zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

325ttew

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Oct 1 2013 05:17
TAEHSAEN wrote:
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.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 07:42

Steve Pieczenik

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

Quote:
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 wink 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.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

3teew3

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 1 2013 06:27
TAEHSAEN wrote:
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.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 1 2013 07:46

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 08:37
Joseph Kay wrote:
TAEHSAEN wrote:
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.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Oct 1 2013 14:17

Taehsaen has a lot of respect for guys.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 1 2013 15:46

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 smile )
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 wink
*saving and leg stretching*

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 1 2013 16:48

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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*

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Oct 1 2013 18:52

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.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 20:40
factvalue wrote:
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.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 20:49

deleted

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 1 2013 20:53
Mike S. wrote:
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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 21:12
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
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

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 1 2013 21:22
Mike S. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 1 2013 21:42
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
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.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 2 2013 00:47
Mike S. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
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. wrote:
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. wrote:
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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 2 2013 05:52

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:

Quote:
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).

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 2 2013 03:26

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 2 2013 05:57
radicalgraffiti wrote:
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.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 2 2013 09:12
Mike S. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
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?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 2 2013 09:26

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.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:36

2343trew

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 2 2013 11:07
Quote:
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?

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Oct 2 2013 11:08
TAEHSAEN wrote:
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-m...

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 2 2013 11:41

YESSS!!!!

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

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Oct 2 2013 13:36

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.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Oct 2 2013 13:50

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.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 2 2013 16:51

Factvalue:

Quote:
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. smile 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