zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
Virindi
Offline
Joined: 4-04-08
Jan 7 2009 19:31

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.)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 7 2009 20:04
Joseph K. wrote:
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.

Well that's a rather unusual use of the words 'theory' and 'fact'...

I would say the real difference is that a conspiracy theorist's conspiracy theory is a generally huge overarching affair, almost a worldview, very complex and including all sorts of groups. It has to become that complex because "entities are multiplied beyond necessity", epicycles are added, in order to fit the theory around the facts - because the theorist will not let go of the idea that there is a conspiracy and it covers every aspect of an event. The conspiracy is always the largest possible conspiracy. Real conspiracies are usually limited to a much smaller number of groups, because of the near impossibility of managing the convoluted networks imagined by the theorist.

I haven't touched on the psychological issues behind it, but in short you can distinguish a conspiracy theorist's theory from a normal theory about a conspiracy by its excessive complexity.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 7 2009 21:58

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.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Jan 7 2009 22:15
weeler wrote:
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.

sphinx
Offline
Joined: 25-12-05
Jan 7 2009 23:29
Alf wrote:

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.

Quote:
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.

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Jan 7 2009 23:57

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.

Zazaban
Offline
Joined: 23-10-07
Jan 8 2009 00:05
weeler wrote:
Occam's razor, end of discussion.

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

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 8 2009 00:36
Zazaban wrote:
weeler wrote:
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?

Zazaban
Offline
Joined: 23-10-07
Jan 8 2009 00:51
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Zazaban wrote:
weeler wrote:
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.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 8 2009 00:52

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

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jan 8 2009 03:54
Lurch wrote:
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.

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Jan 8 2009 07:27

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.

Lurch
Offline
Joined: 15-10-05
Jan 8 2009 09:12

jesuithitsquad wrote:

Quote:
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.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jan 8 2009 23:30
sphinx wrote:
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.

sphinx
Offline
Joined: 25-12-05
Jan 9 2009 00:07
Vlad336 wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jan 9 2009 01:16

First,

sphinx wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 9 2009 01:18

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 laugh out loud

sphinx
Offline
Joined: 25-12-05
Jan 9 2009 03:39
Vlad336 wrote:
First,
sphinx wrote:
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:

Quote:
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'.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 9 2009 10:21

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

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jan 9 2009 13:05

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.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 9 2009 13:20
Quote:
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.

Lurch
Offline
Joined: 15-10-05
Jan 9 2009 17:06

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.

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Jan 10 2009 08:26
sphinx wrote:
Vlad336 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Jan 10 2009 08:36

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

Zazaban
Offline
Joined: 23-10-07
Jan 10 2009 08:41
mikus wrote:
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.

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Jan 10 2009 08:50
mikus wrote:
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.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 10 2009 09:14
waslax wrote:
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).

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Jan 10 2009 09:35
Demogorgon303 wrote:
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.

sphinx
Offline
Joined: 25-12-05
Jan 10 2009 09:47
waslax wrote:
mikus wrote:
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.

Anrchst's picture
Anrchst
Offline
Joined: 10-01-09
Jan 10 2009 10:32

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.