zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Oct 4 2013 18:59
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Blue!! How did you make the text blue!?

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

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

If you want plain blue text, then you just had to ask!

Or how about pink?

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

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

What about building 7?

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 4 2013 21:18
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
I'm not sure what the youtube video named Linear Shaped Charge detonation was supposed to demonstrate.

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

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

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

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 4 2013 21:35

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 4 2013 22:05
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
And because it's Friday and I am declaring for myself a conspiracy theory free weekend (unless I run into any of the Larouche people because they are the most fun to rile up,) something I forgot to put in previously -

What about building 7?

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 4 2013 22:07
Chilli Sauce wrote:
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).

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

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Oct 4 2013 22:20
Mike S. wrote:
"Da troof. Tin foil". This is pretty much what you guys are posting after post 192. I'm aware conspiracy theory culture is bizarre and filled with people who simply don't understand the world but is it really that far fetched for you to acknowledge US intelligence agencies could have perhaps either let the attacks happen or even had a hand in them?

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

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 4 2013 22:33

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

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

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 00:25
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Mike S:
Don't you think they might have noticed a shit load more than a bit of construction?

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

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
When you wander into the realms of "proving" the "truth" you are entering the realms of belief. Your "proof" appears to be amateurish videos and speculation.

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

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Perhaps you watch too many crime dramas if you think they do. And you accuse me of having "silly views."

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

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

This is obvious.

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

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

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
So what exactly are my silly views?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
And btw, that really is me out of here for the weekend now, because I do have better things to do.

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 00:44

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

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

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 5 2013 02:43
Mike S. wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NiHeCjZlkr8#t=78

Is this video above just plain wrong?

that video is shit.

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

that is bullshit, i have told you why

Mike S. wrote:
and if Pancake theory, as NIST said,

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 07:41
radicalgraffiti wrote:
that video is shit.

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

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

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

radicalgraffiti wrote:

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

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

From NIST

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

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 5 2013 20:03
Quote:
The entire point of a New Pearl Harbor like attack, as Brzezinski and the Neoconservatives put it, was so the US could side step international law.

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 22:00
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
The entire point of a New Pearl Harbor like attack, as Brzezinski and the Neoconservatives put it, was so the US could side step international law.

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

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

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

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

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

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 5 2013 21:53
Quote:
Well, why would the nations top political intelligentsia say what they said? I didn't say it. Brzezinski said a serious new threat would be necessary to both mobilize the people and gain international support for military presence in and thus domination of the Eurasian continent (the Middle East being the most strategically important region in his opinion).

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 22:09
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Well, why would the nations top political intelligentsia say what they said? I didn't say it. Brzezinski said a serious new threat would be necessary to both mobilize the people and gain international support for military presence in and thus domination of the Eurasian continent (the Middle East being the most strategically important region in his opinion).

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

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

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

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 5 2013 22:27

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

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

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

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 23:45

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

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

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

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 5 2013 22:41

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

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 22:59
Chilli Sauce wrote:

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

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

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

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

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 5 2013 23:41
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Well, to be fair, post Berlin Wall, they fabricated the War on Drugs to continue foreign policy objectives in South America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are just the standard propaganda lines the US tells it's population. After 9/11 the USA had the support of the population and global community to do whatever it wanted- including passing all of the domestic spying programs which essentially gave them complete control over the internet and or any communicative electronics. Including an illegal war. Including military operations anywhere in the globe if it fits into the "fighting terrorism umbrella". Including trillions in defense spending. Including the maintenance of US hegemony.

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

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

I don't think the political intelligentsia had anything to do with it. I would think they're responsible for setting a sort of objective while stating that objective would not be possible without a new exterior threat. One year later the most 'spectacular' terrorist attack in the worlds history happens.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 6 2013 04:02
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Well, one, you didn't actually address my posts.'

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

Watch the interview. Watch the entire video and come back to this thread and say you think it was incompetence and a lack of structural communication between the CIA and counter terrorist division within the FBI and Department Of Defense that led to the information not being shared. Same goes for the people hiding behind their keyboards who keep downing every single post I make. It's blatantly obvious, after watching the Richard Clarke interview, that the CIA intentionally kept the information from both the DOD and FBI.

The question then becomes....why? Richard Clark (the head of the FBI's counter terrorism unit) seems to think the CIA was trying to 'turn' the terrorists and make them assets. He even says he thinks they had a Saudi connected CIA handler at one point who gave them money and a place to live. He then says he thinks, maybe, the terrorists played the CIA. That they became 'double agents'. He also said they wouldn't have been hard to track/find as they were using their actual real names with credit cards and such all the way up to the attack (so, in other word, it's not like the CIA lost track of them).

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Oct 6 2013 19:25

Chomksy's comments on 9/11 strike me as relevant to this.

Noam Chomsky wrote:
Every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11 and it was immediately predictable. I remember my first interviews with journalists a couple of hours afterwards. First question I was asked about this I said: ‘Look, every power system in the world is cheering, the Russians love it. It’s giving them an excuse to increase their atrocities in Chechnya under the pretext that they’re defending themselves from terror. The Chinese love it. They’re going to step up their atrocities in western China against the Uyghurs claiming it’s defense against terror. Indonesia loves it. They’re going to go on a rampage in Aceh and massacre everyone because they’ve got to defend themselves against terror. Ariel Sharon will go wild and occupy territories because we have to protect ourselves from terror.’ And so it continues, in fact, just about every country… I mean the more violent ones just extended their own violence, but the less violent ones, say like England, United States or France, immediately imposed what they called ‘the protection against terrorism’-act. Which had almost nothing to do with terror, but a lot to do with disciplining their own populations. So, if you take a look around the world at what are called the more democratic nations, they instituted mechanisms of control of their population under the pretext of defending themselves against terror. And this, I mean, was completely predictable. Even after an earthquake, things like this happen. Power systems will exploit it to expand their own power over their primary enemies, which are their domestic enemies, their own population. And if they happen to be carrying out violent repression they’ll extend it.

So, if the Bush administration gained from it? Well, that’s true, but it doesn’t seem to tell you anything. It just says they’re one of the power systems in the world, so they gained from it.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Oct 6 2013 22:47
Mike S. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
that video is shit.

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

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

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

this missrepresents what i said, you will notice (well you probably won't but people in general) will notice that i previously mention the top part did not go though the lower part, rather the broken bits of the tower added to to the failing mass, I can only presume based on your response that you belive the broken parts vanished into air like tetris blocks.

Mike S. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:

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

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

From NIST

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

Must be because of the "government shutdown"
This is about how the collapse began, it doesn't contradict the idea of how the collapse could have proceeded once it started that i suggested

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 7 2013 12:37

Mike S:
Firstly, post 220
“Well, ya, I would expect you to run away from the conversation”

If you look at my post 213 I clearly stated I would’t be posting over the weekend. Instead of arguing 9/11 truth, I was prioritizing my kid’s birthday, spending time with my family, catching up with a friend who’s been out of town for a few months ( who I obviously should have been ignoring and talking to you instead,) as well as some of those mundane things which need to be done over the weekend. I am sorry to have inconvenienced you by not standing and fighting with you on your schedule but I made a decision as to what was the best uses of my time and talking about 9/11 wasn’t high on that list.

I said that people would have noticed that the building was being prepped for demolition and you provided me with a list of things which could easily be explained by other much more mundane things, which I have already said.

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

Again, there was nothing there that was significantly out of the ordinary which could have been easily explained and certainly these things which prove what I say to be “untrue” are certainly not out of the ordinary enough to be taken as proof that an operation of such a magnitude as prepping the TT for demolition was going ahead.

“I don't really care about your opinion.”

That’s fine and dandy because I’m not going to lose any sleep over yours either.

“First you said explosives would be necessary to cut the girders, I provided a video where you can clearly hear explosions but you'll just chalk it up to "transformers" exploding. They have witnesses who saw explosions in the basement but again, just transformers.”

You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect. And then you link a video with explosions. What were you trying to prove? That there were explosions? Has anyone said there wasn’t explosions? There is a world of difference between something exploding and an explosion caused by explosives. I will come back to this later. Then you link to an article showing a steel cutting tool. Why? Something about girders can be cut without explosives. Yes, I know. I’m not sure why the existence of the Supertorch proves anything is bunk.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Maybe someone should calculate the mass of all the stuff in the TT and see whether a a building with it's supports compromised could support it.
"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
A quote from John Skilling, the structural engineer who built the WTC.

Presumably John Skilling was talking about the WTC in it’s healthy, non-structurally compromised form. It would have not been in this condition if it was a controlled demolition. Would you like to make up you mind if it was a controlled demo or not? Because it would have been possible to go ahead with a controlled demo without preparing for it. Without prepping, it’s not a controlled demo.

“Why do you assume a person had to cut the beams before the attack?”

Mostly because that’s what structural engineers specializing in controlled demos have said. I will be posting more information further down.

“There were many loud explosions heard that day before the building fell”

Yes. Again. An explosion does not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. I’ve exploded things quite dramatically in the microwave without ever needing to call on the presence of dynamite.

“An explosion was witnessed just before the plane hit as well. I can post videos showing interviews of people who witnessed the exploitation but I guess they have to be lying”

Go ahead if you like, I can post up videos of people swearing they’ve been abducted by aliens. I will also be posting up documents pertaining to the fact that there were no seismic spikes, which would be absolutely present in the event of explosives being detonated, prior to the points at which the planes hit the building.

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

You quite clearly have not been paying attention otherwise you wouldn’t keep going on trying to “prove” that there were explosions. No-one has ever said there were not. As for anything else, you have not proved anything with speculation and tittle-tattle.
I explained the top down demolition thing. If they were doing a controlled demo on the TT a top down demo wouldn’t have been appropriate, nor would the explosives placed at the top of the building have failed to detonate when the planes hit, or shortly afterwards. As for the video showing steel being cut without explosives, we are not talking about a poxy little square of metal propped up against a tree, we are talking about the massive supporting girders on the TT. I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives. There will be video later.

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

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

Structural failure investigations did take place, Including one carried out by engineers specializing in controlled demolitions (will be posting up,) as they usually do -not in situ. Where was it “shipped out”to? As far away as Staten Island. Did you really think that they would just leave it there at Ground Zero? Or would you think that clearing up one of the most densely populated parts of the US wouldn’t be something that was a priority? I’m just going to quote a document I will be posting in full later explaining:

"According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to “rush” or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals – working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise – came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas".

Presumably the many people handling the steel at Fresh Kills Landfill, SI, from the many different entities involved were all in the thrall of this conspiracy too. Then it was shipped to China and other countries for recycling purposes in much the same way other large quantities of steel are sent for recycling. In case you haven’t noticed most ship-breaking and other industrial scale recycling takes place in countries such as India or China these days.

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

Again, I never insisted that steel cannot be cut without explosives. Pay attention. What I said was the ENORMOUS steel supporting girders could not be cut with thermites alone. In order to properly prepare them for controlled demolition (unless you suggest they were amateurs) they would have to be pre-cut. And no, I’m not watching your mind-bogglingly stupid video again. However, I will be posting a video which demonstrates how steel cannot be cut by the application of thermites alone. It is one of the Truther theories of how they cut through the steel girders during the controlled demolition of the TT. It’s how they get around the inconvenient little problem of how absolutely no trace of detonators was found in the debris.

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

I did and I already explained to you why I thought it was crap.

“fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
So what exactly are my silly views?
Re read my post and seriously tell me I was saying you have silly views. Just stop.”

It was by implication, which I have to say is far more subtle than your usual repeating the same thing over and over again in an attempt to get someone who doesn’t agree with you to change their mind.

“Thousands of people?”

Yes, thousands of people, given all the agencies which would have had to be involved in order to pull off an event, and it’s cover up, of this magnitude. Also, make up your mind if it’s a controlled demolition or not. Just let it happen? So it wasn’t a controlled demo? As for the other video, all that suggests is that the CIA made an almighty cock-up if they were trying to turn the Al Qaeda operatives and it has been well known for decades that there has been a systemic lack of co-operation between the FBI and the CIA bordering on outright hostility.

The questions about the top 12 floors have already been answered by other posters but you clearly do not like those answers so you are going to keep repeating it until a) you get one you do like or b) people just give up and walk away.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 7 2013 12:26

Mike S:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/911-science-and-conspiracy/

Because you enjoy video so much, here’s one which I have decided to post up. It’s from National Geographic and it examines the 9/11 truth conspiracies and gives the Scholars for Truth, including renown theologian David Ray Griffin, full opportunity for rebuttal. As well as using a two year investigation from Purdue University, which specializes in science and technology, in which they construct exact scale replicas of the TT and the planes, as well as using extensive computer modeling. ie not snow. In addition they seek the opinions of people who specialize in controlled demolitions of high-rise steel framed buildings and people who are specialists in explosives. If you cut to minute 21 you will see how supporting beams are pre-cut prior to carrying out a controlled demolition and you might also notice that this is being done on a building of some 8 or 9 floors. Not even near the 110 floors of the TT. You may notice the extensive work done to the building prepping it for demolition, not something which could go unnoticed by people working in a building, not something which can be explained by some construction on a few floors. Also, the opinion given by the controlled demolition specialist was that it would take 3 -4 maybe even 6 months to prepare the TT for demolition. Also, there was no detonator evidence found in the debris. The truthers explain this by saying that they did not detonate the explosives in the conventional way, rather they used these illusive superthermites that the construction industry does not know about. Quote Gage concerning this, they used

“detonation mechanism technology not known by Blanchard (structural engineer) or much less us.”
So they, the Scholars for Truth, don’t even know how it works. Speculation. When asked why the controlled demolition industry has extensively refuted their theory, the truthers just retreated into the “they work for the federal government” answer. Lame.
Also, the columns in the WTC debris did not have the distinctive cut of a shape charge with it’s permanent copper residue.
They also did an experiment to see whether thermite alone can severe a column, it did not (thermite is not explosive) but there again it was refuted with the “it’s a top secret military grade thermite.” And they probably keep it at Area 51.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 7 2013 12:33

On the morning of September 11 2001 there was a private demolition monitoring company working in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, Protec Documentation Services, and they had working seismographs at several sites. These machines documented the tremors of the falling towers and the seismic spikes at the moments of impact of the two planes, but no ground vibrations which would have been present if there were demolition charges or bombs. In addition, Columbia University had seismic monitoring equipment in use at the time, which also captured the same data. The truthers have used the seismic data from Columbia as “proof” of explosives, where they actually show nothing of the sort. None of this monitoring picked up any detonations either prior to the planes hitting, prior to the initiation of collapse nor any explosive detonations during the collapse, suggesting that there were charges laid which enabled the floors to be “pulled down.”
Here is a link , a rebuttal of the claim that the the seismic data is in fact proof of the detonation of explosives

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#seismic

And here is Columbia’s own analysis of the seismic data, note the seismic data plotted on pages 6 and 8.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

But there again, I suppose that they were in on the conspiracy too.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

This was authored by Brent Blanchard, senior editor for Implosionworld.com and director of field operations for Protec (see above)

Quote:
Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribute to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack.

Just read it. It covers every engineering aspect relating to the 9/11 truther theories on why it had to be a controlled demolition and refutes them. But there again, the demolition industry is in on the conspiracy too.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Oct 7 2013 12:47

Fleur, I applaud your patience.... eek

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 7 2013 12:57

Arbeiten:

Quote:
Fleur, I applaud your patience....

Thank you. My patience, however, is wearing very thin by now though.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Oct 7 2013 22:00

but what about WTC7????

yeah why the fuck would they bother to demolish it as well as the twin towers????
it must the key to the whole thing.

Turns out it is, if you look closely at this video for seven hours straight you will see lines running from the twin towers to WTC7.