to anarchist thought to think so lowly of our fellow humanity.
But there again, there's the "just let it happen" theory, which fails under it's own contradictions.
Truther thought:
The planes weren't sufficient to bring down the TT ->
Needed to be a controlled demolition ->
Controlled demo massive undertaking to set up ->
Would have left masses of different evidences ->
No evidence found ->
Everyone involved in the clear-up and investigation were part of this conspiracy ->
Or
That's a little far-fetched, so they just "let it happen." ->
So, the planes hitting the TT were sufficient after all to bring the towers down ->
So, what's all this bullshit about a demolition then?

My first comment on this thread was that I can't believe that people are still talking about all this. And now 12 years later Truthers are still running further down the rabbit hole of paranoia, lousy understand of government, crap science, rampant speculation and I suppose one day they'll finally get to the hookah smoking caterpillar who will share with them the Absolute Truth.
In my sceptical viewpoint I would suspect that people have made careers out of this, sold god knows how many books and will be milking it for as long as possible. The trouble is though is that most people have moved on.
I suspect that the whole 9/11 truther movement has it's roots in a way of the whole hinkey American Exceptionalism idea. So many parts of the world have had experiences of terrorism and attacks on their soil, which were rare in the US. There had been domestic terrorism, like in Oklahoma City, but nothing so externally ideologically driven. The whole world stood with the US in empathy on 9/11 but the response of why us? belied a deep lack of understanding of the US's position in the world. There's something in this American Exceptionalism theory about this. No, it couldn't have been a terrorist attack like half the world has to live with, it had to be something special. It's just so infantile

So, Mike S your tedious, repetitive, brow-beating style of conversation has got to me. Nothing you have said has swayed me in the slightest and your belligerent way of just saying the same thing over and over again, asking the same question in the hope of eliciting a different response has wore my patience away. I wonder if you carry on conversations like this in the real world and how many people just walk away, probably something which you interpret as a win. Well, enjoy your victory, you're the last one standing, because I have no interest in engaging any further. This is boring me. In fact when reading your post I had a scene from a classic TV show run in my head. So, another youtube video:
[youtube]WZYZyhphazo[/youtube]

admin: I am totally happy to take a no flaming warning for that because, trust me, I have been much nicer to him here than I would have been in real life.

I'm prepared to fall out with the world over this. This thread is shit.
This thread is the crap that you can read anywhere. It's lazy entertainment. It involves people with all sorts of problems coaxed into dancing for our amusement. It is base.
It's not about disproving or proving, enlightening or educating, it's just stupid.
Stop it.

Alright, since Fleur is bowing out (and you deserve some kind of libcom medal) I'll just offer up one more point in an area where I have, if not expertise, at least significant experience.

Mike S., you keep going on about PNAC and a position paper and a journal article or two as if this means much of anything.

The people who wrote both the PNAC piece and "The Grand Chessboard" aren't internet scrubs playing politics they were high up military brass and foreign policy advisers- the people who "set the tone" if you will

Do you know how much shit like this gets published in any given quarter or month? Do you know how many people there are trying to "set the tone" at any given time? There isn't one Grand Establishment Journal that everyone reads to get ideas from.

Huge swaths of academia are establishment-loving toadies who feel important when they publish "serious" articles about world politics. They love giving the US and other powerful states advice on every type of strategy or policy conceivable. There are freaking armies of retired high-ranking military and former government officials whose only current job is spit out articles for magazines, journals and think tanks and appear on talk shows. And they are well-paid for this. It's a sinecure for the powerful.

I went through a phase in college (I was an International Relations major) back when I was just vaguely "radical" where I thought it would be important to try to keep up with current thought as expressed in these types of publications. It is like drinking from a fire hose. A fire hose spewing sewage. I didn't last long before I pared back my reading list and got more selective.

But my main point is twofold. (1) If you're willing to look back over the past few decade's worth of material I'm pretty goddamned sure you can find some type of article written by serious experts "predicting" or prescribing basically anything that any state has done ever. Or "predicting" any kind of war, attack, crisis or practically anything that these people write about.

The PNAC piece was retroactively seized upon as being prophetic by some people because what it talked about came true. There were also a ton of articles and papers published by the same type of people at the same time who were saying that a war with China was the type of galvanizing event that would be needed to further US strategic aims into the new millennium. These experts were saying that only if some kind of spark could be ignited, either over Taiwan or the Spratly Islands, the US could whip the Chinese in a brief but brutal naval engagement and a new Cold War could begin afterwards.

There were also those sure that Balkanization was the future, with states breaking down into smaller and smaller entities all over the world, with regional conflict and civil war the new normal. And others sure that superstates was the future, with the EU, NAFTA, Commonwealth of Independent States, Mercosur, etc. forming true states and leading to either 1984 or World Peace. Others were positive that the WTO, World Bank, IMF, the UN, NGOs and other organizations would all lead us into a glorious future of peaceful trade and international cooperation, a web of interdependence. I could go on.

The PNAC piece proved to be influential because the faction of the ruling class that was in power during the attacks (Bush-Cheney) was influenced by PNAC thought. Not all factions are or were.

Main point (2) is NO SHIT! The PNAC piece in particular did little more than state the obvious, if with some imaginative flair. I was in college on 9/11 and in the couple years afterward I actually had that very paper on the reading list for a couple of classes. Why? Because it was very helpful in understanding how the US was in prime position to take advantage of such a spectacular attack and why the Bush administration did so they way they did. It was simple logical inference that in the post-Cold War period a "Pearl Harbor-like" attack would be able to reignite (at least approximately) Cold War-levels of military spending and public support for foreign wars.

It is important to understand that PNAC wasn't saying, "Hey guys, we really need an attack to carry out our plans," but was really saying, "If (or when) an attack happens we need to be ready to seize the moment and not hesitate to immediately enact aggressive policy both here and abroad." It was trying to set the tone, as you say, for the aftermath of an attack. The people writing it didn't want the state dicking around with the UN or "measured responses" and lose the opportunity to go balls to the walls while they still had massive support. And, luckily for the PNAC crowd, they had their buddies in power (the Cheney crowd) when the spectacular attack hit and that's exactly what the state did.

Conceivably, if the attacks happened while Clinton was still in office or if Gore had won the election, there may have been a less aggressive response. One reason is because that faction of the ruling class is less inclined to give two fucks about what the PNAC crowd writes; they have their own experts who advocate slightly different strategies. They are the kinder, gentler face of capitalism and the state and may have taken a different approach. And then the PNAC piece would have been completely forgotten as irrelevant.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Mike S:
Oh, where to start. I guess I'll just have to find a spot to jump into the circles you're going around in. I suspect you're not even reading what I have posted, you've certainly not read or made any attempt to digest the structural engineering analysis which addressed all this.

I watched the discovery channel video. They said access to the elevator shafts would be necessary and that in the year 2000 elevator renovations took place but there was also,which they left out, in 2001, in the months leading up to 9/11, an electrical infrastructure job going on where various crews had access to the elevator shafts during which time there was also construction going on on various floors with loud banging, drilling etc. Their entire point seems to be people would've noticed noise and construction crews. And of course this can't be done in 36 hours as you implied I was suggesting.

I like how they interview the random construction guy at the 24:50 mark in the video who says "no one has been able to provide a single piece of evidence that the buildings were demolished".

They've interviewed iron workers, on video (sorry) who said before they had any tools or even crews in place to begin clean up they found many beams that had been cut at an angle. Also, I posted the Tom Sullivan interview where he said remote detonators can be used (one of the demo guys in the Discovery video says wires would've been found). Even if wires were in the rubble what's to distinguish them from normal electrical wires? There was no investigation.

At the 26:00 mark the narrator says the lack of any pre attack demolition evidence at ground zero means crews couldn't have ripped off drywall and placed charges on beams. Ha! How is one to tell if drywall was ripped off beams when it was all pulverized? Then nanothermite is brought up and they do an experiment with regular thermite. Great. I agree Steven Jones needs to hand over his alleged evidence for independent studies or shut up about it.

The hour mark and beyond goes into some random theories of people trying to explain what "really" happened. All I have to say to that is has the state proven what really happened in the "official" story? They fingered Osama Bin Laden hours after the attack. Where was the evidence? Was there a trial? The information they got to corroborate their story was a result of torture and Osama Bin Laden himself denied having anything to do with the attacks. The Taliban in Afghanistan even offered to hand him over if the US showed them some evidence. The evidence the state had was the CIA finally admitting they tracked al qaeda terrorists into the country and then "lost track of them". Richard Clarke himself said it would have been east to find them as they were using their real names and credit cards. The CIA didn't lose track of them, obviously.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Go back and try again. And for someone who's complaining that no-one is watching the videos you're posting, I can only assume you've not watched the one I posted up because it also covers the things you are saying

Not true at all. The video I posted was a rebuttal to the Discovery channel video. The video [i]I[/] posted covers the things in the Discovery Channel video. I watched the Discovery Channel video. You ignored the videos I posted which I even gave exact times to view so you wouldn't have to sit through 4 hours.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Mike S discussion technique:
WATCH THE VIDEO! GO ON WATCH IT AGAIN! AND KEEP WATCHING IT UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN WHAT I'VE TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD BE SEEING! STILL NOT SEEING IT? WATCH IT AGAIN!

No that's not my discussion technique, there are key interviews which have been done on video and other concepts which are explained on video so yes I've posted a couple videos but so what? Later in this post you accuse me of copy/pasting walls of text which I haven't done.

Now you're just being an asshole

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Absolutely. 100% The one thing we can agree on. I'm just simply mirroring your behaviour back at you.

No, you were trying to seriously imply thousands of people would "have to be in on it". Replace the word asshole with duplicitous.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Also, I'll copy you're massively irritating habit of copying and pasting vast tracts, making it really tedious to read for anyone who is perfectly capable of glancing up the page or retaining something they've read a few minutes earlier.

Here we go, where have I done this? Point this "habit" out please. Don't feel confident in your bullshit just because every post I make is being downed and your "upped". You're still full of shit. You and I both know it.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Firstly, post 220
I said that people would have noticed that the building was being prepped for demolition and you provided me with a list of things which could easily be explained by other much more mundane things, which I have already said.

Entire floors shut down with elevators that don't stop at those floors and one of the largest electronic systems renovations in the buildings history which gave a multitude of crews access to the elevator shafts where at one point power went down for 36 hours in so disabling all of the security cameras and locks in the building. You said nothing out of the ordinary took place, or that people would have noticed something. Well, out of the ordinary things took place and people noticed. Back track all you want but the point is out of the ordinary construction was taking place prior to the attacks and the power went down for 36 hours. That information addresses your original claim that nothing strange happened or no one noticed anything.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Nope, still not a very convincing case for the controlled demolition of the buildings. Refer back to the Nat Geo video - go on, WATCH IT - it would be something that would take up to 6 months to do. A whole 36 hour eh? Did they get the Flash in?

You're distorting what I said and what was implied. The crews who had access to elevator shafts where there for months, the construction on various floors which made a lot of noise took place for over 2 months. The fact security was down for 36 hours simply mean there was access to various parts of the building that would have normally been restricted other than the numerous floors and elevator shafts which were already open to various construction crews. Does this prove a controlled demolition? Of course not it proves there was opportunity for a demo crew, over a period of months, to access exterior beams and the core columns with an added 36 hours of access to any part of the building.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Again, there was nothing there that was significantly out of the ordinary which could have been easily explained and certainly these things which prove what I say to be “untrue” are certainly not out of the ordinary enough to be taken as proof that an operation of such a magnitude as prepping the TT for demolition was going ahead.

No its not proof. You're correct and I never said it was proof. It proves there was opportunity.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Great googliemooglies! Opportunity. For 36 hours.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about large construction crews having access to numerous entire office floors AND elevator shafts for months. You're fixating on the 36 hours of the power being down. You're doing this fora reason and it's disingenuous to say the least.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect.

Yes, transformers you said. That explains all the flashes and explosions prior to collapse in your mind. I get it.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Yes, there were explosions. Oh the great and wonderful Mike, you have got me to agree to the fact that there were explosions. Not that anyone said there weren't. WTF are you arguing about that one for? Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't know the difference between explosions, things that sound like explosions and actual explosives (of which there was no evidence of on 9/11.)

Was there evidence for Osama Bin Laden facilitating the attacks? Where is it? The main evidence is beams with diagonal cuts that iron workers noticed prior to clean up and the video/audio evidence.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

No, I am not a demolition expert, which is why I posted up the opinions of actual demolition experts as well as seismologists, whose data concludes, rather conclusively, that there were no detonated explosives in the TT that day. I assume people who spend their professional lives analyzing seismic data both for controlled demolition companies and for the seismology department at Columbia University might know a thing or two about what they are looking at.

And I posted a paper written by André Rousseau and opinions of demolition experts. They're just unprofessional "quacks" though because they're going against the grain.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

No, I am not a demolition expert, but then humble little me, who has never blown up a building in my life, knows the difference between explosions and explosives. It is clear that the Truther ramblings on this subject have been written by people who do not.

What's the difference between explosions and shape charges? The line of attack has been, perhaps not by you, "there would have been demolition explosions prior to the collapse which weakened the structure". The fact of the matter is there were loud explosions prior to the collapse which could have been shape charges.

Explosives aren't even necessary to cut beams and girders.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Jesus Christ, let's go back again. Do you know just how big these buildings were? How large these girders were? The load capacity they had to support? Would you like to go back and read the stuff I've already posted up by the structural engineers or watch the video again, because it's really boring having to repeat myself over and over again. Basically, in very, very simple terms, they would have had to be pre-cut and then explosives applied to initiate failure.

Those girders can be cut with shape charges/explosives and thermite.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Hydraulic jacks. You really do have to be shitting me now.

I'm not implying hydraulic jacks could have been used. No. All I'm saying is building can be demod without explosives.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

I'm assuming that you've moved onto hydraulic jacks because deep down, there's a little part of you that suspects the complete absence of traces of these explosives in the debris, no detonation devices

There was no investigation looking for evidence of explosives. NIST admitted this. I also posted information from a demolitions expert who explained how, even if they looked, no evidence would be found if the demo was facilitated in a certain (completely possible) way.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

no evidence on the videos of controlled explosion (again read the report, 70% of the contents of the TT was air, explosives would cause a massive displacement of air, it would have had to go somewhere, it would have blown the windows out, this did not happen.)

[youtube]Lcb37yyHgT8[/youtube]

^ watch the windows.

Anyhow I'm not sure if you noticed but (forgive the ominous music)

[youtube]KRZ0ZUQU-3U[/youtube]

And a little more than just windows blew out at WTC, in case you didn't notice the entire building imploded in on itself in ten seconds with no resistance with blasts that are described as "squbs" taking place ahead of the implosion. This has been explained away as air pressure. Well, or it could have been explosions from explosives weakening the structure.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

But there again Truthers belive it was brought down by thermites -which are not explosives -, super secret thermites no less that no-one knows how they work, ignoring the fact that that there was no trace of the chemical signatures of the by-products of thermites in the debris. So in the absence of nothing which backs up the theory of explosives, it's hydraulic jacks now.

No it's not hydraulic jacks now. Yes, nano thermite does exist and it is only used by the military at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Even so explosives and shape charges can cut the girders.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

So, instead of pre-cutting the girders and applying explosives, you postulate that engineers physically removed a section of girder and replaced it with hydraulic jacks.

No I don't. I was simply showing you that a building can be demoed without explosives- quote me saying "hydraulic jacks could have been used". The other point I was going to bring up by posting that video (but didn't because this conversation is getting tiring) was to show you where they did it with jacks in a "pile driver' demolision. This is important though as it relates to my problem with the pile driver theory of WTC collapse. The video I posted of hydraulic jacks demoing a building was a "pile driver" demo where the weight of the top half destroys the bottom half. The thing is- anytime this sort of demo is done they MUST initiate the failure in the middle of the building in order to demo the entire lower structure. If they initiate collapse in the top 1/8 of the building there is no way the top 1/8 can demolish the bottom 7/8. They need the top 1/2 to demolish the bottom 1/2. Ever heard of Newton?

I read your next post and will address it after I do some reading. I'm admittedly not an expert in seismic readings but this is what I'll be reading if you want to "debunk" it before I have a chance to make my next post:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

fleurnoire-et-rouge

This will be my last post. And no, I'm not reading ahead because I have read quite enough of the sort of speculation, junk science and pure bullshit which is published by the Journal of 9/11 studies already. I'm looking forward to deleting the sheer volumes of nonsense they've published that I've now got saved on my computer. To be honest, RationalWiki put it far better than I do:

Peer review of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is by someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about.

He's a geologist who worked for CNRS who's an expert on seismic waves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_national_de_la_recherche_scientifique

Peer review, when dealing with controversial subjects, tend to hold up the accepted idea and new ideas face ridicule. Given the social nature, the psychological aspect of 9/11 information, it makes the process even more constrictive. Anyhow I can post numerous examples of peer review papers being wrong, of peer review papers having data fudged, of peer review papers being pure mathematical speculation. You posted information which you clearly understand as proof so it shouldn't be that hard for you to read this and explain why he's wrong, lying or absolutely uneducated.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

Demolitions experts have been interviewed stating shape charges can be placed in protective shells that would keep then from exploding from fire. I'm sorry but you're wrong again.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Bullshit, I don't think I've been wrong at any point and your attempts to prove me so are just going around in circles based on fallacious ideas.

1. You said all demolitions take place from the bottom down. Not true.
2. You said workers at the WTC would've noticed demo crews in the building or out of the ordinary noise. I provided information/interviews that showed you to be wrong.
3. You imply I said the demo crews only had 36 hours to allegedly rig the building. Not true. Multiple crews has access to the elevator shatfs and various empty floors for months.
4. You implied I said you have silly views when I was clearly talking about Christians in relation to your criticism of people within the 9/11 truth movements silly views.
5. You've accused me of copy/pasting vast tracts which I haven't done once.
6. You said the girders couldn't be destroyed without first being pre-cut which simply isn't true.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

To what temperatures can these protective shells withstand? Are they habitually designed to survive the impact and energy/heat generated by a 767 crashing into them? I think they are better described as flame resistant. And even if they have some kind of super magic coating which could have withstood this, shape charges are unable to bend the rules of matter. They would have left copper residue on the steel, which was not found.

I wasn't aware an investigation took place examining all of the steel from the building. Anyhow,
"Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature."

They somehow didn't find the black box's and they were looking for those. Here's where you say the building fires were hotter than 1,100 C. LOL Where's the black box's? Thats another question isnt it? More questions without answers. This leaves nothing but speculation.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives.

Shape charges can cut girders. They don't need to be pre cut by hand.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And no, I never said that I use military grade thermites every day.
But there again that's you buying into the Truther theory that there are super secret military grade thermites, that no-one knows about.

There is nano thermite that only the military has access to. Another thing you were wrong about when earlier in the thread you denied they even exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

No kidding, the fact is the majority of the steel was shipped off and only a relative few pieces left for investigation. What's hard to understand about that?

fleurnoire-et-rouge

What's so hard to understand that they were unlikely to keep every last bit indefinitely, they'd still be poring over it well into the next century if they did that, until it finally turned into a pile of rust.

Nonsense. The vast majority was immediately scrapped, recycled or shipped off and there's a reason family members were angry this happened because it made an investigation for insurance purposes impossible. Well, not only for insurance purposes it made any investigation impossible. It would be like saying when there's a regular airplane crash in lieu of reconstructing the airplane they would ship off 99% of the airplane for recycling then investigate what happened with the saved 1%. That would be ludicrous.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Again, I never insisted that steel cannot be cut without explosives. Pay attention. What I said was the ENORMOUS steel supporting girders could not be cut with thermites alone. In order to properly prepare them for controlled demolition (unless you suggest they were amateurs) they would have to be pre-cut.

Not true. They could have shape charges placed on them which can be detonated remotely.

God, I really hope I'm never stuck in an elevator with you.

Especially in WTC1 on 9/11 :)

Would it take thousands of terrorists to pull off 9/11?

fleurnoire-et-rouge

No. It took 19 hijackers and some ground support. On the other hand a conspiracy to blow up the TT, shoot down a plane in rural Pennsylvania, fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, while "disappearing" the hijacked plane.

I never said a cruise missile hit the Pentagon and he original plane was disappearing. That was a discovery channel red herring. Lets add that to your erroneous assertions list. What I did say was how did that pilot, and if he could do it why did the pilot make a spectacular aerial maneuver on approach to the Pentagon in so approaching from the ground level hitting a part of the building that was essentially empty? I also said nothing of a plane being shot down in Pennsylvania. Who knows what happened there. There were no bodies, no wreckage, nothing. Everything just evaporated.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

, set up a controlled demo, involving the CIA, FBI, various branches of the military,

Here we go. Lets add these to the list of erroneous assertions. I said it would perhaps take a few key people in positions of power not various branches of the military or FBI. In fact, I've been saying regularly that the FBI was actually extremely confounded concerning why the CIA didn't tell them terrorists entered the country. I also said NORAD couldn't intercept the planes because of the military exercises taking place that day which coincidentally had to do with numerous hijacked planes. Who's idea was it to have those specific exercises on that specific morning? All it takes is one person with authority.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

the NTSB, FAA, air traffic control, the police, the port authority, the emergency services, government at municipal, state and federal level, not to mention the Jewish Bankers, which is what it would involve if the whole what it would take if 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation in order to create a new Pearl Harbour.

The FAA was frantically trying to inform NORAD of the hijackings. There was an initial delay with chain of command confusion then the confusion of the NORAD exercises kept jets from being scrambled. There's been entire books written about the chain of events that morning. Why would the police have to be "in on it? Why would the emergency services have to be in on it? Jewish bankers? Recycling workers? Salvage yard workers? Again, you're just being duplicitous here.

The rest is psychological. Institutions and people not willing to accept the state may have done this so everything said or done to explain the attacks is done so not because they're a part of it but because to even question it is too much of a tabboo.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

And I feel very sorry for you if your attitude to humanity is that they are all too stupid to work any of this shit out, that all these people who were caught up in this alleged conspiracy were incapable of any kind of critical thinking. They're just willing to be complicit in mass murder.

Where is the evidence that Osama Bin Laden planned this? I feel sorry for you if you believe that without any evidence or via evidence gained by torture.

It would presumably only take a few score people in high level positions of power

fleurnoire-et-rouge

Oh really?! When have only a few score people on high level positions of power ever done any of the work themselves? Which was why I made the point about the landfill workers. It would have been a huge task, nearly all of which would have been delegated out to others, all of which were mindless automatons incapable of seeing their manipulation. I find this entirely antithetical to anarchist thought to think so lowly of our fellow humanity.

Ah, attack my "anarchist cred" now. If you don't think the CIA has military operatives who are demolition experts you're naive. Even so, as I said, they didn't even have to demo the buildings for it to be a CIA operation. At the very least the CIA could've used actual dupes in the same manner agent provocateurs try to get anarchists to blow shit up. They sure as hell know they were in the country and according to Richard Clarke even set them up in a home but you ignored that video didn't you? Why don't you go ahead and show e the evidence that Osama Bin Laden did this. Please.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

My first comment on this thread was that I can't believe that people are still talking about all this. And now 12 years later Truthers are still running further down the rabbit hole of paranoia, lousy understand of government

Whats my lousy understanding of government? I think it was pretty clear what the US government intelligentsia wanted and they got it. I also have pretty good grasp on imperialism and a proper critique of the state and it's role not only it's imperialistic role but it's role to legitimize preserve the capitalist system as a whole. The role of the specific people within government who may have or not pulled this off was to ensure US hegemony which is the entire reason the CIA and broader military exists.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

In my sceptical viewpoint I would suspect that people have made careers out of this, sold god knows how many books and will be milking it for as long as possible. The trouble is though is that most people have moved on.

You obviously haven't as you've posted quite extensively in this thread. You're little closing statement here is self contradictory.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

I suspect that the whole 9/11 truther movement has it's roots in a way of the whole hinkey American Exceptionalism idea. So many parts of the world have had experiences of terrorism and attacks on their soil, which were rare in the US.

I think it was the spectacular nature of teh attacks along with the many many coincidences and anomalies. If these were suicide bombers blowing themselves up in market place or in a subway it would be quite different. Perhaps men with fully automatic rifles wreaking havoc on the population. What we have in the US were the most spectacular terrorist attacks ever facilitated in airspace that's normally protected by NORAD which just happened to have exercises that morning where they were chasing imaginary with hijacked planes which were also put on radar so the radar techs couldn't tell which planes were hijacked and which were from the exersize and the NORAD planes were sent far away from NY so even without the false blips on radar they wouldn't have been able to intercept.

Then we have the matter of the Pentagon having portable anti aircraft missiles which weren't deployed when they knew the plane was approaching the Pentagon. This is the most secure airspace on earth. Is this "American exceptionalism" I'm spewing? I thin not. It's common sense. Then we have the matter of the CIA supposedly "losing track" of the hijackers when Richard Clarke said he could have found them in 6 hours if the CIA told him they were in the country. There seems to be a whole lot of idiocy going on here yes?

fleurnoire-et-rouge

There had been domestic terrorism, like in Oklahoma City, but nothing so externally ideologically driven. The whole world stood with the US in empathy on 9/11 but the response of why us? belied a deep lack of understanding of the US's position in the world. There's something in this American Exceptionalism theory about this. No, it couldn't have been a terrorist attack like half the world has to live with, it had to be something special. It's just so infantile

Why us? I've never said "why us" what I've pointed to is politicians, military brass and foreign policy advisers who said the USA needed a new enemy, a new attack in order to achieve it's geopolitical and economic goals into the future. This has been brushed off as just another coincidence- another poster tried to say it was just people trying to act important- no, these people are actual policy makers and foreign policy advisers who specifically said in order to maintain US hegemony an attack would be necessary. I keep repeating this because I don't think people understand how influential Brzezinski and the PNAC authors were. Acting like they were Washington wanna b's playing politics online is absurd. Acting like anyone who thinks the US may have had a hand in the attacks is internalizing some lame American exceptionalism is just as absurd. You're essentially calling me a nationalist. I could care less about the USA, it's borders, it's culture, it's government or national identity.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

So, Mike S your tedious, repetitive, brow-beating style of conversation has got to me. Nothing you have said has swayed me in the slightest and your belligerent way of just saying the same thing over and over again, asking the same question in the hope of eliciting a different response has wore my patience away. I wonder if you carry on conversations like this in the real world and how many people just walk away, probably something which you interpret as a win. Well, enjoy your victory, you're the last one standing, because I have no interest in engaging any further.

Good, I'm also tiered of your baseless assertions, your moving the goal posts, your personal attacks, your outright lying and general snobbery which is only fed by the fact posters on this site have also determined to deny the FACT that the US government could have very well either helped plan these attacks or let them happen. Where's the proof Osama Bin Laden did it?

fleurnoire-et-rouge

admin: I am totally happy to take a no flaming warning for that because, trust me, I have been much nicer to him here than I would have been in real life.

You won't get one. I'm not very popular on this site. I could say gravity exists and the post would be downed.

An Affirming Flame

Alright, since Fleur is bowing out (and you deserve some kind of libcom medal) I'll just offer up one more point in an area where I have, if not expertise, at least significant experience.

Mike S., you keep going on about PNAC and a position paper and a journal article or two as if this means much of anything.

The people who wrote both the PNAC piece and "The Grand Chessboard" aren't internet scrubs playing politics they were high up military brass and foreign policy advisers- the people who "set the tone" if you will

An Affirming Flame

Do you know how much shit like this gets published in any given quarter or month? Do you know how many people there are trying to "set the tone" at any given time? There isn't one Grand Establishment Journal that everyone reads to get ideas from.

Brzezinski wrote an entire book outlining the foreign policy path the US needs to take in order to maintain US hegemony. He said attacks and a new global enemy need to happen/emerge if the goals were to be met. He's been an integral US asset both in Afghanistan, fighting the cold war and on other foreign policy matters for decades. When he speaks people listen. The authors of the PNAC piece and long time members of the PNAC think tank are military generals, people within the state department and advisers to presidents. They're not just Washington wanna b's trying to act important.

An Affirming Flame

Huge swaths of academia are establishment-loving toadies who feel important when they publish "serious" articles about world politics. They love giving the US and other powerful states advice on every type of strategy or policy conceivable. There are freaking armies of retired high-ranking military and former government officials whose only current job is spit out articles for magazines, journals and think tanks and appear on talk shows. And they are well-paid for this. It's a sinecure for the powerful.

Their entire point was the US had become complacent after the fall of "communism" That the US MUST take advantage of it's lone superpower status to insure global dominance into the future. You should read Brzezinski's book and the PNAC publication- it's exactly what the US is now doing. These people were also Bush admin advisers not retired scrubs trying to remain important.They were the in the now power brokers and Brzezinski still is to this day.

An Affirming Flame

I went through a phase in college (I was an International Relations major) back when I was just vaguely "radical" where I thought it would be important to try to keep up with current thought as expressed in these types of publications. It is like drinking from a fire hose. A fire hose spewing sewage. I didn't last long before I pared back my reading list and got more selective.

Personal anecdotes are quite meaningless when the reality is people who were already in positions of influence/power wrote up this plan for future US hegemony with it all depending on attacks on the US then it happened one year later. Acting like Brzezinski and the PNAC authors are just Washington scrubs trying to act important is beyond disingenuous.

An Affirming Flame

But my main point is twofold. (1) If you're willing to look back over the past few decade's worth of material I'm pretty goddamned sure you can find some type of article written by serious experts "predicting" or prescribing basically anything that any state has done ever. Or "predicting" any kind of war, attack, crisis or practically anything that these people write about.

One year before 9/11 they didn't predict an attack they said one would be necessary if the US was to maintain global hegemony. They said the US needed a new enemy in order to legitimize foreign intervention and domestic spending on military.

An Affirming Flame

The PNAC piece was retroactively seized upon as being prophetic by some people because what it talked about came true.

It didn't talk about the threat of Islamic terrorism it specifically said a new Pearl Harbor like attack would be necessary if the US was to maintain it's lone global superpower status. It's the same message Brzezinski had in his rather large book.

An Affirming Flame

There were also a ton of articles and papers published by the same type of people at the same time who were saying that a war with China was the type of galvanizing event that would be needed to further US strategic aims into the new millennium. These experts were saying that only if some kind of spark could be ignited, either over Taiwan or the Spratly Islands, the US could whip the Chinese in a brief but brutal naval engagement and a new Cold War could begin afterwards.

The same people (PNAC/Brzezinski) also said China is the main threat to keep from challenging US hegemony which is partly why they specifically said the US needs control of central Asia/the middle east.

An Affirming Flame

There were also those sure that Balkanization was the future, with states breaking down into smaller and smaller entities all over the world, with regional conflict and civil war the new normal. And others sure that superstates was the future, with the EU, NAFTA, Commonwealth of Independent States, Mercosur, etc. forming true states and leading to either 1984 or World Peace. Others were positive that the WTO, World Bank, IMF, the UN, NGOs and other organizations would all lead us into a glorious future of peaceful trade and international cooperation, a web of interdependence. I could go on.

I'm aware there are have beens and various people in Washington who are perpetually writing predictions and policy initiatives. So what? The PNAC authors were the intellectual architects of the administration which was in power at the time. Brzezinski has been a key asset and foreign policy adviser since the Carter administration. These people pull real weight. Brzezinski still does. He's the modern Henry Kissinger. You need to understand that.

An Affirming Flame

The PNAC piece proved to be influential because the faction of the ruling class that was in power during the attacks (Bush-Cheney) was influenced by PNAC thought. Not all factions are or were.

And Brzezinski was influential with other elements. The only people who need to be influenced is the CIA and a few powerful people. I don't think the entire establishment needs to be convinced that America must be attacked in order to maintain global hegemony.

An Affirming Flame

Main point (2) is NO SHIT! The PNAC piece in particular did little more than state the obvious, if with some imaginative flair. I was in college on 9/11 and in the couple years afterward I actually had that very paper on the reading list for a couple of classes. Why? Because it was very helpful in understanding how the US was in prime position to take advantage of such a spectacular attack and why the Bush administration did so they way they did. It was simple logical inference that in the post-Cold War period a "Pearl Harbor-like" attack would be able to reignite (at least approximately) Cold War-levels of military spending and public support for foreign wars.

It it simple logical inference that one happened a year later? If you actually want to rad it, which I have in full, it's right here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I also read the Grand Chessboard back in 1999. You'll have to go steal that one if you have any interest in reading it but if it was simply logical inference the entire, as you said, swaths of people trying to be important by writing such papers would have come to the same conclusion. They didnt and they were also not in influential positions as the PNAC authors and Brzezinski.

An Affirming Flame

It is important to understand that PNAC wasn't saying, "Hey guys, we really need an attack to carry out our plans," but was really saying, "If (or when) an attack happens we need to be ready to seize the moment and not hesitate to immediately enact aggressive policy both here and abroad."

You haven't even tread it. Just stop. STOP. They specifically said unless an attack happened on US soil comparable to a new Pearl Harbor like attack the agenda lain out would be very improbable and would take perhaps a generation by which time it would be too late to maintain US hegemony. Stop trying to bullshit me.

An Affirming Flame

It was trying to set the tone, as you say, for the aftermath of an attack. The people writing it didn't want the state dicking around with the UN or "measured responses" and lose the opportunity to go balls to the walls while they still had massive support. And, luckily for the PNAC crowd, they had their buddies in power (the Cheney crowd) when the spectacular attack hit and that's exactly what the state did.

If I have to re read it and post their exact words I will. I have general idea where that part was so it will only take me about ten minutes. They explicitly said, as did Brzezinski, that without an attack on US soil the future US dominance was unlikely. This had to do with time constraints. The entire point of quickly being able to build up the military and facilitate foreign intervention was to keep any one nation from challenging US hegemony. They said without an attack it would take a long time to facilitate this plan which would, by it's very nature, make the plan next to impossible. This is the message Brzezinski put forth as well.

An Affirming Flame

Conceivably, if the attacks happened while Clinton was still in office or if Gore had won the election, there may have been a less aggressive response. One reason is because that faction of the ruling class is less inclined to give two fucks about what the PNAC crowd writes; they have their own experts who advocate slightly different strategies.

And the attacks didn't happen during Clinton's administration. He left office in 2001 and them BAM!

Mike S, you're probably the most entertaining boring person on libcom for some time. You're no Outlaw or Gunshow Kenneth, but I'll take what I can get.

edit

You should study the Hegelian concept of zeitgeist. About the movie I have no idea, but I assume it relates 9/11 as an example of events which manifest as the political spirit of the time.

Decide objectively what seems more plausible to you.

Done.

Edit

ALL CAPS make my argument MUCH stronger.

Chilli Sauce

ALL CAPS make my argument MUCH stronger.

and STRONGER!

It pretty simple, it is now over 11 years on since the events happened. Let's suppose some faction within the state are responsible for events of '9/11'. Now let's suppose the truth comes to light and can no longer be ignored. What do you think will happen? That 'The People' will rise up bringing in an era of peace, prosperity and truth? At best a massive institutional investigate will occur, heads will roll, changes suggested and implemented and daily life will continue. The drones will keep killing, the occupations will continue, the struggle for control of the world's resources will intensify,new invasions will occur and the rich will keep getting richer. The rationale for the invasion of Iran was that it had weapons of mass destruction, this was shown to be a lie. Did it undo the invasion and occupation? Did it speed the withdrawal of American troops? Whilst you have spent a decade dedicated to exposing the truth, history has continued on, struggles have emerged all over the world. This is a hobby for chatting about down the pub, entertaining for a while but not much use for deciding where and how to ac,t in nearly everyone else's daily life. Stop wasting your time (or least other people's) and get a more interesting hobby.

And that's the end of that discussion, thanks JC.

You remember the X-Files? You remember those weird conspiracy nuts Mulder buddied about with? Well they got their own show and...

In the premier episode, which aired March 4, 2001, members of the U.S. government conspire to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center, and blame the act on terrorists to gain support for a new profit-making war. The episode aired six months prior to the September 11 attacks.

Yeah, that's right, the fucking meta-conspiracy: a "fictional" show about conspiracy theories only predicts the biggest conspiracy of all time.

Proof if proof be need be, my friends.

You remember the X-Files? You remember those weird conspiracy nuts Mulder buddied about with? Well they got their own show and...

:
In the premier episode, which aired March 4, 2001, members of the U.S. government conspire to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center, and blame the act on terrorists to gain support for a new profit-making war. The episode aired six months prior to the September 11 attacks.
Yeah, that's right, the fucking meta-conspiracy: a "fictional" show about conspiracy theories only predicts the biggest conspiracy of all time.

Proof if proof be need be, my friends.

It wouldn't have worked though. Because jet fuel can't melt steel beams! Bwahahahah

yo, but was that lone gunmen show worth watching???

That's the real question.

(real x-files fan here)

It was aight. X-files fans would say you're not an x-files fan if you haven't watched it.

aghhh! You questioning my credentials!?? :D

I never watched Millenium either. But I have seen every episode of x files multiple times. Even the bad ones. Even season 8 and 9.

Sorry for the derail, but talk about x files in a thread about zeitgeist isn't all that off

Season 2 of Millenium was awesome.