zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 8 2013 09:57
radicalgraffiti wrote:
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

How do you think a total simultaneous collapse took place without either Pancakeing" or the top part of the building completely demolishing the undamaged bottom half? NIST refused to even attempt to explain how this happened. Most everyone can't because most all of teh steel was shipped off before a proper investigation could take place and yes it's routine to investigate structural failures. NIST closed it's site and was shut down long before the 'government shutdown' but it's common knowledge they rejected pancake theory and refused to explain how the building collapsed past the initial point of the top parts collapsing. They valley said they agreed with the theory that the top part of the building completely demolished the bottom part.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Oct 8 2013 10:52
Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 8 2013 23:10
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Firstly, post 220

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

Entire floors shut down with elevators that don't stop at those floors and one of the largest electronic systems renovations in the buildings history which gave a multitude of crews access to the elevator shafts where at one point power went down for 36 hours in so disabling all of the security cameras and locks in the building. You said nothing out of the ordinary took place, or that people would have noticed something. Well, out of the ordinary things took place and people noticed. Back track all you want but the point is out of the ordinary construction was taking place prior to the attacks and the power went down for 36 hours. That information addresses your original claim that nothing strange happened or no one noticed anything.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

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

Of course it's not proof. It shows there was opportunity. Opportunity you denied by saying people would have noticed demo crews in the building. Opportunity you denied by saying security in the building is tight (security went down for 36 hours).

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect.

Yes, there were dozens of explosions that day before the buildings fell. Lots of them.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
And then you link a video with explosions. What were you trying to prove? That there were
explosions? Has anyone said there wasn’t explosions? There is a world of difference between something exploding and an explosion caused by explosives.

An demolition explosives expert now are we?

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Then you link to an article showing a steel cutting tool. Why? Something about girders can be cut without explosives. Yes, I know. I’m not sure why the existence of the Supertorch proves anything is bunk.

You specifically said that the amount of explosives necessary to cut the girders would have been astronomical. Explosives aren't even necessary to cut beams and girders. Heck, explosives aren't even necessary to cause structural failure (hydraulics can be used) but you'll deny that as well.

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge 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.

I can't prove if it was a controlled demo or not. What I've been saying is there's enough info out there for me to entertain the the idea. I also have said numerous times even if the building naturally imploded in on themselves from the planes hitting alone there's still enough info out there that makes me think it possible the US state had a hand in the attacks.

You're going to ignore this but oh well- NIST itself had to acknowledge the pancake theory of collapse was impossible. They ended up not explaining the collapse past the initial point of the failure of the top section of the building. From there they simply said the top section pulverized the lower part of the building. This is the "pile driver" theory of collapse. The problem with the pile driver theory is the top section would have also been pulverized long before it made it to the ground level.

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

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

How long did it take for the building to fall after the planes hit? And other structural engineers and demo experts have said shape charges can do the same job. I'll post more information on that which you'll ignore. Demolition experts have said as a matter of routine demolition they cut key support beams and remain in the buildings to work hours afterwards.

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

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

The video I posted was of a shape charge going off on a different day/at a different place than NYC compared to the explosions sounds that were recorded on 9/11 in NYC. This one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I84-_hcbtyU

There were more than one of those explosions on 9/11. Some news reporters said there were dozens.

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

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

I read your next post and will address it after I do some reading. I'm admittedly not an expert in seismic readings but this is what I'll be reading if you want to "debunk" it before I have a chance to make my next post:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.p...

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
You quite clearly have not been paying attention otherwise you wouldn’t keep going on trying to “prove” that there were explosions. No-one has ever said there were not. As for anything else, you have not proved anything with speculation and tittle-tattle.

I never said I proved anything. What I did do was show your original statement to be incorrect. Now you say "well, all of that can be explained". The fact is you said people would have noticed demo crews in the building prior to 9/11. I posted information showing WTC workers noticing entire floors under construction, a huge renovation project going on with access to the elevator shafts (where the core beams are) and security going down for 36 hours. You said demolitions always take place from the bottom. Not true. Does this prove anything? Yes, it proves your initial statement was incorrect. Does it prove the buildings were controlled demolitions? Of course not.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
I explained the top down demolition thing.

LOL, ya, lets hear that again please. How did the top 1/8 of the building pulverize the bottom 7/8? What you said was demolitions always take place from the bottom. That's simply not true.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
If they were doing a controlled demo on the TT a top down demo wouldn’t have been appropriate,

What would be appropriate if the goal was to murder a few thousand people and bring buildings down from the top? If planes hit the top and the collapse started from the bottom don't you think that would look a little fishy? What you said was all controlled demolitions take place from the bottom. I showed that your opinion was wrong. Admit this or not- I don't care about your ego.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

nor would the explosives placed at the top of the building have failed to detonate when the planes hit, or shortly afterwards.

Demolitions experts have been interviewed stating shape charges can be placed in protective shells that would keep then from exploding from fire. I'm sorry but you're wrong again. Does this prove the buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition? Of curse not. It just shows that your line of reasoning to disprove it is incorrect.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
As for the video showing steel being cut without explosives, we are not talking about a poxy little square of metal propped up against a tree, we are talking about the massive supporting girders on the TT. I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives. There will be video later.

Ya sure, you use military grade thermite on a daily basis and demolition cutting charges to cut steel.

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

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

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage"

N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for study

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm#descrip...

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Presumably the many people handling the steel at Fresh Kills Landfill, SI, from the many different entities involved were all in the thrall of this conspiracy too.

Now you're just being an asshole. Why would some people at a landfill or salvage yards doing their job be "in on it"? The fact the majority of the steel was swiftly recycled, put in landfill or shipped off is what made a complete investigation impossible not the people just doiong their jobs.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Then it was shipped to China and other countries for recycling purposes in much the same way other large quantities of steel are sent for recycling. In case you haven’t noticed most ship-breaking and other industrial scale recycling takes place in countries such as India or China these days.

No kidding, the fact is the majority of the steel was shipped off and only a relative few pieces left for investigation. What's hard to understand about that?

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

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

4:20 - 5:05

Ignore it. Ignore it all. Post something about recycling workers being in on it and your microwave exploding.

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

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

fleurnoire-et-rouge 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.

What I said was Christians have silly views, they believe in a sky god but this doesn't mean they can't be correct in other areas. I said this because you attacked some information that came from a person who has some rather questionable views on other topics. You then said I was implying you have silly views. That simply wasn't true.

“Thousands of people?”

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Yes, thousands of people, given all the agencies which would have had to be involved in order to pull off an event, and it’s cover up, of this magnitude. Also, make up your mind if it’s a controlled demolition or not. Just let it happen? So it wasn’t a controlled demo?

Would it take thousands of terrorists to pull off 9/11? As far as the alleged cover up I'm not sure why the Pentagon won't release clear video of the plane hitting it. I'm not sure why the CIA didn't tell the FBI terrorists had entered the country. I'm not sure how the top 1/8 of the building imploded the bottom 7/8. I'm not sure how building 7 came down at free fall speed in what clearly looked like a classic controlled demolition. I'm not sure why they shipped off the majority of the WTC steel right away. I'm not sure how they found the terrorists passport in the rubble. I'm not sure how phone calls were made from airplanes. I'm not sure why there was massive war games exercises going on that morning on the east coast which made military interception of the panes impossible. I'm not sure why the plane that hit the Pentagon did a spectacular areal maneuver in order to approach the Pentagon from ground level to hit ion an empty area under renovation. Would all of this e take thousands of people?

To illuminate your standards for the amount of people necessary to pull this off all I need to do is look at your absurd assertion that recycling and landfill workers would have to be in on it as well. It would presumably only take a few score people in high level positions of power. The rest is psychological. Institutions and people not willing to accept the state may have done this so everything said or done to explain the attacks is done so not because they're a part of it but because to even question it is too much of a tabboo. This is why originally people like Howard Zinn were demanding an independent investigation but swiftly changed course and became critical of anyone demanding an independent investigation. This is why you're so hell bent on denying the US state could have pulled this off- the social pressure is enormous and the conspiracy theory culture isn't exactly something people want to be associated with and with good reason. Most of them are batshit insane. The thing is, the US state is even more batshit insane and they had the motive and means to pull this off.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
As for the other video, all that suggests is that the CIA made an almighty cock-up if they were trying to turn the Al Qaeda operatives and it has been well known for decades that there has been a systemic lack of co-operation between the FBI and the CIA bordering on outright hostility.

You didn't watch it nor did any of the people who downed that post. Watch the entire video and come back to this thread and say that again with a straight face. You wont. You'll refuse to watch the whole video. There was ZERO hostility between Richard Clarke (the head of the counter terrorism unit) and the head of the CIA. It was also the state department and Department Of Defense that he CIA didn't inform and they had ample time and opportunity.

Another thing, if they were trying to turn the terrorists that means they had them under surveillance. As Richard Clarke said in the video the terrorists were using their real names and credit cards up to the attack. He said if he was given the information his agency could have found them within hours. Your post is simply not true.

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

No it hasn't been answered by anyone. Even the government agency tasked with answering it refused to do so.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 9 2013 00:02
Tyrion wrote:
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.

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

Good for Chomsky. What he didn't address was the specific left and right wing intelligentsia in the United States laying out a plan to ensure US hegemony into the future with the entire plan relying on a new threat and "New Pearl Harbor" type attack on the USA (in their own words). They put forth their imperial plans in the years 1998 and 2000 then in 2001 a new enemy emerged that attacked the US in a "new Pearl Harbor" type attack. The rest of his analysis is lame. Generically implying various states will take advantage of the situation is again completely ignoring where the attacks happened and what the geopolitical strategy the US intelligentsia laid out was.

Look, I know it's taboo to question what happened on 9/11 but if you're capable of at least an ounce of honesty you'll admit the US intelligentsia (especially if you actually read what they said) placed the future of American dominance on attacks happening and then they happened shortly after. Why are people so willing to just ignore this? Why are you personally willing to ignore that? The people who wrote both the PNAC piece and "The Grand Chessboard" aren't internet scrubs playing politics they were high up military brass and foreign policy advisers- the people who "set the tone" if you will, within the State department, the DOD and various intelligence agencies. When you have the leading political and military intelligentsia saying the future of America depends on an attack happening on American soil then one happens a little over a year later do you not see a problem with that?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 9 2013 16:24

Mike S:
Oh, where to start. I guess I'll just have to find a spot to jump into the circles you're going around in. I suspect you're not even reading what I have posted, you've certainly not read or made any attempt to digest the structural engineering analysis which addressed all this. Go back and try again. And for someone who's complaining that no-one is watching the videos you're posting, I can only assume you've not watched the one I posted up because it also covers the things you are saying, as well as giving the so-called Scholars For Truth a platform, but there again it disagrees with the mountains of toss which are published on Truther websites.
Mike S discussion technique:
WATCH THE VIDEO! GO ON WATCH IT AGAIN! AND KEEP WATCHING IT UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN WHAT I'VE TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD BE SEEING! STILL NOT SEEING IT? WATCH IT AGAIN!

Quote:
Now you're just being an asshole

Absolutely. 100% The one thing we can agree on. I'm just simply mirroring your behaviour back at you.
Also, I'll copy you're massively irritating habit of copying and pasting vast tracts, making it really tedious to read for anyone who is perfectly capable of glancing up the page or retaining something they've read a few minutes earlier.

Quote:
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Firstly, post 220
I said that people would have noticed that the building was being prepped for demolition and you provided me with a list of things which could easily be explained by other much more mundane things, which I have already said.

Entire floors shut down with elevators that don't stop at those floors and one of the largest electronic systems renovations in the buildings history which gave a multitude of crews access to the elevator shafts where at one point power went down for 36 hours in so disabling all of the security cameras and locks in the building. You said nothing out of the ordinary took place, or that people would have noticed something. Well, out of the ordinary things took place and people noticed. Back track all you want but the point is out of the ordinary construction was taking place prior to the attacks and the power went down for 36 hours. That information addresses your original claim that nothing strange happened or no one noticed anything.

Nope, still not a very convincing case for the controlled demolition of the buildings. Refer back to the Nat Geo video - go on, WATCH IT - it would be something that would take up to 6 months to do. A whole 36 hour eh? Did they get the Flash in?

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

Of course it's not proof. It shows there was opportunity. Opportunity you denied by saying people would have noticed demo crews in the building. Opportunity you denied by saying security in the building is tight (security went down for 36 hours).

Great googliemooglies! Opportunity. For 36 hours.Do you really think that if you just repeat the same things at me over and over again then you're going to force an agreement out of me. Jeez, I bet you're fun at parties.

Quote:
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect.

Yes, there were dozens of explosions that day before the buildings fell. Lots of them.

Yes, there were explosions. Oh the great and wonderful Mike, you have got me to agree to the fact that there were explosions. Not that anyone said there weren't. WTF are you arguing about that one for? Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't know the difference between explosions, things that sound like explosions and actual explosives (of which there was no evidence of on 9/11.)

Quote:
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
And then you link a video with explosions. What were you trying to prove? That there were
explosions? Has anyone said there wasn’t explosions? There is a world of difference between something exploding and an explosion caused by explosives.
An demolition explosives expert now are we?

No, I am not a demolition expert, which is why I posted up the opinions of actual demolition experts as well as seismologists, whose data concludes, rather conclusively, that there were no detonated explosives in the TT that day. I assume people who spend their professional lives analyzing seismic data both for controlled demolition companies and for the seismology department at Columbia University might know a thing or two about what they are looking at. No, I am not a demolition expert, but then humble little me, who has never blown up a building in my life, knows the difference between explosions and explosives. It is clear that the Truther ramblings on this subject have been written by people who do not.

Quote:
Explosives aren't even necessary to cut beams and girders.

Jesus Christ, let's go back again. Do you know just how big these buildings were? How large these girders were? The load capacity they had to support? Would you like to go back and read the stuff I've already posted up by the structural engineers or watch the video again, because it's really boring having to repeat myself over and over again. Basically, in very, very simple terms, they would have had to be pre-cut and then explosives applied to initiate failure.
Hydraulic jacks. You really do have to be shitting me now. I'm assuming that you've moved onto hydraulic jacks because deep down, there's a little part of you that suspects the complete absence of traces of these explosives in the debris, no detonation devices, no evidence on the videos of controlled explosion (again read the report, 70% of the contents of the TT was air, explosives would cause a massive displacement of air, it would have had to go somewhere, it would have blown the windows out, this did not happen.) But there again Truthers belive it was brought down by thermites -which are not explosives -, super secret thermites no less that no-one knows how they work, ignoring the fact that that there was no trace of the chemical signatures of the by-products of thermites in the debris. So in the absence of nothing which backs up the theory of explosives, it's hydraulic jacks now.
So, instead of pre-cutting the girders and applying explosives, you postulate that engineers physically removed a section of girder and replaced it with hydraulic jacks. For a building of 110 floors. Presumably several girders, if you take into account design redundancy and safety margins. I doubt if the TT were designed in such a way that if one girder was compromised that it would all fall down. Do you know how hydraulics work? Do you know that pressure equals force over area? Since the contact area would be limited, the cut surface of the beam, what are you suggesting that they were using as hydraulic fluid in these jacks, supporting this massive pressure? It would have to be something which was totally incompressible, liquidized carbonite maybe. And why were there none of these massive hydraulic jacks or remnants of found in the debris? Oh yeah, because it was spirited away to Staten Island, where the people handling the debris took actually took longer than usual to deal with it than they would do in a normal salvage and recycling situation.

Quote:
There were more than one of those explosions on 9/11. Some news reporters said there were dozens

Jesus fuck, enough of the explosions already. Nobody said that they're weren't any.

Quote:
I read your next post and will address it after I do some reading. I'm admittedly not an expert in seismic readings but this is what I'll be reading if you want to "debunk" it before I have a chance to make my next post:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.p...

This will be my last post. And no, I'm not reading ahead because I have read quite enough of the sort of speculation, junk science and pure bullshit which is published by the Journal of 9/11 studies already. I'm looking forward to deleting the sheer volumes of nonsense they've published that I've now got saved on my computer. To be honest, RationalWiki put it far better than I do:

Quote:
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer- crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to JAQ off. Some high-profile Truthers like David Ray Griffin have written articles for the journal. Ironically, in their attempt to appear "credible" and "serious," they've run a number of articles debunking the egregiously unhinged theories like Judy Wood's "space beams"[1] and stuff they've run in their own journal, like the "elephant plane" theory.[2] The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.[3]
In 2011, they ran out of "peer-reviewers" and sent out a request for someone to review two papers defending the "official" account of a plane hitting the Pentagon. The Screw Loose Change blog remarked:
“”Great, so after 10 years of cutting edge research and truthseeking they finally figured out what the rest of us knew that Tuesday morning. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously?
—You Too Can Be A Peer Reviewer![4]
But now 9/11 conspiracy theories must be taken seriously, because, look, this research is "peer-reviewed!"

Peer review of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is by someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about. I prefer my conspiracy theories in the form of comic books, not pseudo-scientific clap-trap.

Quote:
Demolitions experts have been interviewed stating shape charges can be placed in protective shells that would keep then from exploding from fire. I'm sorry but you're wrong again.

Bullshit, I don't think I've been wrong at any point and your attempts to prove me so are just going around in circles based on fallacious ideas.To what temperatures can these protective shells withstand? Are they habitually designed to survive the impact and energy/heat generated by a 767 crashing into them? I think they are better described as flame resistant. And even if they have some kind of super magic coating which could have withstood this, shape charges are unable to bend the rules of matter. They would have left copper residue on the steel, which was not found. Metal can melt, it can burn, it can combine to make alloys but it cannot simply disappear.

Quote:
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
As for the video showing steel being cut without explosives, we are not talking about a poxy little square of metal propped up against a tree, we are talking about the massive supporting girders on the TT. I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives. There will be video later.
Ya sure, you use military grade thermite on a daily basis and demolition cutting charges to cut steel.

Silly theatrics from you. You're not even reading what you are writing yourself now. You said that steel could be cut without explosives. I said of course they bloody can. Where's the fucking argument? And no, I never said that I use military grade thermites every day. But there again that's you buying into the Truther theory that there are super secret military grade thermites, that no-one knows about right there

Quote:
No kidding, the fact is the majority of the steel was shipped off and only a relative few pieces left for investigation. What's hard to understand about that?

What's so hard to understand that they were unlikely to keep every last bit indefinitely, they'd still be poring over it well into the next century if they did that, until it finally turned into a pile of rust. I would have thought that they would have investigated the parts which would have been relevant to a structural failure investigation, not hung onto every last rivet and beam. This is standard investigation procedure.

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

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

Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. God, I really hope I'm never stuck in an elevator with you.

Quote:
Ignore it. Ignore it all.

Are you describing yourself there?

Quote:
Would it take thousands of terrorists to pull off 9/11?

No. It took 19 hijackers and some ground support. On the other hand a conspiracy to blow up the TT, shoot down a plane in rural Pennsylvania, fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, while "disappearing" the hijacked plane, set up a controlled demo, involving the CIA, FBI, various branches of the military, the NTSB, FAA, air traffic control, the police, the port authority, the emergency services, government at municipal, state and federal level, not to mention the Jewish Bankers, which is what it would involve if the whole what it would take if 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation in order to create a new Pearl Harbour.

Quote:
The rest is psychological. Institutions and people not willing to accept the state may have done this so everything said or done to explain the attacks is done so not because they're a part of it but because to even question it is too much of a tabboo.

And I feel very sorry for you if your attitude to humanity is that they are all too stupid to work any of this shit out, that all these people who were caught up in this alleged conspiracy were incapable of any kind of critical thinking. They're just willing to be complicit in mass murder.

Quote:
It would presumably only take a few score people in high level positions of power

Oh really?! When have only a few score people on high level positions of power ever done any of the work themselves? Which was why I made the point about the landfill workers. It would have been a huge task, nearly all of which would have been delegated out to others, all of which were mindless automatons incapable of seeing their manipulation. I find this entirely antithetical to anarchist thought to think so lowly of our fellow humanity.
But there again, there's the "just let it happen" theory, which fails under it's own contradictions.
Truther thought:
The planes weren't sufficient to bring down the TT ->
Needed to be a controlled demolition ->
Controlled demo massive undertaking to set up ->
Would have left masses of different evidences ->
No evidence found ->
Everyone involved in the clear-up and investigation were part of this conspiracy ->
Or
That's a little far-fetched, so they just "let it happen." ->
So, the planes hitting the TT were sufficient after all to bring the towers down ->
So, what's all this bullshit about a demolition then?

My first comment on this thread was that I can't believe that people are still talking about all this. And now 12 years later Truthers are still running further down the rabbit hole of paranoia, lousy understand of government, crap science, rampant speculation and I suppose one day they'll finally get to the hookah smoking caterpillar who will share with them the Absolute Truth.
In my sceptical viewpoint I would suspect that people have made careers out of this, sold god knows how many books and will be milking it for as long as possible. The trouble is though is that most people have moved on.
I suspect that the whole 9/11 truther movement has it's roots in a way of the whole hinkey American Exceptionalism idea. So many parts of the world have had experiences of terrorism and attacks on their soil, which were rare in the US. There had been domestic terrorism, like in Oklahoma City, but nothing so externally ideologically driven. The whole world stood with the US in empathy on 9/11 but the response of why us? belied a deep lack of understanding of the US's position in the world. There's something in this American Exceptionalism theory about this. No, it couldn't have been a terrorist attack like half the world has to live with, it had to be something special. It's just so infantile

So, Mike S your tedious, repetitive, brow-beating style of conversation has got to me. Nothing you have said has swayed me in the slightest and your belligerent way of just saying the same thing over and over again, asking the same question in the hope of eliciting a different response has wore my patience away. I wonder if you carry on conversations like this in the real world and how many people just walk away, probably something which you interpret as a win. Well, enjoy your victory, you're the last one standing, because I have no interest in engaging any further. This is boring me. In fact when reading your post I had a scene from a classic TV show run in my head. So, another youtube video:

admin: I am totally happy to take a no flaming warning for that because, trust me, I have been much nicer to him here than I would have been in real life.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Oct 9 2013 18:27

I'm prepared to fall out with the world over this. This thread is shit.
This thread is the crap that you can read anywhere. It's lazy entertainment. It involves people with all sorts of problems coaxed into dancing for our amusement. It is base.
It's not about disproving or proving, enlightening or educating, it's just stupid.
Stop it.

An Affirming Flame
Offline
Joined: 22-09-11
Oct 9 2013 19:05

Alright, since Fleur is bowing out (and you deserve some kind of libcom medal) I'll just offer up one more point in an area where I have, if not expertise, at least significant experience.

Mike S., you keep going on about PNAC and a position paper and a journal article or two as if this means much of anything.

Quote:
The people who wrote both the PNAC piece and "The Grand Chessboard" aren't internet scrubs playing politics they were high up military brass and foreign policy advisers- the people who "set the tone" if you will

Do you know how much shit like this gets published in any given quarter or month? Do you know how many people there are trying to "set the tone" at any given time? There isn't one Grand Establishment Journal that everyone reads to get ideas from.

Huge swaths of academia are establishment-loving toadies who feel important when they publish "serious" articles about world politics. They love giving the US and other powerful states advice on every type of strategy or policy conceivable. There are freaking armies of retired high-ranking military and former government officials whose only current job is spit out articles for magazines, journals and think tanks and appear on talk shows. And they are well-paid for this. It's a sinecure for the powerful.

I went through a phase in college (I was an International Relations major) back when I was just vaguely "radical" where I thought it would be important to try to keep up with current thought as expressed in these types of publications. It is like drinking from a fire hose. A fire hose spewing sewage. I didn't last long before I pared back my reading list and got more selective.

But my main point is twofold. (1) If you're willing to look back over the past few decade's worth of material I'm pretty goddamned sure you can find some type of article written by serious experts "predicting" or prescribing basically anything that any state has done ever. Or "predicting" any kind of war, attack, crisis or practically anything that these people write about.

The PNAC piece was retroactively seized upon as being prophetic by some people because what it talked about came true. There were also a ton of articles and papers published by the same type of people at the same time who were saying that a war with China was the type of galvanizing event that would be needed to further US strategic aims into the new millennium. These experts were saying that only if some kind of spark could be ignited, either over Taiwan or the Spratly Islands, the US could whip the Chinese in a brief but brutal naval engagement and a new Cold War could begin afterwards.

There were also those sure that Balkanization was the future, with states breaking down into smaller and smaller entities all over the world, with regional conflict and civil war the new normal. And others sure that superstates was the future, with the EU, NAFTA, Commonwealth of Independent States, Mercosur, etc. forming true states and leading to either 1984 or World Peace. Others were positive that the WTO, World Bank, IMF, the UN, NGOs and other organizations would all lead us into a glorious future of peaceful trade and international cooperation, a web of interdependence. I could go on.

The PNAC piece proved to be influential because the faction of the ruling class that was in power during the attacks (Bush-Cheney) was influenced by PNAC thought. Not all factions are or were.

Main point (2) is NO SHIT! The PNAC piece in particular did little more than state the obvious, if with some imaginative flair. I was in college on 9/11 and in the couple years afterward I actually had that very paper on the reading list for a couple of classes. Why? Because it was very helpful in understanding how the US was in prime position to take advantage of such a spectacular attack and why the Bush administration did so they way they did. It was simple logical inference that in the post-Cold War period a "Pearl Harbor-like" attack would be able to reignite (at least approximately) Cold War-levels of military spending and public support for foreign wars.

It is important to understand that PNAC wasn't saying, "Hey guys, we really need an attack to carry out our plans," but was really saying, "If (or when) an attack happens we need to be ready to seize the moment and not hesitate to immediately enact aggressive policy both here and abroad." It was trying to set the tone, as you say, for the aftermath of an attack. The people writing it didn't want the state dicking around with the UN or "measured responses" and lose the opportunity to go balls to the walls while they still had massive support. And, luckily for the PNAC crowd, they had their buddies in power (the Cheney crowd) when the spectacular attack hit and that's exactly what the state did.

Conceivably, if the attacks happened while Clinton was still in office or if Gore had won the election, there may have been a less aggressive response. One reason is because that faction of the ruling class is less inclined to give two fucks about what the PNAC crowd writes; they have their own experts who advocate slightly different strategies. They are the kinder, gentler face of capitalism and the state and may have taken a different approach. And then the PNAC piece would have been completely forgotten as irrelevant.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 10 2013 01:02
fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Mike S:
Oh, where to start. I guess I'll just have to find a spot to jump into the circles you're going around in. I suspect you're not even reading what I have posted, you've certainly not read or made any attempt to digest the structural engineering analysis which addressed all this.

I watched the discovery channel video. They said access to the elevator shafts would be necessary and that in the year 2000 elevator renovations took place but there was also,which they left out, in 2001, in the months leading up to 9/11, an electrical infrastructure job going on where various crews had access to the elevator shafts during which time there was also construction going on on various floors with loud banging, drilling etc. Their entire point seems to be people would've noticed noise and construction crews. And of course this can't be done in 36 hours as you implied I was suggesting.

I like how they interview the random construction guy at the 24:50 mark in the video who says "no one has been able to provide a single piece of evidence that the buildings were demolished".

They've interviewed iron workers, on video (sorry) who said before they had any tools or even crews in place to begin clean up they found many beams that had been cut at an angle. Also, I posted the Tom Sullivan interview where he said remote detonators can be used (one of the demo guys in the Discovery video says wires would've been found). Even if wires were in the rubble what's to distinguish them from normal electrical wires? There was no investigation.

At the 26:00 mark the narrator says the lack of any pre attack demolition evidence at ground zero means crews couldn't have ripped off drywall and placed charges on beams. Ha! How is one to tell if drywall was ripped off beams when it was all pulverized? Then nanothermite is brought up and they do an experiment with regular thermite. Great. I agree Steven Jones needs to hand over his alleged evidence for independent studies or shut up about it.

The hour mark and beyond goes into some random theories of people trying to explain what "really" happened. All I have to say to that is has the state proven what really happened in the "official" story? They fingered Osama Bin Laden hours after the attack. Where was the evidence? Was there a trial? The information they got to corroborate their story was a result of torture and Osama Bin Laden himself denied having anything to do with the attacks. The Taliban in Afghanistan even offered to hand him over if the US showed them some evidence. The evidence the state had was the CIA finally admitting they tracked al qaeda terrorists into the country and then "lost track of them". Richard Clarke himself said it would have been east to find them as they were using their real names and credit cards. The CIA didn't lose track of them, obviously.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Go back and try again. And for someone who's complaining that no-one is watching the videos you're posting, I can only assume you've not watched the one I posted up because it also covers the things you are saying

Not true at all. The video I posted was a rebuttal to the Discovery channel video. The video I[/] posted covers the things in the Discovery Channel video. I watched the Discovery Channel video. You ignored the videos I posted which I even gave exact times to view so you wouldn't have to sit through 4 hours.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

Mike S discussion technique:
WATCH THE VIDEO! GO ON WATCH IT AGAIN! AND KEEP WATCHING IT UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN WHAT I'VE TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD BE SEEING! STILL NOT SEEING IT? WATCH IT AGAIN!

No that's not my discussion technique, there are key interviews which have been done on video and other concepts which are explained on video so yes I've posted a couple videos but so what? Later in this post you accuse me of copy/pasting walls of text which I haven't done.

Quote:
Now you're just being an asshole

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Absolutely. 100% The one thing we can agree on. I'm just simply mirroring your behaviour back at you.

No, you were trying to seriously imply thousands of people would "have to be in on it". Replace the word asshole with duplicitous.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Also, I'll copy you're massively irritating habit of copying and pasting vast tracts, making it really tedious to read for anyone who is perfectly capable of glancing up the page or retaining something they've read a few minutes earlier.

Here we go, where have I done this? Point this "habit" out please. Don't feel confident in your bullshit just because every post I make is being downed and your "upped". You're still full of shit. You and I both know it.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Firstly, post 220
I said that people would have noticed that the building was being prepped for demolition and you provided me with a list of things which could easily be explained by other much more mundane things, which I have already said.

Entire floors shut down with elevators that don't stop at those floors and one of the largest electronic systems renovations in the buildings history which gave a multitude of crews access to the elevator shafts where at one point power went down for 36 hours in so disabling all of the security cameras and locks in the building. You said nothing out of the ordinary took place, or that people would have noticed something. Well, out of the ordinary things took place and people noticed. Back track all you want but the point is out of the ordinary construction was taking place prior to the attacks and the power went down for 36 hours. That information addresses your original claim that nothing strange happened or no one noticed anything.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Nope, still not a very convincing case for the controlled demolition of the buildings. Refer back to the Nat Geo video - go on, WATCH IT - it would be something that would take up to 6 months to do. A whole 36 hour eh? Did they get the Flash in?

You're distorting what I said and what was implied. The crews who had access to elevator shafts where there for months, the construction on various floors which made a lot of noise took place for over 2 months. The fact security was down for 36 hours simply mean there was access to various parts of the building that would have normally been restricted other than the numerous floors and elevator shafts which were already open to various construction crews. Does this prove a controlled demolition? Of course not it proves there was opportunity for a demo crew, over a period of months, to access exterior beams and the core columns with an added 36 hours of access to any part of the building.

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

No its not proof. You're correct and I never said it was proof. It proves there was opportunity.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Great googliemooglies! Opportunity. For 36 hours.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about large construction crews having access to numerous entire office floors AND elevator shafts for months. You're fixating on the 36 hours of the power being down. You're doing this fora reason and it's disingenuous to say the least.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
You are clearly mistaking explosions with explosives. As far back as post 108 I said that there would have been explosions. Lots of them I expect.

Yes, transformers you said. That explains all the flashes and explosions prior to collapse in your mind. I get it.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

Yes, there were explosions. Oh the great and wonderful Mike, you have got me to agree to the fact that there were explosions. Not that anyone said there weren't. WTF are you arguing about that one for? Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't know the difference between explosions, things that sound like explosions and actual explosives (of which there was no evidence of on 9/11.)

Was there evidence for Osama Bin Laden facilitating the attacks? Where is it? The main evidence is beams with diagonal cuts that iron workers noticed prior to clean up and the video/audio evidence.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

No, I am not a demolition expert, which is why I posted up the opinions of actual demolition experts as well as seismologists, whose data concludes, rather conclusively, that there were no detonated explosives in the TT that day. I assume people who spend their professional lives analyzing seismic data both for controlled demolition companies and for the seismology department at Columbia University might know a thing or two about what they are looking at.

And I posted a paper written by André Rousseau and opinions of demolition experts. They're just unprofessional "quacks" though because they're going against the grain.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:

No, I am not a demolition expert, but then humble little me, who has never blown up a building in my life, knows the difference between explosions and explosives. It is clear that the Truther ramblings on this subject have been written by people who do not.

What's the difference between explosions and shape charges? The line of attack has been, perhaps not by you, "there would have been demolition explosions prior to the collapse which weakened the structure". The fact of the matter is there were loud explosions prior to the collapse which could have been shape charges.

Quote:
Explosives aren't even necessary to cut beams and girders.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Jesus Christ, let's go back again. Do you know just how big these buildings were? How large these girders were? The load capacity they had to support? Would you like to go back and read the stuff I've already posted up by the structural engineers or watch the video again, because it's really boring having to repeat myself over and over again. Basically, in very, very simple terms, they would have had to be pre-cut and then explosives applied to initiate failure.

Those girders can be cut with shape charges/explosives and thermite.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Hydraulic jacks. You really do have to be shitting me now.

I'm not implying hydraulic jacks could have been used. No. All I'm saying is building can be demod without explosives.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
I'm assuming that you've moved onto hydraulic jacks because deep down, there's a little part of you that suspects the complete absence of traces of these explosives in the debris, no detonation devices

There was no investigation looking for evidence of explosives. NIST admitted this. I also posted information from a demolitions expert who explained how, even if they looked, no evidence would be found if the demo was facilitated in a certain (completely possible) way.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
no evidence on the videos of controlled explosion (again read the report, 70% of the contents of the TT was air, explosives would cause a massive displacement of air, it would have had to go somewhere, it would have blown the windows out, this did not happen.)

^ watch the windows.

Anyhow I'm not sure if you noticed but (forgive the ominous music)

And a little more than just windows blew out at WTC, in case you didn't notice the entire building imploded in on itself in ten seconds with no resistance with blasts that are described as "squbs" taking place ahead of the implosion. This has been explained away as air pressure. Well, or it could have been explosions from explosives weakening the structure.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
But there again Truthers belive it was brought down by thermites -which are not explosives -, super secret thermites no less that no-one knows how they work, ignoring the fact that that there was no trace of the chemical signatures of the by-products of thermites in the debris. So in the absence of nothing which backs up the theory of explosives, it's hydraulic jacks now.

No it's not hydraulic jacks now. Yes, nano thermite does exist and it is only used by the military at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Even so explosives and shape charges can cut the girders.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
So, instead of pre-cutting the girders and applying explosives, you postulate that engineers physically removed a section of girder and replaced it with hydraulic jacks.

No I don't. I was simply showing you that a building can be demoed without explosives- quote me saying "hydraulic jacks could have been used". The other point I was going to bring up by posting that video (but didn't because this conversation is getting tiring) was to show you where they did it with jacks in a "pile driver' demolision. This is important though as it relates to my problem with the pile driver theory of WTC collapse. The video I posted of hydraulic jacks demoing a building was a "pile driver" demo where the weight of the top half destroys the bottom half. The thing is- anytime this sort of demo is done they MUST initiate the failure in the middle of the building in order to demo the entire lower structure. If they initiate collapse in the top 1/8 of the building there is no way the top 1/8 can demolish the bottom 7/8. They need the top 1/2 to demolish the bottom 1/2. Ever heard of Newton?

Quote:
I read your next post and will address it after I do some reading. I'm admittedly not an expert in seismic readings but this is what I'll be reading if you want to "debunk" it before I have a chance to make my next post:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.p...

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
This will be my last post. And no, I'm not reading ahead because I have read quite enough of the sort of speculation, junk science and pure bullshit which is published by the Journal of 9/11 studies already. I'm looking forward to deleting the sheer volumes of nonsense they've published that I've now got saved on my computer. To be honest, RationalWiki put it far better than I do:

Peer review of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is by someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about.

He's a geologist who worked for CNRS who's an expert on seismic waves.

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

Peer review, when dealing with controversial subjects, tend to hold up the accepted idea and new ideas face ridicule. Given the social nature, the psychological aspect of 9/11 information, it makes the process even more constrictive. Anyhow I can post numerous examples of peer review papers being wrong, of peer review papers having data fudged, of peer review papers being pure mathematical speculation. You posted information which you clearly understand as proof so it shouldn't be that hard for you to read this and explain why he's wrong, lying or absolutely uneducated.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.p...

Quote:
Demolitions experts have been interviewed stating shape charges can be placed in protective shells that would keep then from exploding from fire. I'm sorry but you're wrong again.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Bullshit, I don't think I've been wrong at any point and your attempts to prove me so are just going around in circles based on fallacious ideas.

1. You said all demolitions take place from the bottom down. Not true.
2. You said workers at the WTC would've noticed demo crews in the building or out of the ordinary noise. I provided information/interviews that showed you to be wrong.
3. You imply I said the demo crews only had 36 hours to allegedly rig the building. Not true. Multiple crews has access to the elevator shatfs and various empty floors for months.
4. You implied I said you have silly views when I was clearly talking about Christians in relation to your criticism of people within the 9/11 truth movements silly views.
5. You've accused me of copy/pasting vast tracts which I haven't done once.
6. You said the girders couldn't be destroyed without first being pre-cut which simply isn't true.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
To what temperatures can these protective shells withstand? Are they habitually designed to survive the impact and energy/heat generated by a 767 crashing into them? I think they are better described as flame resistant. And even if they have some kind of super magic coating which could have withstood this, shape charges are unable to bend the rules of matter. They would have left copper residue on the steel, which was not found.

I wasn't aware an investigation took place examining all of the steel from the building. Anyhow,
[i]"Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature."

They somehow didn't find the black box's and they were looking for those. Here's where you say the building fires were hotter than 1,100 C. LOL Where's the black box's? Thats another question isnt it? More questions without answers. This leaves nothing but speculation.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
I cut metal without explosives on an almost daily basis and have never yet had to resort to explosives.

Shape charges can cut girders. They don't need to be pre cut by hand.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
And no, I never said that I use military grade thermites every day.
But there again that's you buying into the Truther theory that there are super secret military grade thermites, that no-one knows about.

There is nano thermite that only the military has access to. Another thing you were wrong about when earlier in the thread you denied they even exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Quote:
No kidding, the fact is the majority of the steel was shipped off and only a relative few pieces left for investigation. What's hard to understand about that?

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
What's so hard to understand that they were unlikely to keep every last bit indefinitely, they'd still be poring over it well into the next century if they did that, until it finally turned into a pile of rust.

Nonsense. The vast majority was immediately scrapped, recycled or shipped off and there's a reason family members were angry this happened because it made an investigation for insurance purposes impossible. Well, not only for insurance purposes it made any investigation impossible. It would be like saying when there's a regular airplane crash in lieu of reconstructing the airplane they would ship off 99% of the airplane for recycling then investigate what happened with the saved 1%. That would be ludicrous.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Again, I never insisted that steel cannot be cut without explosives. Pay attention. What I said was the ENORMOUS steel supporting girders could not be cut with thermites alone. In order to properly prepare them for controlled demolition (unless you suggest they were amateurs) they would have to be pre-cut.

Not true. They could have shape charges placed on them which can be detonated remotely.

God, I really hope I'm never stuck in an elevator with you.

Especially in WTC1 on 9/11 smile

Quote:
Would it take thousands of terrorists to pull off 9/11?

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
No. It took 19 hijackers and some ground support. On the other hand a conspiracy to blow up the TT, shoot down a plane in rural Pennsylvania, fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, while "disappearing" the hijacked plane.

I never said a cruise missile hit the Pentagon and he original plane was disappearing. That was a discovery channel red herring. Lets add that to your erroneous assertions list. What I did say was how did that pilot, and if he could do it why did the pilot make a spectacular aerial maneuver on approach to the Pentagon in so approaching from the ground level hitting a part of the building that was essentially empty? I also said nothing of a plane being shot down in Pennsylvania. Who knows what happened there. There were no bodies, no wreckage, nothing. Everything just evaporated.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
, set up a controlled demo, involving the CIA, FBI, various branches of the military,

Here we go. Lets add these to the list of erroneous assertions. I said it would perhaps take a few key people in positions of power not various branches of the military or FBI. In fact, I've been saying regularly that the FBI was actually extremely confounded concerning why the CIA didn't tell them terrorists entered the country. I also said NORAD couldn't intercept the planes because of the military exercises taking place that day which coincidentally had to do with numerous hijacked planes. Who's idea was it to have those specific exercises on that specific morning? All it takes is one person with authority.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
the NTSB, FAA, air traffic control, the police, the port authority, the emergency services, government at municipal, state and federal level, not to mention the Jewish Bankers, which is what it would involve if the whole what it would take if 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation in order to create a new Pearl Harbour.

The FAA was frantically trying to inform NORAD of the hijackings. There was an initial delay with chain of command confusion then the confusion of the NORAD exercises kept jets from being scrambled. There's been entire books written about the chain of events that morning. Why would the police have to be "in on it? Why would the emergency services have to be in on it? Jewish bankers? Recycling workers? Salvage yard workers? Again, you're just being duplicitous here.

Quote:
The rest is psychological. Institutions and people not willing to accept the state may have done this so everything said or done to explain the attacks is done so not because they're a part of it but because to even question it is too much of a tabboo.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
And I feel very sorry for you if your attitude to humanity is that they are all too stupid to work any of this shit out, that all these people who were caught up in this alleged conspiracy were incapable of any kind of critical thinking. They're just willing to be complicit in mass murder.

Where is the evidence that Osama Bin Laden planned this? I feel sorry for you if you believe that without any evidence or via evidence gained by torture.

Quote:
It would presumably only take a few score people in high level positions of power

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
Oh really?! When have only a few score people on high level positions of power ever done any of the work themselves? Which was why I made the point about the landfill workers. It would have been a huge task, nearly all of which would have been delegated out to others, all of which were mindless automatons incapable of seeing their manipulation. I find this entirely antithetical to anarchist thought to think so lowly of our fellow humanity.

Ah, attack my "anarchist cred" now. If you don't think the CIA has military operatives who are demolition experts you're naive. Even so, as I said, they didn't even have to demo the buildings for it to be a CIA operation. At the very least the CIA could've used actual dupes in the same manner agent provocateurs try to get anarchists to blow shit up. They sure as hell know they were in the country and according to Richard Clarke even set them up in a home but you ignored that video didn't you? Why don't you go ahead and show e the evidence that Osama Bin Laden did this. Please.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
My first comment on this thread was that I can't believe that people are still talking about all this. And now 12 years later Truthers are still running further down the rabbit hole of paranoia, lousy understand of government

Whats my lousy understanding of government? I think it was pretty clear what the US government intelligentsia wanted and they got it. I also have pretty good grasp on imperialism and a proper critique of the state and it's role not only it's imperialistic role but it's role to legitimize preserve the capitalist system as a whole. The role of the specific people within government who may have or not pulled this off was to ensure US hegemony which is the entire reason the CIA and broader military exists.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
In my sceptical viewpoint I would suspect that people have made careers out of this, sold god knows how many books and will be milking it for as long as possible. The trouble is though is that most people have moved on.

You obviously haven't as you've posted quite extensively in this thread. You're little closing statement here is self contradictory.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
I suspect that the whole 9/11 truther movement has it's roots in a way of the whole hinkey American Exceptionalism idea. So many parts of the world have had experiences of terrorism and attacks on their soil, which were rare in the US.

I think it was the spectacular nature of teh attacks along with the many many coincidences and anomalies. If these were suicide bombers blowing themselves up in market place or in a subway it would be quite different. Perhaps men with fully automatic rifles wreaking havoc on the population. What we have in the US were the most spectacular terrorist attacks ever facilitated in airspace that's normally protected by NORAD which just happened to have exercises that morning where they were chasing imaginary with hijacked planes which were also put on radar so the radar techs couldn't tell which planes were hijacked and which were from the exersize and the NORAD planes were sent far away from NY so even without the false blips on radar they wouldn't have been able to intercept.

Then we have the matter of the Pentagon having portable anti aircraft missiles which weren't deployed when they knew the plane was approaching the Pentagon. This is the most secure airspace on earth. Is this "American exceptionalism" I'm spewing? I thin not. It's common sense. Then we have the matter of the CIA supposedly "losing track" of the hijackers when Richard Clarke said he could have found them in 6 hours if the CIA told him they were in the country. There seems to be a whole lot of idiocy going on here yes?

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
There had been domestic terrorism, like in Oklahoma City, but nothing so externally ideologically driven. The whole world stood with the US in empathy on 9/11 but the response of why us? belied a deep lack of understanding of the US's position in the world. There's something in this American Exceptionalism theory about this. No, it couldn't have been a terrorist attack like half the world has to live with, it had to be something special. It's just so infantile

Why us? I've never said "why us" what I've pointed to is politicians, military brass and foreign policy advisers who said the USA needed a new enemy, a new attack in order to achieve it's geopolitical and economic goals into the future. This has been brushed off as just another coincidence- another poster tried to say it was just people trying to act important- no, these people are actual policy makers and foreign policy advisers who specifically said in order to maintain US hegemony an attack would be necessary. I keep repeating this because I don't think people understand how influential Brzezinski and the PNAC authors were. Acting like they were Washington wanna b's playing politics online is absurd. Acting like anyone who thinks the US may have had a hand in the attacks is internalizing some lame American exceptionalism is just as absurd. You're essentially calling me a nationalist. I could care less about the USA, it's borders, it's culture, it's government or national identity.

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
So, Mike S your tedious, repetitive, brow-beating style of conversation has got to me. Nothing you have said has swayed me in the slightest and your belligerent way of just saying the same thing over and over again, asking the same question in the hope of eliciting a different response has wore my patience away. I wonder if you carry on conversations like this in the real world and how many people just walk away, probably something which you interpret as a win. Well, enjoy your victory, you're the last one standing, because I have no interest in engaging any further.

Good, I'm also tiered of your baseless assertions, your moving the goal posts, your personal attacks, your outright lying and general snobbery which is only fed by the fact posters on this site have also determined to deny the FACT that the US government could have very well either helped plan these attacks or let them happen. Where's the proof Osama Bin Laden did it?

fleurnoire-et-rouge wrote:
admin: I am totally happy to take a no flaming warning for that because, trust me, I have been much nicer to him here than I would have been in real life.

You won't get one. I'm not very popular on this site. I could say gravity exists and the post would be downed.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Oct 10 2013 01:46
An Affirming Flame wrote:

Alright, since Fleur is bowing out (and you deserve some kind of libcom medal) I'll just offer up one more point in an area where I have, if not expertise, at least significant experience.

Mike S., you keep going on about PNAC and a position paper and a journal article or two as if this means much of anything.

The people who wrote both the PNAC piece and "The Grand Chessboard" aren't internet scrubs playing politics they were high up military brass and foreign policy advisers- the people who "set the tone" if you will

An Affirming Flame wrote:
Do you know how much shit like this gets published in any given quarter or month? Do you know how many people there are trying to "set the tone" at any given time? There isn't one Grand Establishment Journal that everyone reads to get ideas from.

Brzezinski wrote an entire book outlining the foreign policy path the US needs to take in order to maintain US hegemony. He said attacks and a new global enemy need to happen/emerge if the goals were to be met. He's been an integral US asset both in Afghanistan, fighting the cold war and on other foreign policy matters for decades. When he speaks people listen. The authors of the PNAC piece and long time members of the PNAC think tank are military generals, people within the state department and advisers to presidents. They're not just Washington wanna b's trying to act important.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
Huge swaths of academia are establishment-loving toadies who feel important when they publish "serious" articles about world politics. They love giving the US and other powerful states advice on every type of strategy or policy conceivable. There are freaking armies of retired high-ranking military and former government officials whose only current job is spit out articles for magazines, journals and think tanks and appear on talk shows. And they are well-paid for this. It's a sinecure for the powerful.

Their entire point was the US had become complacent after the fall of "communism" That the US MUST take advantage of it's lone superpower status to insure global dominance into the future. You should read Brzezinski's book and the PNAC publication- it's exactly what the US is now doing. These people were also Bush admin advisers not retired scrubs trying to remain important.They were the in the now power brokers and Brzezinski still is to this day.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
I went through a phase in college (I was an International Relations major) back when I was just vaguely "radical" where I thought it would be important to try to keep up with current thought as expressed in these types of publications. It is like drinking from a fire hose. A fire hose spewing sewage. I didn't last long before I pared back my reading list and got more selective.

Personal anecdotes are quite meaningless when the reality is people who were already in positions of influence/power wrote up this plan for future US hegemony with it all depending on attacks on the US then it happened one year later. Acting like Brzezinski and the PNAC authors are just Washington scrubs trying to act important is beyond disingenuous.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
But my main point is twofold. (1) If you're willing to look back over the past few decade's worth of material I'm pretty goddamned sure you can find some type of article written by serious experts "predicting" or prescribing basically anything that any state has done ever. Or "predicting" any kind of war, attack, crisis or practically anything that these people write about.

One year before 9/11 they didn't predict an attack they said one would be necessary if the US was to maintain global hegemony. They said the US needed a new enemy in order to legitimize foreign intervention and domestic spending on military.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
The PNAC piece was retroactively seized upon as being prophetic by some people because what it talked about came true.

It didn't talk about the threat of Islamic terrorism it specifically said a new Pearl Harbor like attack would be necessary if the US was to maintain it's lone global superpower status. It's the same message Brzezinski had in his rather large book.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
There were also a ton of articles and papers published by the same type of people at the same time who were saying that a war with China was the type of galvanizing event that would be needed to further US strategic aims into the new millennium. These experts were saying that only if some kind of spark could be ignited, either over Taiwan or the Spratly Islands, the US could whip the Chinese in a brief but brutal naval engagement and a new Cold War could begin afterwards.

The same people (PNAC/Brzezinski) also said China is the main threat to keep from challenging US hegemony which is partly why they specifically said the US needs control of central Asia/the middle east.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
There were also those sure that Balkanization was the future, with states breaking down into smaller and smaller entities all over the world, with regional conflict and civil war the new normal. And others sure that superstates was the future, with the EU, NAFTA, Commonwealth of Independent States, Mercosur, etc. forming true states and leading to either 1984 or World Peace. Others were positive that the WTO, World Bank, IMF, the UN, NGOs and other organizations would all lead us into a glorious future of peaceful trade and international cooperation, a web of interdependence. I could go on.

I'm aware there are have beens and various people in Washington who are perpetually writing predictions and policy initiatives. So what? The PNAC authors were the intellectual architects of the administration which was in power at the time. Brzezinski has been a key asset and foreign policy adviser since the Carter administration. These people pull real weight. Brzezinski still does. He's the modern Henry Kissinger. You need to understand that.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
The PNAC piece proved to be influential because the faction of the ruling class that was in power during the attacks (Bush-Cheney) was influenced by PNAC thought. Not all factions are or were.

And Brzezinski was influential with other elements. The only people who need to be influenced is the CIA and a few powerful people. I don't think the entire establishment needs to be convinced that America must be attacked in order to maintain global hegemony.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
Main point (2) is NO SHIT! The PNAC piece in particular did little more than state the obvious, if with some imaginative flair. I was in college on 9/11 and in the couple years afterward I actually had that very paper on the reading list for a couple of classes. Why? Because it was very helpful in understanding how the US was in prime position to take advantage of such a spectacular attack and why the Bush administration did so they way they did. It was simple logical inference that in the post-Cold War period a "Pearl Harbor-like" attack would be able to reignite (at least approximately) Cold War-levels of military spending and public support for foreign wars.

It it simple logical inference that one happened a year later? If you actually want to rad it, which I have in full, it's right here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I also read the Grand Chessboard back in 1999. You'll have to go steal that one if you have any interest in reading it but if it was simply logical inference the entire, as you said, swaths of people trying to be important by writing such papers would have come to the same conclusion. They didnt and they were also not in influential positions as the PNAC authors and Brzezinski.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
It is important to understand that PNAC wasn't saying, "Hey guys, we really need an attack to carry out our plans," but was really saying, "If (or when) an attack happens we need to be ready to seize the moment and not hesitate to immediately enact aggressive policy both here and abroad."

You haven't even tread it. Just stop. STOP. They specifically said unless an attack happened on US soil comparable to a new Pearl Harbor like attack the agenda lain out would be very improbable and would take perhaps a generation by which time it would be too late to maintain US hegemony. Stop trying to bullshit me.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
It was trying to set the tone, as you say, for the aftermath of an attack. The people writing it didn't want the state dicking around with the UN or "measured responses" and lose the opportunity to go balls to the walls while they still had massive support. And, luckily for the PNAC crowd, they had their buddies in power (the Cheney crowd) when the spectacular attack hit and that's exactly what the state did.

If I have to re read it and post their exact words I will. I have general idea where that part was so it will only take me about ten minutes. They explicitly said, as did Brzezinski, that without an attack on US soil the future US dominance was unlikely. This had to do with time constraints. The entire point of quickly being able to build up the military and facilitate foreign intervention was to keep any one nation from challenging US hegemony. They said without an attack it would take a long time to facilitate this plan which would, by it's very nature, make the plan next to impossible. This is the message Brzezinski put forth as well.

An Affirming Flame wrote:
Conceivably, if the attacks happened while Clinton was still in office or if Gore had won the election, there may have been a less aggressive response. One reason is because that faction of the ruling class is less inclined to give two fucks about what the PNAC crowd writes; they have their own experts who advocate slightly different strategies.

And the attacks didn't happen during Clinton's administration. He left office in 2001 and them BAM!

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Oct 11 2013 14:16

Mike S, you're probably the most entertaining boring person on libcom for some time. You're no Outlaw or Gunshow Kenneth, but I'll take what I can get.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:28

edit

batswill
Offline
Joined: 8-07-11
Oct 27 2013 01:56

You should study the Hegelian concept of zeitgeist. About the movie I have no idea, but I assume it relates 9/11 as an example of events which manifest as the political spirit of the time.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 27 2013 07:20
Quote:
Decide objectively what seems more plausible to you.

Done.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:28

Edit

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 28 2013 07:19

ALL CAPS make my argument MUCH stronger.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Oct 28 2013 09:23
Chilli Sauce wrote:
ALL CAPS make my argument MUCH stronger.

and STRONGER!

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Oct 29 2013 02:42

It pretty simple, it is now over 11 years on since the events happened. Let's suppose some faction within the state are responsible for events of '9/11'. Now let's suppose the truth comes to light and can no longer be ignored. What do you think will happen? That 'The People' will rise up bringing in an era of peace, prosperity and truth? At best a massive institutional investigate will occur, heads will roll, changes suggested and implemented and daily life will continue. The drones will keep killing, the occupations will continue, the struggle for control of the world's resources will intensify,new invasions will occur and the rich will keep getting richer. The rationale for the invasion of Iran was that it had weapons of mass destruction, this was shown to be a lie. Did it undo the invasion and occupation? Did it speed the withdrawal of American troops? Whilst you have spent a decade dedicated to exposing the truth, history has continued on, struggles have emerged all over the world. This is a hobby for chatting about down the pub, entertaining for a while but not much use for deciding where and how to ac,t in nearly everyone else's daily life. Stop wasting your time (or least other people's) and get a more interesting hobby.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Oct 29 2013 03:31

And that's the end of that discussion, thanks JC.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 11 2015 03:27

You remember the X-Files? You remember those weird conspiracy nuts Mulder buddied about with? Well they got their own show and...

Quote:
In the premier episode, which aired March 4, 2001, members of the U.S. government conspire to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center, and blame the act on terrorists to gain support for a new profit-making war. The episode aired six months prior to the September 11 attacks.

Yeah, that's right, the fucking meta-conspiracy: a "fictional" show about conspiracy theories only predicts the biggest conspiracy of all time.

Proof if proof be need be, my friends.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Sep 14 2015 01:30
Quote:
You remember the X-Files? You remember those weird conspiracy nuts Mulder buddied about with? Well they got their own show and...

Quote:
:
In the premier episode, which aired March 4, 2001, members of the U.S. government conspire to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center, and blame the act on terrorists to gain support for a new profit-making war. The episode aired six months prior to the September 11 attacks.
Yeah, that's right, the fucking meta-conspiracy: a "fictional" show about conspiracy theories only predicts the biggest conspiracy of all time.

Proof if proof be need be, my friends.

It wouldn't have worked though. Because jet fuel can't melt steel beams! Bwahahahah

infektfm
Offline
Joined: 26-02-11
Sep 14 2015 13:48

yo, but was that lone gunmen show worth watching???

That's the real question.

(real x-files fan here)

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 14 2015 15:38

It was aight. X-files fans would say you're not an x-files fan if you haven't watched it.

infektfm
Offline
Joined: 26-02-11
Sep 14 2015 16:03

aghhh! You questioning my credentials!?? grin

I never watched Millenium either. But I have seen every episode of x files multiple times. Even the bad ones. Even season 8 and 9.

Sorry for the derail, but talk about x files in a thread about zeitgeist isn't all that off

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Sep 14 2015 17:22

Season 2 of Millenium was awesome.