Why we love to hate conspiracy theories: 9/11 Truth as threat to intelligentsia

Dangerous conspiracy theories

by Peter Chamberlin, 5 August 2010


How could a bunch of “lone wolf” researchers be considered dangerous to the United States? The official explanation given is that we confuse those who hear or read what we have to say, undermining the national unity and trust in government which is necessary to wage war. That is as good an excuse as any to explain why the American people have not rallied around this war of terror. The national unity that politicians whine about was achieved only once in the beginning of this war, before the politicians and the corporations revealed the war for what it has always been -- a war to control oil and gas.

The great danger posed by conspiracy theorists is that we will finally wake the people up to the fact that we have been deceived, in order to trick us into allowing the armed forces of the United States to be used as a mercenary force, an army of conquest, to rob the people of Asia of their God-given natural resources. The danger of the “conspiracy theorist” is that he will awaken the people from their trance-like slumber which binds them, trapped somewhere between the waking world and the dream state. In this state, most of us meekly “support the troops” as they mercilessly clear the ground of resisters to the great conspiracy. The danger is that we will shock them and turn their thoughts toward this ugly reality of the waking world.

The “conspiracy theorist” is discredited because he or she dares to look for alternatives to the idiotic official excuses given for key events like the 911 and London subway bombings, or for historic, pivotal political assassinations. Researchers who dare to look beyond explanations which are obviously lies automatically become delegated to the lunatic fringe. With the Internet becoming the researchers’ primary source of information, it has became possible for national security organizations to control nearly all critical information, thus insuring that no one would find any hidden proof of the crimes of the past. This federal oversight meant that it became necessary for theorists to switch tactics and shift our focus from looking for evidence of government crimes in the past (which have had time to be covered-up), to rooting-out proof of ongoing crimes and criminal plans for the future. In today’s environment of massive social and political discontent, hard proof of either ongoing war crimes or of criminal conspiracies to commit future crimes, could very likely prove to be the spark that lights the “prairie fires” of a grass roots revolution. This is the real danger of uncontrolled research.

The sudden and widespread popular reactions to the WikiLeaks story which contains proof of US and NATO war crimes, demonstrates the potential powder keg to be tapped by the right torch bearer. Government leaders undoubtedly understood the great potential danger risked by allowing the release of the Wiki documents, but, being the practitioners of Nazi mind-science that they are, they fully understood the potential rewards to be reaped by the correct handling of the leaks and Western reporting on them. Popular emphasis upon the Pakistani angle of Wiki revelations could help create a national consensus for attacking Taliban bases in Pakistan.

The WikiLeaks were a document dump, intended to overwhelm researchers and to preoccupy they, studying the Empire’s past moves, in order to distract us from our new focus upon the present, looking towards the future. Look for the release of an even greater document dump from WikiLeaks in the near future, as they dump their Iraq files onto the Internet. Another effect of the Wiki document dump is that it has flooded search engines with countless new variations on the search for “American war crimes,” or info on important key battles or screw-ups, making it even more impossible to find information on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anything covered in the leaks. This will muddy the waters for us even more and make it even less likely in the future that we will stumble across important evidence of ongoing criminal activity.

The nature of our conspiracy research is searching to find preventative answers, evidence to reveal overlooked evidence which could possibly preempt ongoing conspiracy plans. My focus for several years now has been to find preventive evidence of America’s true intentions in Pakistan. I have chosen Pakistan because I figured it to be the primary focus of the whole ongoing criminal American conspiracy (which involves many foreign co-conspirators), the critical component to the entire pipeline scheme. No matter how far into Central Asia the evidence has gone, it always relates back to Pakistan, certainly as the port for the pipeline plans, but also, just as important, to the thirty-year old scheme to create an army of “Islamists,” created to serve the Empire builders’ plans. Without Pakistan, none of the current plans for Empire would have even been possible.

For this unshakeable loyalty, if nothing else, we owe Pakistan a great debt. But Pakistan has gone far beyond mere loyalty in serving American interests, risking everything to serve as America’s secret sword. Pakistan risked its very existence in this capacity, standing alone on the lofty Himalayan peaks, toe-to-toe against the intimidating Soviet Union. They exposed their entire population to thermonuclear blackmail or potential elimination, to serve as the American stand-in for the historic confrontation which brought the Communist empire to its knees. Pakistan has given and risked so much for us that our leaders have decided to sacrifice the nation on the altar of self-aggrandizement. The greatest service we could do to them and to ourselves today would be to throw a monkey wrench into their plans for our Pakistani friends.

Sadly, the ongoing insidious criminal plans of the Empire extend far beyond Pakistan, reaching into every country on the earth, extending its tentacles like some great octopus, grasping to control every life within its reach. In the past, many researchers who got too close to the “Octopus” were eliminated, usually in an unconventional manner, usually in bizarre “suicides” . Now, our numbers have grown so great that it has altered the equation a bit, there are too many of us to kill today. The idea of using anti-Empire activists, such as myself, to help advance their plans and to agitate the public into a frenzy, has been a risky one. When the time comes to flip right-wing and left-wing activists towards the Empire’s preferred “consensus” there has always been a great inherent danger that the activists would not follow the trail of breadcrumbs leading us into new American police state.

That is the great weakness in the Empire’s plan -- by continually operating in a Hegelian manner (always manipulating both left and right, to force a consensus), every argument put forth by politicians or behaviorists, seeking to confine us within a narrow political spectrum, reaches a flipping point, where both synthesis and antithesis change direction, heading towards, instead of away from each other. It is at this flipping, or tipping point, where the original argument fizzles-out, losing its steam and forward momentum, and the threat we represent becomes the greatest. The greatest danger in allowing us to access inconvenient or incriminating evidence from the Internet comes just at the point of flipping. This is why the Internet has not yet been pulled out from under us.

This is why the WikiLeaks leaks are like a two-edged sword, they could just as easily cut the legs out from under us as they could undercut the criminal war for resources. Instead of following the game plan and jumping on the national bandwagon of a “patriotic” war on Pakistan, we must find the strength to muster our own groundswell of support by exposing the criminal intentions which have underwritten this war from the beginning, bringing the American people together to oppose the planned expansion of the war.

We are a threat if we start to come together. The ideas that bind us all here in the alternative media are exactly the sort of thinking that must be eliminated. The path to either victory or defeat for the anti-Empire side, just as it is for the bad guys, lies in changing the thinking of the people. The bad guys are intent on erasing the polluting ideas of freedom, liberation and individualism from the human lexicon, replacing all of these cherished concepts with ideas of hopelessness, terror and submission (SEE: Bombing Improper Thoughts). We must be just as committed to reinforcing visions of hope, fighting terror with truth and reason, building the fires of resistance within the besieged minds of our countrymen and our fellow man.

The greatest danger to the Empire is that you will refuse to lie down and submit. If enough people begin to feel this way, then the tide will turn towards freedom’s shore.

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan has given support to the cause of 9/11 truth many times over the past few years but on the eve of the ninth anniversary, she made her position clearer than ever before. To an enthusiastic packed house at All Souls Church in New York City, Sheehan declared “I am a 9/11 truther. I do think it was an inside job.”

Sheehan lost her son Casey in the Iraq invasion and has since dedicated her life to ending war and injustice. She is most widely known for setting up camp on the edge of George W. Bush’s Texas property in 2005, demanding that the president answer one single question from a mother whose son died in the war.

Since that time, Sheehan has continued her activism. She is a fierce critic of the Obama administration’s continued occupations and drone attacks, and recently founded Peace of the Action to further her anti-war activities.

On Friday, in the crowded All Souls Church on the upper East Side of Manhattan, Sheehan spoke of many injustices related to the war, both at home and abroad. She spoke of being tear gassed and shot at with rubber bullets while protesting. She spoke of the recently reported “Kill Squad” in Afghanistan, where members of the US military collected the fingers of slaughtered civilians for souvenirs. “That’s not something new,” Sheehan said.

She urged the crowd to consider the lives of the Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani people and said, “We’re the occupiers – it’s up to us to do something about it”.

When the topic turned to 9/11, Sheehan stated “I am a 9/11 truther.” She had to pause while the appreciative crowd cheered loudly and then said, “I do think it was an inside job. We just don’t know – I don’t know – how far inside it went. But, you know, I’m sure Dick Cheney had something to do with it.”

While not making it her main issue, Sheehan has spoken freely regarding her opinions on 9/11 truth over the past few years. She has offered her support to the 9/11 truth movement in various interviews and participated in conferences. Sheehan also serves as an adviser to the recently launched 9/11 Truth News (911truthnews.com).

Citing the 30,000 mostly young people who die each day from starvation, Sheehan left the crowd with this thought: “Every day, ten 9/11s occur around the world. It’s time to start acting locally, but thinking globally.”


VIDEO: Cindy Sheehan at All Souls Church

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GSqZ6YUCiQ

Spam spam spam - repost repost repost .... well, maybe you think that if you shout load enough, someone might listen.

To quote the Indymedia guidelines: "Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:
Repeated: content that is reposted or text that was originally a comment posted as a report."

You've posted this before - in the last 24 hours - and you've posted the truther pieces in the comments before too.

This spam should be taken down. I feel sorry for the Indymedia moderators who have to put up with all this stuff copied and pasted across from US sites every day.

What is it with these comments. Every-time someone posts a story on Indy-media we get this deluge of 'I can't help but do your thinking for you' rubbish.

Do you actually understand that there are other users on this site who can make up their own minds?

Alka, do fuck off there's a good chap.

is that they often seem to offer over complicated and unnecessary explanations for issues. In particular (and I won't go into depth but I have read alot of the theories) the 9/11 truth movement seems to be stunted by the fact that I firstly don't see 9/11 as the necessity that many do in they way states have moved forward with foreign policy and domestic legislation and secondly if such an event was required I'm sure that a much more economical and efficient move could have been imagined for example in the Uk the inclusion of the simple phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' was enough to base an invasion on.


Secondly the actual functioning of the conspiracies seem to take no account for the logistical problems of such an operation especially when considered in the context of the military incompetence in Iraq and Afganistan and the C.I.A's fumbling attempts at domestic and foreign subterfuge throughout the 20th Century. I think the conspiracy theories grant state's too much credit I believe the true evil of states is that they have the immense power but operate on a chaotic and short sighted agenda.

Anyway as much as I welcome any discourse on politics and government and love fresh opinions I feel that conspiracy theories play into the great global gossip beast and give more strength to the post modern practice of total narrative that the internet has spawned....

This spam should be taken down. I feel sorry for the Indymedia moderators who have to put up with all this stuff copied and pasted across from US sites every day.
Norvello


Let me see. The facts are:
• There has been no criminal investigation into the 911 attacks
• The only person found guilty of 911 said he was followed all day and night by Mossad and says that the US authorities let the attacks happen
• Mossad agents were arrested on the day of the attack after they set themselves up to film or document the event before it happened
• A Defense Intelligence Agency operative said four hijackers had been identified before the attacks and he was threatened after he said the FBI should be told
• The FBI has no evidence that Bin Laden was involved in 911
• The only evidence that Al Qaida was involved was a “confession from Al Qaida member who had been tortured” – German intelligence watching the ‘Hamburg Cell’ that the Al Qaida member supposedly met up with, noticed nothing
• The chief counsel of the 911 Commission, John Farmer, says that after he listened to the NORAD tapes, a decision was taken not to tell the truth about what happened
• 911 Commissioners said the commission was set up to fail
• 911 Commissioners cannot explain why the military lied about what they did on 911
• the Russian government submitted a report to the UN about Al Qaida and their plans to attack the US six months before it happened
• the chief counsellor of the Clinton investigation, now helping FBI agents, said he warned the US government about the attacks before they happened
• the Bush family are close to the Bin Laden family
• Investigator John Loftus has seen CIA files detailing links between Western intelligence and Muslim fundamentalists from the 1950s
• We are told that Pakistan intelligence supported Al Qaida and supports the Taliban despite getting billions from the US to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban

Norvello
I’m sure you agree that despite these facts 911 Truthers are total nutcases. I’m sure you want them to stop telling anyone these facts. Now!

You see, insidejob - that's not so hard is it? Your neat list there is actually much more persuasive than someone re-pasting the same US piece onto Indymedia for the 20th time.

Keep up the good work.

--
PS) Haven't got time to go through your bullets line-by-line but the bit where you say the Israelis set themselves up to film or document the event "before it happened" is BS, as the witness accounts show. But "people began filming and videoing a major event after it happened" isn't quite so sexy, is it?

I see the resident Indy, Demos inspired anti-truth movement are out again.

alka the well known authoritarian liar and the hypocrite liberal consumerist Norvello.

Thanks for posting poster.

Fuck the Ruling Class

PS) Haven't got time to go through your bullets line-by-line but the bit where you say the Israelis set themselves up to film or document the event "before it happened" is BS, as the witness accounts show. But "people began filming and videoing a major event after it happened" isn't quite so sexy, is it?
Norvello

Well, OK, just because Fox News said they set up before it happened doesn’t make it true:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIrSM4ZJ9M&feature=related

But it wasn’t just Fox News
 http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html?q=fiveisraelis.html

But they did appear on Israel TV saying they warned the US authorities about the 911 attack and set themselves up on the day to “document the event”.

Facts matter and there are lots of them on the side of the 911 Truth "nutcases".

(Personally, I would not say that it was primarily the Israeli Zionists that did it.)

Why don't you write it all up and publish it?

People can then either dispute the facts or not.
If they can't then and your arguments are sound then you will get on the front of Time magazine as one of the world's greatest truthsayers. And you be rich and get laid lots.

Seriously. Do it! Stop posting on indymedia, every minute writing here is a minute lost in fame and fortune.

ABC news interviewed the woman who witnessed the van pull up... *after* the attacks started. Not before.

--
MARIA: She was sitting when she heard a noise, at the same time she felt like it--it shook--like the building shook, she said. She called me immediately. She said, 'You know, there's--there's something wrong, look at your window by the twin towers.' So I grab my binoculars and I could see the towers from my window.
And this is where I, you know, I'm looking. I saw the smoke from the top, just from the top of the towers.

MILLER: (VO) After watching for a little while, something caught Maria's at-tention in the parking lot below her window.

MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie.
--

The whole world stopped to watch those attacks on TV. It's no massive surprise that a bunch of Israelis might pull over to gawp too, whether or not they were agents, when it happened live. Hell, I was watching it on live TV when the second plane went in and I was in England.

When the police looked at the photos they found pics of the three guys sat on their van (because obviously what top-secret agents do is take cheesy pictures of themselves....)

I'm also not sure how this all fits with a conspiracy theory: if you believe, as truthers do, that they controlled the media on the day ("the BBC knew about WTC7!" etc) or that they were able to cover up the agents then why couldn't they get the US news channels to ignore this story?

Your loving hypocrite liberal consumerist,

Novello

Dan Brown said so.

Was it an inside job? Frankly, how cares?
What is important is that, deliberately or accidentally, it has helped secured oil and gas resources for the west. At least thats something positive.

Saddam tried to play the hardman, all big and tough. His fault, not ours.
Didn't know which side of his bread was buttered. You play with fire, you'll gonna get burnt.

Iran is heading the same way. Acting all big and tough, talking the talk but they aint got any muscle either. They want a fight so desparately then thats their problem.

'the Russian government submitted a report to the UN about Al Qaida and their plans to attack the US six months before it happened.'

But I thought Al Qaida had nothing to do with it?

But ..

'The only evidence that Al Qaida was involved was a “confession from Al Qaida member who had been tortured” – German intelligence watching the ‘Hamburg Cell’ that the Al Qaida member supposedly met up with, noticed nothing'

So which is it?

Incidentally, you can easily trace how Fox News got the story wrong (and it still cracks me up you’re citing Fox News…)

Fox reported that the New York Times had said that the cameras had been set up “prior” to the attack. Only the NYT never said that.

It actually said: “In addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They photographed the attacks”

Nothing actually about them being ahead of time. But a bit of sloppy, speedy re-reporting by Fox News and suddenly it’s “prior” – and another myth is born.

It’s weird how truthers pick up bits of confused reporting from the time and somehow see that as truth of a conspiracy, like those still repeating the bit about “the hijacker alive and well”, long after that story was shown to be a cock-up too.

"It’s weird how truthers pick up bits of confused reporting from the time and somehow see that as truth of a conspiracy, like those still repeating the bit about “the hijacker alive and well”, long after that story was shown to be a cock-up too."

Not half as cack-handed as your attempts to de-truth the truthers.

Odd how these things get explained away by cock-up too. Is it true that cock-ups only happen to those who are stupid enough to sit on their own cocks?

Returning to the subject at hand...

Odd too that 19 hijackers can pull off the stunt of the millenia, with panache, elegance and truly extraordinary timing and synchronicity and achieve little more than the collapse of two tower blocks and a damaged Pentagon, but the US, with nothing more than organised cock-up and accident, can blunder onto the worlds richest reserves of oil and gas precisely at the time when it needs them the most.

If it didn't need these resources as badly as it needed them, 9/11 would never have happened!

Amazing what you can achieve when you have control of the 'telly' and the minds of those who are addicted to it.

While you are arguing with each other, a very fat cat is drinking your milk, oh yeah, and its laughing at you too!

>> Amazing what you can achieve when you have control of the 'telly' and the minds of those who are addicted to it. While you are arguing with each other, a very fat cat is drinking your milk, oh yeah, and its laughing at you too!


Everyone is laughing at you.
If you're so smart why don't you write it all up and make a best seller out of it?
If you can prove everything, put it down on paper in a form that can't be disputed.
You will become super rich, famous, heroic and do the world a favour.

Stop hanging around forums pecking. Think big!!

You are doomed to just sit around trying to sell your snake oil charms for the rest of your miserable life whilst no one listens. Last time I checked there were over 13,000 cases of islamic based terrorist incidents in the world. If there is one thing to be sure in the world, there is a sad man being used by nutters, who wants to try his hand at getting hold of 72 fresh pussies. Thats what all this fuss is about, nothing more.

"You are doomed to just sit around trying to sell your snake oil charms for the rest of your miserable life whilst no one listens. Last time I checked there were over 13,000 cases of islamic based terrorist incidents in the world. If there is one thing to be sure in the world, there is a sad man being used by nutters, who wants to try his hand at getting hold of 72 fresh pussies. Thats what all this fuss is about, nothing more."

Such petulance is most uncouth.

I think the above paragraph is far more naturally inviting of ridicule and charges of true delusion than anything the truth movement can come up with.

It isn't my fault that America is a resource hungry warthog, it isn't my fault that it places oil and gas above the sanctity of human life. It isn't my fault you live with the dark shadow of empire makers and histrionic tactical fanatics hovering above you.

It isn't my fault you live in the world you do.

I'm just the bloke that's jamming your face into the filth of its mess to try to get you to recognise what the smell is!

But you can have it your way...there's no such thing as Rome!

Fox reported that the New York Times had said that the cameras had been set up “prior” to the attack. Only the NYT never said that.
Norvello

Except the two of the group themselves turned up on Israeli TV saying they had some of the hijackers under surveillance and wanted to “document the event”. What do you think that means?


So which is it?
alka the authoritarian liar

The Russians did not believe it was Al Qaida because Al Qaida didn’t do it. They are hardly going to hand a report into the UN saying the US Shadow Power is going to attack America. I’m sure you can think this through if you tried.

 http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/2001/11/prediction.html
Russian Economist Predicted Strikes on America
Says Shadow Power Planning More
In what is now a stunning rebuttal to the official U.S. storyline regarding the events of September 11, ranking Russian economist Dr. Tatyana Koryagina revealed astounding insight into the planned attack on America, two months prior to the September 11 disaster.

 http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg
March 7, 2001: The Russian Permanent Mission at the United Nations secretly submits "an unprecedentedly detailed report" to the UN Security Council about bin Laden, his whereabouts, details of his al-Qaeda network, Afghan drug running, and Taliban connections in Pakistan. The report provides "a listing of all bin Laden's bases, his government contacts and foreign advisors," and enough information to potentially kill him. The US fails to act. Alex Standish, the editor of the highly respected Jane's Intelligence Review, concludes that the attacks of 9/11 were less of an American intelligence failure and more the result of "a political decision not to act against bin Laden." [Jane's Intelligence Review, 10/5/01]


What is absurd is that people on the Left fully believe the official story, with one or two amendments, when there is so little reliable evidence to support it. Not even the FBI say that they have enough evidence to charge bin Laden.

No one has been through a reliable court case where the evidence was examined and has been found guilty of direct involvement in the September 11 attacks. The only person who has was Zacarias Moussaoui, who either didn’t get involved because he’d been arrested on “immigration” charges or was the sole person involved in a second wave of attacks. And even he at first said that the US wanted 911 to happen.

Are the Left under some sort of mind control?

Hey just mention the free fall of building 7 for 2,25 seconds and these antiTruth doofers run a mile!

How does a building fall through itself for 2.25 seconds at free-fall doofers?

'In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs.'

So the Russians warned about Bin Laden. Did they say he was going to hijack two aircraft? Did they say he was dangerous enough to warrant assassination? So in other words, you're saying Bin Laden did do it, and Cheney et al turned a blind eye? Is that your current hypotheses?

Who do you expect to be put through a court case, for heaven's sake? The dead hijackers? The organisers who were hiding out in Afghanistan? I don't think anyone went to court for the assassination of Crown Price Ferdinand, so was the First World War the result of a conspiracy?

'Except the two of the group themselves turned up on Israeli TV saying they had some of the hijackers under surveillance and wanted to “document the event”.'

Useless unless you cite a source. Who, when, where. Details, please.

alka aren't you the one that turned up on this thread

 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/09/457980.html

pretending that you knew about 'Physics' and telling folk to "Go and learn a little bit about elementary architecture and engineering" and trying to make out that this

 http://www.heitechservices.com/hsincludes/documents/HH_2009_4Q_FA.pdf

was an example of a technical case study carried out by independent experts, i.e. select one from :- "every major architectural practice " or "many university engineering departments"

When in-fact it's PR material for heitechservices it's not an academic paper it's not even technical. The pdf article is about the star role of one of heitechservices staff members played in type setting 1000 pages of NCSTAR1-9. If you read the next article you see the company is involved with a large 'Role in Homeland Security Immigration Program' mmm nice people at heitechservices aren't they? Friend's of yours alka?

Here's what I though about it then...

To claim that this document represents some independent 'case study' is misleading and shows a high degree of ignorance about what actually constitutes a technical 'case study', when earlier in the same thread alka told some one to "Go and learn a little bit about elementary architecture and engineering" i.e. trying to give the impression that alka had done this. Well if he doesn't know what that pdf represents then he's not a scientist, but if he knows quite well that that document was just some PR for a corporation making money from 'Homeland Security' then he's attempting to fool people. Either way alka is lying.

So clear are the methods of the antiTruth movement the thought police, don't cross that line or the authorities will be upset. The means justify the ends, ruling class fuckin' strategy if ever I saw one, the 'anti' of Truth is Lie so the antiTruth must lie, the Truth must be shrouded in lies.

I'm with the anti antiTruth
Fuck the ruling class

Oh yeah, I almost forgot

How does a building fall through it's self for 2.25 seconds at free-fall? that's the question the antiTruth movement won't address.

>> How does a building fall through it's self for 2.25 seconds at free-fall?
The building began to fall, then it free falled, then it stopped free falling. Your problem is?
Where does it say that a building can't freefall when it collapses?
How do you explain the building NOT free-falling?

>> that's the question the antiTruth movement won't address.
Thats a lie. Yes they do. All the debunks are published and freely available.

or, don't shoot the messenger.

If you're going to post responses, at least make them vaguely relevant to what's just gone before.

And as for heitech, that came up thru random googling. You know, you're a big boy now, and can make your own evaluation of material. Don't like it, don't read it. Why should I care? Arguing with hardline troofers is like arguing with members of the flat earth society - you can bring whatever evidence you like but it won't make the slightest bit of difference. Mind you, it's not the only thing they have in common ...

@alka

bang bang your dead!

I notice the question
How does a building fall through it's self for 2.25 seconds at free-fall?

remains un-addressed

That's not ad-hominem alka you are a proven liar, and that's an evidence based assessment of your attitude to honesty in general, what's more you're an unapologetic liar. Which again has the smack of an Authoritarian, stuck in a hierarchy with scary terrorists all around, can send you over the edge according to Dr Bob Altemeyer who's been studying folk like you for over 30 years. You should look up Dr Bob and read his stuff. You might understand yourself better, then again if you are an Authoritarian (and all the signs are that you are [available with quotes! I mean the title of your last effort looks like you take pleasure in that sort of thing Ah, the ad hominem]) you probably won't! :-)

@chooper

"Where does it say that a building can't freefall when it collapses? "

Your question should be

"Where does it say that a building CAN freefall when it collapses through itself? "

I think whoever told you that "All the debunks are published and freely available." is a liar probably someone like alka who un apologetically point people to web sites like this that can only be described as pseudo scientific de-bunkum.

 http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

Norvello rates that one as 'Physics' too te-he!

Norvello and alka like using dis-info like this in their antiTruth crusade.

It has the usual tale of a single rivet resisting an 80-110 story block being dropped from a height of 20 meters. What could the poor building do? It just gave up the ghost, or there's 'came down like a house of cards' , or 'pancakes'. Search 'till you're blue in the mouse you won't find one that answers this question on a debunking site or in the NIST report:-

How does a building fall through itself at free-fall? The answer is in the Authority (that's for you alka!) of the Laws of Physics!

> I notice the question
> How does a building fall through it's self for 2.25 seconds at free-fall?
> remains un-addressed
You can address it if you like. I don't see the issue. NIST report concluded it was a fire and lack of water pressure to fight the fire that caused the collapse of WTC7. The twin towers fell becaues two big planes hit them.

Theres your facts. Anything else is pure made up nonsence based on "I've got a hunch / amateur sleuth" capacity.

> "Where does it say that a building can't freefall when it collapses? "
> Your question should be
> "Where does it say that a building CAN freefall when it collapses through itself? "
No - my question is exactly what i asked, not what YOU want it to be. Tell me why a building can't have a period of freefall when it collapses? Seems pretty simple to me. Lower floors are damaged due to large amount of fire, of course there is going to be a period of freefall. Why the hell shouldn't there be? I don't see why you think there wouldn't?

> How does a building fall through itself at free-fall? The answer is in the Authority (that's for you alka!) of the Laws of Physics!
Yes, well done. It fell down the way it did because of the law of physics. Well done - have a cookie.

@chooper

Sorry I forgot to include the links in answer to your question:-
"Where does it say that a building can't freefall when it collapses? "

Here
WTC1
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&feature=channel

And here for WTC7 in part 3 Dr Shyam Sunder the lead investigator at NIST tells you why buildings don't fall through themselves at free-fall
Part 1 Background

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=related

Part 2
John Gross 'Dry labbing'
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related

Part 3
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

Best Regards

Not cognitive dissonance but doublethink.
16.09.2010 14:55

So the Russians warned about Bin Laden. Did they say he was going to hijack two aircraft? Did they say he was dangerous enough to warrant assassination? So in other words, you're saying Bin Laden did do it, and Cheney et al turned a blind eye? Is that your current hypotheses?
Who do you expect to be put through a court case, for heaven's sake? The dead hijackers? The organisers who were hiding out in Afghanistan? I don't think anyone went to court for the assassination of Crown Price Ferdinand, so was the First World War the result of a conspiracy?
'Except the two of the group themselves turned up on Israeli TV saying they had some of the hijackers under surveillance and wanted to “document the event”.'
Useless unless you cite a source. Who, when, where. Details, please.
Alka

That Russians put a report into the UN detailing Al Qaida infrastructure is a FACT.
That the 911 Commission could only provide an “interrogation” as evidence for the Hamburg Cell joining Al Qaida while the same Commission said German intelligence told them nothing is merely FACT. (see  http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm)

They are facts irrespective of what I think.

the idea that the 19 hijackers could have carried out the attack without support in the US is absurd and ridiculous. Indeed, it is known that hijackers stayed in accommodation:
- near the National Security Agency,
- with an FBI informat,
- arranged by a Saudi intelligence agent.

Israelis admit they wanted to “document the event” while witness to dancing Israel says she was “down there I see this van park and I see three guys on top of the van”:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FILBXO9Uujk&feature=related

So they are facts. So? Unless you are going to use them to support your case, why bother telling us?

Who was the FBI informant staying with the hijackers? You just keep on throwing out these assertions like confetti.

The 'five dancing Israelis'. Ah, yes, the Je ... sorry, Zionist ... involvement. The women saw them filming AFTER the towers were struck. So, they were in a film van, they see the towers being struck ... and you're surprised they start filming?

alka
So they are facts. So? Unless you are going to use them to support your case, why bother telling us?

- because they undermine the official story and ought to mean that people on the Left should reject the official story.

alka
Who was the FBI informant staying with the hijackers? You just keep on throwing out these assertions like confetti

- I’m not sure why you are making comments on 911 if you’re so ignorant about it. This story got widespread coverage.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.shtml
CBS - Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant - Sept. 9, 2002
Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers who lived in San Diego in 2000 rented a room from a man who reportedly worked as an undercover FBI informant....the FBI informant prayed with them and even helped one open a bank account.

And also -

Chairman of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) and his investigators will, in author Philip Shenon’s words, “find it obvious that the amiable al-Bayoumi was a low-ranking Saudi intelligence agent,” and “someone who had been put on the ground in San Diego by his government to keep an eye on the activities of the relatively large Saudi community in Southern California.” ‘The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation’ , p52,
Philip Shenon.

 http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=omar_al-bayoumi
An FBI document from shortly after 9/11 states, “Rental records for the Parkwood Apartments [in San Diego] indicate that, prior to moving into apartment 150, hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Alhihdhar lived with Omar al-Bayoumi” in apartment 152 at the same apartment complex. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/3/2001 ] An FBI timeline put together later that month further clarifies that on a rental application on February 5, 2000, the two hijackers specified they had lived with al-Bayoumi from January 15 to February 2. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 52 ] January 15 is the same day the two hijackers arrive in the US (see January 15, 2000), which suggests the hijackers immediately went from the Los Angeles airport to al-Bayoumi’s apartment. Al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, will later claim he only meets the hijackers by chance at a Los Angeles restaurant two weeks later.


It is not clear whether the witness to the dancing Isrealis is using the word ‘park’ as a verb or adjective. But after saying ‘park’, she said people were ‘on top of the van’. Now, that would be fast moving. And why would she look out of the window because a van had parked? Clearly, it had been there for some time before she saw it. As I have said, the Isrealis said their job was to "document the event". How many times do I have to mention this?

alka is a liar, that's a fact, How can you argue with a known liar?

Sorry I forgot to include the links in answer to your question:-
"Where does it say that a building can't freefall when it collapses? "

Here WTC1
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&feature=channel


If the lowers floors have severly lost their structural integrity, then there would be very little resistance.
Concrete melts. Steel severely weakens when hot. WTC7 was burning all day.
Also buildings mainly consist of empty space! So yes there is nothing there holding the upper floors up except a few metal girders whose primary strength is based on their orientation.
Think of a tripoid. How strong it is. Tripods can hold a persons weight, either though they are just made of aluminium tubing or carbon fibre. However, with a large weight on the tripod, you could heat up one of the legs and it would collapse. It only takes a bit of damage for the whole structure to fall down. These structured buildings are the same, they are mainly empty space, with a very small amount of material volume wise towards its structure

And here for WTC7 in part 3 Dr Shyam Sunder the lead investigator at NIST tells you why buildings don't fall through themselves at free-fall
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=related
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

WTC7 wouldn't be the first building that they don't fully understand why it collapsed the exact way it did. And it certainly won't be the last. There are plenty of buildings that don't have a cast iron understanding. NIST don't fully know. You don't fully know. No one fully knows.
Theres lot of Theories including yours. That doesn't make it fact.

"Think of a tripoid. How strong it is. Tripods can hold a persons weight, either though they are just made of aluminium tubing or carbon fibre. However, with a large weight on the tripod, you could heat up one of the legs and it would collapse. It only takes a bit of damage for the whole structure to fall down. These structured buildings are the same, they are mainly empty space, with a very small amount of material volume wise towards its structure"

This is a very, very amateurish and simplistic layman's interpretation of kinematics. One might even say its not much more than a stab in the dark!

We can all stand here forever arguing with each other over the minutiae of how buildings collapse.

The fact is this building collapsed in the most odd and unexplainable way. It is always possible that the relatively moderate damage at its front, combined with the even more moderate fires could cause some degree of collapse. But I am sorry to say, it is NOT ENOUGH to overcome the entire engineering of the entire structure in one moment.

The question here is not regarding damage or fire or content or even the angle of the supports. It is not even whether debri from adjacent tower collapse damaged it.

The question here is about something called 'impulse momentum'. To put this into layman's terms, it describes a force that acts on a body over a very short period of time that causes momentum equal to the impulse. In very large objects, such as WTC7, collapsing struts (vertical, horizontal beams) cannot fall of their own accord as one unit due to the size of the structure. The structure is not so rigid that the entire body has enough tensile strength, spread over its entire span, to collapse as one contiguous unit.

If a single beam, or even a number of beams, were to fail at the same time, you would see a partial collapse only. Even if that partial collapse caused so much damage that it brought about a further collapse, seconds, minutes or hours later.

In a very large object such as WTC7, it is not possible for the entire structure to experience an impulse over the entire mass of the structure leading to a uniform momentum downwards without artificial intervention.

Impulse-momentum cannot occur in a structure of this size over its entire mass with this type of engineering.

What we have seen is impossible in nature.

why not just say so?

Thanks for your thoughts rooser, It's quite clear that you don't understand the Laws of Physics involved.
The Laws of the Conservation of Energy and Momentum and Newton's Laws of motion.

This Physics teacher does
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&feature=channel

Now if you want to criticise Chandler's analysis then do it using the Scientific Method and not your "de-bunking" web site sound bites and your hand waving. e.g.

"Also buildings mainly consist of empty space!"
(fos means Factor of Safety mg is the mass times gravity or weight if you like, it's the static load on the structure)
Wow! how stupid of me so that's how they resist mg*fos, they use empty space it's genius!.

Don't you think that describing a building like this is actually hiding a great deal of the stuff that actually means they can resist mg*fos at any point in the design? i.e. do what they're actually designed to do? Resist mg*fos? Aren't you forgetting the structural steel and concrete? that if you spread evenly through your 'empty space' would mean that 'space' having a density of a soft hardwood? aren't you missing something in your 'empty space' theory of structural design? Shouldn't you contact NIST and tell them of your discovery, buildings fall down because they're mostly empty space, you could have saved them a lot of effort. I mean they're the experts why didn't they think of it?

"If the lowers floors have severly [sic] lost their structural integrity, then there would be very little resistance."

OK how about looking at facts I know antiTruthers like facts.
You know not tripods but the actual building? and the actual estimated damage?

Unlike Tripods that have 3 legs, WTC1 had 47 core columns and 236 perimeter columns, The FOS in the core was 3 and in the perimeter carrying 40% of the load, the FOS was 5. In your tripod analogy the 'structure' loses 33% of it's load baring capacity how much did WTC 1 loose?.

NIST modelled the jet impact and say

* 35 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged.
* 6 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged.

So roughly 85% intact still able to support about 3.23*mg or over 3 times the mass above it. So we don't have to speculate we have a pretty good idea of what the structural integrity was using NIST's own data. It was damaged, but not severely enough to 'inevitably' collapse.

"So yes there is nothing there holding the upper floors up except a few metal girders whose primary strength is based on their orientation."

Oh Aye pull the other one I refer you to NIST sir, 75% intact after impact and fire according to them and 90 floors remain undamaged.

Ah but you say the tripod effect! Well take away a leg off a tripod and it falls over it doesn't as WTC1 did crash through itself. Again you should tell NIST of the 'tripod effect' again it might help them answer all their critics. Together with the your 'empty space' theory I think you might be on to something, my arse.

"Concrete melts." yes at 500C in a kiln, you have supporting evidence that concrete melted in any of the 3 buildings I trust? NIST don't AFAIA, so I'd let them know what you've seen, it might be of help to them.

"It only takes a bit of damage for the whole structure to fall down." At free fall or 70% free-fall constant acceleration(WTC1)? No fukin' way! Look if you know f all about the Phydics why not just say "I know f all about Physics"
instead of pimping 'debunking' sites for pseudo science. Why not spend some time to understand the Physics. you know? reduce your ignorance, instead of pretending to know what your talking about by being a "debunking" pimp?.

"Steel severely weakens when hot"

"when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value."

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC:"

"NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers" (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). (Note that's air temperatures and these temperatures would only arise in a 'flash-over') Even so assume that the whole of the steel structure was heated to 1000C that would mean yellow hot.

Anyway a further 10% of structural load baring strength and that means with impact and fire using NIST's own figures. Which gives an effective fos of 2.85. Damaged but still capable of resisting loads. And those are just the damaged floors the 90 or so floors from the damaged area are 100% intact.

Ah but the tripod you stutter....

Well as I said above, WTC collapsed through itself through the path of most resistance, Above I've made a rough estimate of the structural resistance of the 4-6 damaged floors ~75% intact based on NIST estimates and 100% in the floors below the damaged area 100%, The steel work is still resisting though weakened, in order to cause the steel structure to fail they have to buckle, buckling columns resisting collapse would produce deceleration, and when you measure the acceleration of WTC1 demolition you see no deceleration only acceleration so no buckling of the columns.

Remember that were only considering the resistance of the remaining structure, when you add in the other most obvious an calculable energy sink the inertia of the stationary mass that the top block impacts, when you do that you need roughly 3.5 GJ of additional energy. So no WTC1 wasn't collapsing it was being demolished, there's no evidence that the structure resisted at all, rather the top block falls as if it's falling through suspended dust and particulate mass even through undamaged floors.

Your post characterises what you find on all de-bunking web sites that depend on your ignorance of Physics, They paint a picture in your mind and they'll always make the building seem weak, (mostly space) they'll exaggerate the applied force and they'll never do any Empirical work. How can you hope to describe what's going on in the demolition with out making Empirical measurements? What the Empirical Science shows is that there is zero deceleration in the fall and that means a demolition not a collapse.

@Gerald you put it a lot more succinctly than I could :-)

'The question here is about something called 'impulse momentum'. To put this into layman's terms, it describes a force that acts on a body over a very short period of time that causes momentum equal to the impulse.'

In a word, no. When a force acts on a body in the absence of any other forces, then the body receives an impulse = force x time. It will experience a change in momentum, delta(mv). This was how Newton originally expressed his second law of motion, nowadays more commonly written as F=ma.

Note the proviso: in the absence of any other forces.

It has nothing to do with size of building, type of engineering, or anything else. In other words, the whole post is a complete load of bollocks.

I know your a liar...

I know you think Nutty Science is a good web page about Physics
I know you think a PR document for a firm working in Immigration for Homeland security is an independent technical case study.

What Gerald says makes sense the size and engineering of the structure means it can't just instantly pop into free-fall.

He notes that the building is accelerating down at about 6.4m/s^2, and thus it is encountering a resistive force of 0.36g. He then says this is less than the normal static load of 1g - and the building can withstand 1g quite happily.

Unfortunately, by his argument the building can never ever collapse in any situation, because if it did so, then as the upper portions accelerated downwards, they would be exerting less force on the lower floors than when the building is stationary, and thus the collapse would cease.

Oh, I say, this one's fun!

 http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911c.htm

Read, no_body, then debunk!

That's atotal misrepresentation of Chandler's Analysis

Your lying again you're just a persistent and unapologetic liar

He's saying because the applied force he measures is only 0.36W the building is being demolished
You know shit all about Physics

Why don't you lot write it all up in a book and sell it?

Facts:
1. You're wasting you time posting constantly on Indymedia. No one is going to listen.
2. If you can prove whatever it is you are trying to prove (i'm not even sure what that is - something about america demolishing their own building?) then people will be unable to argue against such proof.
3. If you have evidence that the official line if wrong and a different crime was committed then you have a MORAL DUTY to do this. If you know a criminal offense has been committed but do nothing about it then you are actually committing a criminal offence in this country.
4. You will be hailed heros and your names will go down in history.
5. You will earn lots of money.
6. You will get laid lots.


So.... given that all these facts are true. The REAL QUESTION is why don't you do it.
There are two possible answers:
1. You don't want to
2. Or, you can't

I put the answer as Number 2 since there is no real reason you would do 1 given your responses in the thread. Conclusion: you are full of shit.

Thoughts?

"The question here is about something called 'impulse momentum'. To put this into layman's terms, it describes a force that acts on a body over a very short period of time that causes momentum equal to the impulse. In very large objects, such as WTC7, collapsing struts (vertical, horizontal beams) cannot fall of their own accord as one unit due to the size of the structure. The structure is not so rigid that the entire body has enough tensile strength, spread over its entire span, to collapse as one contiguous unit."

Thank you Gerald, that'll do nicely.

@Gerald,

Thank you for posting that, that's very helpful.

"In a word, no. When a force acts on a body in the absence of any other forces, then the body receives an impulse = force x time. It will experience a change in momentum, delta(mv). This was how Newton originally expressed his second law of motion, nowadays more commonly written as F=ma."

That's exactly what Gerald said!

You've just regurgitated it and pre-faced it with "In a word, no"

What kind of logic is THAT?

Yes, thanks Gerald for that comment.

But haven't we been 'obviously' steered by the loonies away from the thrust of the original article.

Why is the UK left so willing to adopt and go along with the state even when it starts going on mass killing spree's.

Longbow

I blame Ezra Pound and Eustace Mullins who set out to show Monopolisic Capitalists like Rockerfeller and Rhodes were in fact Communists! and were involved in a global conspiracy to make the whole world Communist. Mullins a nazi homophobe sat in the library of congress and dug, it's where all the information about Lenin's return to Russia comes from. I think ever since then the left authoritarians - communists have been quick to attack any 'conspiracy theories' whether they are based on Science or research in the Library of Congress. Of course nobody would quote a white supremacist homophobic researcher, but the information he dug up is interesting.

Mullins however did show that monopolistic capitalists were involved with the Bolshevik take over of power in Russia, and he supported it with evidence, like US navy intelligence reports about some of the players.

I think that that could be the basis for some of the rabid kneejerk reactions of some of the authoritarians here.

Mind you it's just a theory ;-)

@chooper

Part of being an anarchist AFAIC is about mutual aid so judging from the level of ignorance on Indy about Physics, I'm just spreading what I know so that people can use the information to make their own minds up, rather than what happens now where in a general state of ignorance exists and authoritarian debunking pimps like alka, Norvello et al can just come along feigning insight, waiving their hands about with statements like It's all been debunked etc. When it hasn't.

Oh you asked for my thoughts?

What's the matter Choop got none of your own?
Seems you don't mind liars either, it's all cool that alka fukin' lies and misleads people, that's ok with you apparently, you're just another antiTruther kneejerking reactionary a bigot tacitly condoning lies.

@alka
Its all been debunked! now I'm mirroring an antiTruth tactic there, but unlike antiTruth it's actually backed up with Science. 2ms impulse is a mathematical conceit used to try and say that deceleration would not be measurable on videos. The problem is is that since you reduce the impulse down to 2ms it might produce the acceleration curve that sort of matches the observation but there is a problem 2ms is an insufficient time to transfer the kinetic energy needed to destroy the columns in that time. There's a lot more, but since its foolish to argue with liars who know f all about Physics why waste my time.

It's so bad it's not even wrong. It's rather reminiscent of Alan Sokal.

If it's all so obvious, then why have there been NO peer reviewed papers about all this in any reputable journal?

"It's so bad it's not even wrong. It's rather reminiscent of Alan Sokal.

If it's all so obvious, then why have there been NO peer reviewed papers about all this in any reputable journal?"

I think the answer to that question lies in reputable engineers being ridiculed by the establishment and its 'try-hards' if they come out in favour of fair and independent investigation of the subject.

There is an army of 'deniers', 'witch-hunters' and 'reputation assassins' lining up to smother the truth in a spin-ridden false logic and arse about face morality.

Your comments in this and other threads are good examples of disruption, arrogance and personal obsession with power, deception and misdirection.

Ultimately, you fear what the truth might bring forward.

We don't.

I blame Ezra Pound and Eustace Mullins who set out to show Monopolisic Capitalists like Rockerfeller and Rhodes were in fact Communists! and were involved in a global conspiracy to make the whole world Communist. Mullins a nazi homophobe sat in the library of congress and dug, it's where all the information about Lenin's return to Russia comes from. I think ever since then the left authoritarians - communists have been quick to attack any 'conspiracy theories' whether they are based on Science or research in the Library of Congress. Of course nobody would quote a white supremacist homophobic researcher, but the information he dug up is interesting.

Mullins however did show that monopolistic capitalists were involved with the Bolshevik take over of power in Russia, and he supported it with evidence, like US navy intelligence reports about some of the players.

I think that that could be the basis for some of the rabid kneejerk reactions of some of the authoritarians here.
No_body

No_body is right. There is a lot of anti-communist, pro-capitalist claptrap within the Truth Movement, such as Rense, Alex Jones, etc. They are also white nationalists. But they will warn people that Obama is a Commie and the Commies are about to take over the US and then tell people about the private cartel that runs the US. Claptrap. But just to confuse matters, Marx and Engels handed over the Communist League to the Vanderbilts...

Again theorising

In trying to prove (and failing) John 'control everything' Rockerfeller and the like (Lord Milner) were Communists involved in a conspiracy to make the world communist, what Mullins uncovered was not that Monopolisitic Capitalists were Communists, but that the Communist project was an initiative of those members of the ruling class who were Monopolisitic Capitalists, What they saw in Communism was the next stage in the evolution of Capitalism, a more efficient way to extract value from labour than Laissez Faire Capitalism which involved the bourgeois classes, share holders investors and the like. just the worker and the central bank, no middle class taking their cut a pure form of monopolistic capitalism. Well that's the only way I can understand why these Monopolistic Capitalists would fund the Bolsheviks.

I think that what this shows is that Authoritarian Hierarchical power structures are the tools of the ruling class they are the way the few control the many.

The other barrier to the left is an ideological one, and that's the tedious debate between structuralists and functionalists. Michael Parenti has commented on this as a way to explain why Chomsky rejects CTs outright because they don't fit with the structuralist world view. Parenti explains and I agree, that there are systemic structures of power (hierarchies) and human agents within them (obviously) so the structuralist- functionalist divide is a false one, something for academics to waste their hours debting.

Ruling Class power depends on the systemic structures of power hierarchies, and if as a functionary within a hierarchy you automatically agree to be an authoritarian follower (Altemeyer) if you don't follow the bosses orders you're demoted sacked or sidelined. The hierarchy and the Authoritarian followers that function within the systemic class power system are the way the Ruling Class maintain their grip. Information is the life blood of the system, both the collection and control of what information is released.