zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Oct 3 2013 08:12

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;

Quote:
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_m...

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 2 2013 19:18

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.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Oct 2 2013 19:23
TAEHSEAN wrote:
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.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 2 2013 19:57

Factvalue:

Happy to discuss further (seriously, I owe my engineer big time for this smile ) 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

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Oct 2 2013 21:13

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.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 2 2013 22:04
radicalgraffiti wrote:
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?

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.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 2 2013 21:45
TAEHSAEN wrote:

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

Stopped reading there. Sorry.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 2 2013 21:49
Chilli Sauce wrote:

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/

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 2 2013 22:12

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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

snipfool
Offline
Joined: 9-06-11
Oct 2 2013 22:14

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!)

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 3 2013 01:32
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 3 2013 01:13
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
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:

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.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Oct 3 2013 02:05

SCIENCE, CONSPIRACY AND REALITY go figure

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Oct 3 2013 02:05

SCIENCE, CONSPIRACY AND REALITY go figure

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 3 2013 03:07
Jason Cortez wrote:
SCIENCE, CONSPIRACY AND REALITY go figure

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

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 3 2013 06:50
Mike S. wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:

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/

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).

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Oct 3 2013 08:45

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.

Quote:
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-t...

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Oct 3 2013 08:48

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

Quote:
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=...

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Oct 3 2013 10:08

200 posts on conspiranoia? *sigh*

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

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Oct 3 2013 12:37
ocelot wrote:
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. sad

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Oct 3 2013 14:30

ocelot wrote:

Quote:
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.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 3 2013 16:09

Factvalue:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

An Affirming Flame
Offline
Joined: 22-09-11
Oct 3 2013 19:02

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.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 4 2013 03:01

Mike S:

Quote:
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 wink
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.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 4 2013 03:23

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 -

Quote:
'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.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Oct 4 2013 09:51

An Affirming Flame wrote:

Quote:
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.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 4 2013 10:30

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.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Oct 4 2013 10:59

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.

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Oct 4 2013 12:53

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).

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 4 2013 18:14

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

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