Preface: If you believe that the government always tells the truth, you have gotten lost in a bad neighborhood, and you should turn around and get back on the freeway as quickly as possible.
If you believe that politics, war and terrorism do not greatly affect your lifestyle, your investment portfolio and the economy, you are sadly mistaken. See this, this, this, this and this.
If, on the other hand, you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then please point out any inaccuracies, shortcoming or erroneous conclusions contained within the post. Please don’t just label it as being a “limited hang-out” propaganda sell-out hit piece … instead, if you believe it is wrong, please link to actual evidence which disproves what I am saying, or which adds pieces of information which you think are missing. Maybe I’ll agree with you, maybe I won’t. But I will consider every comment.
People who state that 9/11 was an inside job are claiming that it is a false flag operation which killed people, was used to justify wars in Iraq and elsewhere and a power grab in the U.S.
But World Trade Center building 7 – the third building to collapse on September 11th – has nothing to do with any inside job:
- No one died as a result of the collapse
- No airplane hit the building, and so it was not directly involved in the terrorist attack
- No wars were launched to avenge WTC7
- No power grabs or loss of civil liberties ensued because of the collapse of this building
- Unlike the rest of 9/11, the government has been very quiet about its destruction
As such, the collapse of the building – also known as the “Solomon Brothers Building” – was not an inside job.
Of course, the building might have been demolished to save lives. For example, Paul K. Trousdale – a structural engineer with decades of experience – says:
I had always thought the 3rd building was destroyed to prevent unpredictable collapse.
(some point to the World Trade Center owner's statement about the decision to "pull" the building as confirming Trousdale's theory).
So why am I wasting your valuable time in discussing this?
Because the government – as part of its political cover-up of negligence before and on 9/11 – pretended that the building collapsed due to “natural causes”. This should not be entirely surprising … we know that government personnel sometimes misspeak about things like the economy or Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and they may also have made some minor errors peripherally related to 9/11:
- The EPA misspoke about the dangers to heroic first responders from toxic chemicals at Ground Zero
- Government officials misspoke about 9/11 being wholly unforeseeable … including pretending that Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were a complete surprise
- Top government personnel misspoke about Iraq’s role in 9/11
Again, this post has nothing to do with “9/11 inside job”: no one died when building 7 collapsed.
What Do the Experts Say?
What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?
Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is “impossible”, “defies common logic” and “violates the law of physics”:
- Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
- John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation
- Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities
- Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition
- Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
- Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings [please ignore any reference in this essay to the Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded
- Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:
Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September 11th]? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust
- Graham John Inman points out:
WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?
- Paul W. Mason notes:
In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation
- David Scott says:
Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .
- Nathan Lomba states:
How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.
***
Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn’t get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity … started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse ….
- Edward E. Knesl writes:
We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?
- Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers ... this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise
The symmetrical “collapse” due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics
It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned
- Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering
- James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
- David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural engineer with 18 years’ experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological matters
- Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings and other types of structures
- Lester Jay Germanio, 20+ years experience
- Daniel Metz, 26+ years experience
- Jonathan Smolens, 11 years experience, with a specialty in forensic engineering
- William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:
- A demolition loader for the world’s top demolition company (which is based in the United States), Tom Sullivan
- The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that Building 7 collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere)
- Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says:
The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did
- A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why Building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):
Fish In a Barrel
Poking holes in the government’s spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:
The facts are a wee bit different:
- The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
- A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center’s original designer saw “streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (pages 31-32)
- An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, “They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.”
- New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”
- A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a “foundry” or like “lava”.
- A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano.
- An employee of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed “Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”
- The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
- According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”
- A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero “descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.“
- According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
- A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said “in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire–which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December.”
- A fireman stated that there were “oven” like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
- Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, “There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red” and “the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.” (pay-per-view)
- A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said “for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal – everything from molten steel beams to human remains….”
- New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.”
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”
- A rescue worker “crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam“
- And see witness statements at the beginning of this video
- Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was evaporated. As the New York Times reports, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view). Evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ….
The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
“Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.”
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman’s claim is.
Again, this has nothing to do with “inside job” … no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of “remember the Solomon Brothers building”, and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.
It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie … even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.
You started with the single basis of a fallacy called Ad-Hominum and went from there eh?
Argue the arguement, not the character of the person, otherwise you're just throwing dialectics after rationals.
Yes, that's what sound debate technique requires. It matters not which logical fallacy is used.
Once an argument is based upon any fallacy, the entire subsequent argument is worthless and to be discarded and all conclusions are meaningless.
It requires one go back and vet out each fallacy, one at a time.
An argument is only valid until a fallacy is encountered, if one is present. Once one is discovered, then the entire argument is worthless, one can stop reading, and literally throw the entire piece in the trash.
Anything written after the fallacy is on a foundation of logical sand.
11 years later and you are still not even up to speed on basic logic and debate best practices?
WTF GW??? Seriously???
Well-documented argument, sir ...
What you are proposing is about the same as if you proposed 1+1=3. Why would I bother arguing with such a fucking delusional proposition? I generally enjoy your writings but the above is laughable.
I can't tell whether you think I'm wrongly accusing the government, or wrongly denying a false flag
???
It was the latter. But I believe I missed the entire point of your approach in the article. My bad.
I am surprised no one here has presented links to the Black Eagle Trust Fund.
Here is the link. Black Eagle Trust Fund links all the buildings, what they had in common and why they needed to go down on 9/11.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/black_eagle_trust_fund
Interesting, but is $240 billion really worth the risk? In the context of everything else that's gone on it seems fairly small (what, with the Fed now printing $50 billion per month, which would only take it 5 months to match that amount, and doing it in plain sight). Of course lots of stuff was leveraged off of all this (such as what I suspect is the very actions by today's Fed), so the premise isn't necessarily obviated.
Anyway, I think that there is in fact a pretty good weight of evidence to suggest that all of it can be traced to financial matters...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk
LMAO. Anyone dumb enough to even suggest WTC 7 is not an inside job should listen to the voice on the intercom.
''...go back into the building, it's safe''
Really.
LMAO, ...and that American weapons grade Anthrax is just because of a crazy guy, we cleared him to handle the worlds most deadly bio weapons. It's alright now, we let him commit suicide cuz it's ''not an inside job'' and we are that good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vpcABWJiY
911 2012 FBI CIA etc...,lol, just ask the Libyan Ambassador how awesome U.S. Intelligence is, the best on Earth. LMAO. The U.S. State Department is as top notch as an American 4 Star General on Gay Pride Day with a Rainbow Flag in one hand and Old Glory in the other, kissing Rosemary's Baby on the butt as the Executive Office salutes Al Q. Naaa, no inside job here. Counterintelligence? ...never heard of it. What's that you say? ,,,your teenage sons fell asleep on the train tracks near Mena Arkansas and the local agent came down with a mean case of Anthrax? Oh that's not unusual, just ask Danny Casolaro, it happens all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7wSQ0rvdig&feature=related
lol like u can investigate war bitchez
Cleverly done!
Only thing this excellent article is missing -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk
Believe this and act accordingly:
"Every government is run by liars,” independent journalist I.F. Stone observed, “and nothing they say should be believed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F._Stone
True. And by the same token, nothing said by Israel F. Stone and on other on-the-take JewCommunist dupes: see Venona decrypts of Soviet cable traffic.
mr. washington,
the fact is acknowledged widely that
crimes were committed on 9/11/2001 in down town
new york and at the pentagon. this being the case
as of some time shortly before 9 am. on that day
there is what must be called a crime scene
in and around the world trade center complex.
therefore any deliberate destruction of property
that occurred before the crime scene was properly
evaluated for evidence concerning the crime
becomes part and parcel of the over all crime.
.
there is a gentleman named george galloway who is
famous for his position regarding 9/11/2001.
he rejects all claims that there was government involvement in the crime but is calling for an investigation to explore the facts. i can respect that
but he is a politician and needs to maintain that kind
of neutrality to preserve his seat at the table as
it were. i myself have no such seat.
.
Wednesday September 12 9:00am
1 hour
Public Affairs
The Mother of All Talk Shows!
http://archive.wbai.org/#ankor117
the leaning towers of babble...long winded diatribe, and blasting a knat with a sludge hammer ..
enough already ,, some thing besides three planes piloted by those who could not fly a piper cub.
the hot air theory huff and puff and i will blow the house in.. they were made of straw .. end of story
The government can be believed about Al Quaeda being responsible. But which Al Qaeda? The one holed up in some caves and mountains or the one set up, funded and directed by you know who?
To me it's amazing that they found the passport of one of the supposed hijackers in the rubble.
If one can believe in a magic bullet, why can't one believe in a magic passport? Maybe the unicorn dropped it.
must be stronger than titanium
plane parts vaporize more readily than these
modern passports. they have a protective coating,
i think they cost about a hundred and forty
dollars per.
LOL!
That protective coating is called Statist supervision.
Good Sir, congratulations on bi-winning :D
As I posted 5 day's ago - the same essentials apply to ALL the 9/11 events - the "3-letter Organisations" employ quite smart people, and certainly plan ahead, so it would have been exceptionally easy to incorporate whatever they wanted into the building structures at their leisure, during planned, completely innocuous routine maintenance. Even assuming security camera video logs were kept for long periods, and camera resolution was excellent, IF (and as yet without "Official" proof, this is still a big IF) Government agencies wanted to covertly plant explosives, it is extremely easy to conceal such ordnance within otherwise innocuous packages (replacement "Power Supplies", "Lamp Ballasts" "Motor Controllers") - all can be copied, and all are expected to have cable connections. Even the cabling itself can be designed to house an effective explosive charge - and elevator shafts tend to be a maze of thick cables - all of which could be an effective "cover" for very conveniently placed demolition charges. Remember - modern Mil-Spec explosives are a world removed from the "Fertiliser Bombs" much loved by terrorists of yore, so even a 1 inch diameter "Power Cable" could pack quite a destructive punch.
The problem with Thermite traces is that the main ingredients - powdered iron oxide, and powdered aluminium, are very common. I'm guessing that the giveaway would be the presence of unusually high concentrations of aluminium oxide (which is a reasonably uncommon component of building materials), or possibly significant traces of magnesium oxide (however MgO is a popular component of heat-resistant / fire resistant panelling). Under the collapse circumstances (and with all that free water hanging around) most if not all residual iron would soon have been converted to iron oxide.
The big thing is the vertical, "within footprint" collapse. As ALL the respectable commentators in the above article have pointed out, this just doesn't happen "by accident". The random probability of ONE building undergoing free-fall entirely vertical collapse is extremely low; we saw this happen to THREE buildings.
Draw your own conclusions. The "official" commentary does not seem to match the comments of reputable Structural Engineers. Something just doesn't add up.
"The problem with Thermite traces is that the main ingredients - powdered iron oxide, and powdered aluminium, are very common"
The problem with that problem is finding them fused together and molten metal in the same place & time is incredibly UNCOMMON except in demolitions.
The "official" commentary does not seem to match the comments of reputable Structural Engineers.
Why the absence of any discussion about the insurance angle? How do you insure any building of that size without some guarantee that you can make it fall into its own footprint if necessary? From the moment it happened, I've have always separated the cause of the fires from the collapse of the buildings. I think the two are not connected at all except that the cause of the fires created the excuse (need?) to bring the buildings down in a controlled manner. A feature that I think was built into the design and structure of the buildings at the beginning.
But who would ever work in tall buildings if this were ever admitted to?
From a safety and insurance viewpoint (consequential loss / damage) this makes perfect sense. HOWEVER -
A quick search through the relevant Building Codes does not indicate that such a provision (pre-existing facility for controlled or programmed demolition) is part of any current Code, neither is there any such provision in most Insurance requirements (where the principal inspection requirement is to "build to the relevant Codes in force at time of construction").
Would YOU be happy to live / work in a building that was designed to collapse should the assessed "risk" of it collapsing from some adverse event be relied upon to initiate some form of autonomous, or maybe semi-autonomous "self destruct sequence"? If semi-autonomous, then who presses the button?? Who benefits???
As you mention "from an Insurance angle" - I recollect that the "owner" of the complex had recently double-insured the complex.
Co-incidental, or another element in the "pre-planned event" hypothesis? If pre-planned yet another means of transferring wealth to the "well connected".
Maybe we're ALL completely wrong on this, but right now the commentaries from those with nothing to gain by appearing foolish (independent Structural Engineers and Architects) seem to heavily outweigh the "Official Line". It just seems that many consequences of this event were brought into play surprisingly quickly (I'm thinking Patriot Act here. . . . . ), and because of the overall public outrage, the legislative climate was suddenly very "Pro-security", hence legislation that might have raised more than a few eyebrows was conveniently rubbber-stamped to "prevent further terrorist action". Amazing that all these hundreds of pages were able to arrive "just in time".
Or maybe not so amazing after all . . . . .
... pre-existing facility for controlled or programmed demolition ...
I wasn't particularly thinking about controlled demolition, although that could be part of it. Rather, I was thinking along the lines of building the thing so that it would fall into its own footprint if damaged sufficiently (interior support weaker then exterior, etc.). I was addressing the why of why the buildings fell into their own footprints. I wasn't addressing the issue of why or how the buildings were damaged to begin with.
Do the building codes for skyscrapers encourage them to be built in such a way that they will come down any which way if damaged sufficiently - and wipe out other buildings for blocks around them? Seems to me that the building codes would want to guard against such events happening.
Kudos for the great rebuttal. It takes a lot of energy to combat all the BS, and those opposing the "official" line on all of this don't exactly get paid for said energy expenditures..
george - while your instincts normally lead you to truth, in this case you turned into a bad neighborhood at night. i would never spend this much time refuting anyone else as they are often people who are normally content to be dumb, fat, and happy. however, with you, i am making an exception.
?
the ruse to create a theory of incompetence is the very same sophistication which was used to bury the kennedy assassination in a hopeless miasma of confusion. incompetence is always the deus ex machina to bury guilt and truth. when you understand power and control - you realize that that lame excuse is pitiful wishful thinking to obsolve the guilty.
i love what you do, but i will fight the incompetence theory tooth and nail.
Take it from someone who knows quite a lot about nuclear exposives and what they do, the 9-11 buildings coming down had absolutely ZERO to do with nuclear muntions.
And no, we are not going to have a back and forth about it.
Bldg #7's demolition was a typical conventional explosives job if you compare it with other similar demolition jobs. Bldgs #1 and 2 were different than any ever seen before. The mechanism of their top down demolitions is puzzling. How was it done?
If I was doing it (and bear in mind that I'm only a mechanical and electronic engineer, not a structural or civil engineer) and wanted to make sure there was maximum TV drama value, I'd arrange charges to pulverise every floor slab (easy enough to hide those in the suspended ceilings, so no-one would see them) in sequence, while cutting the steel beams simultaneously - and thoroughly, as you don't want large chunks of robust structural steel in the way to potentially tangle and fuck up you carefully choreographed collapse. Set off the charges, starting at the top and working rapidly down, so the 'rubble' from each falling floor arrives at the location of the one immediately below just as it's conveniently ceased to exist as a cohesive structure.
U idiot. GW used a pre-Socratic technique here: facetiousness. And it worked.
Ohhhh...he was missing the /pre-Soc f tag...my mistake
"i love what you do, but i will fight the incompetence theory tooth and nail."
At least you called it correctly, a theory, ok...why is the government completely broke if not from its own incompetence? Its really one of the few reasons we permit it to exist, just balance the books...it can't be that hard, we have to do it everyday.
it all depends on who you think is "governing" what they're after and whether or not you think people are "capable" of horrible things. all we have is history to measure that. "america" is no different than any other actors in the human drama
if the federal government balances it's
books what happens to the bond market,
liquidity and money supply? it all would then
revert to the private sector, the federal government
would have no budget but what it could muster
in either taxes or tariffs. it would be extinguished
as inconsequential and impotent. the international
money would have lost the main control mechanism
of the continent and the other regions of the world.
that is why they will never balance the budget.
it would cost way too much. ?
The principle WAS the issuance of "reasonable" amounts of sovereign debt. Then it got down to (as it always does in "democracy") give me my tank and I'll give you your EBT and we'll both collect our salaries and pensions and go home...because theres this money tree in the back yard called the Fed.
They forgot the money is counterfeited to pay for debt issuance in the first place...now, ever increasing amounts have to be counterfeited for more debt issuance & interest to hold up the last issuance...exposed by Timmah himself in witholding payments to Fed employees a year ago.
It is a ponzi run by confidence men (counterfeiters) for the expressed purpose of keeping the populace in line now.
Good luck...lol.
"It is a ponzi run by confidence men (counterfeiters) for the expressed purpose of keeping the populace in line now."
Which pretty much supports my notion that all that's going on is in no way the result of incompetence. As I've suggested, there is NO "solution," which means that everything can be interpreted as a failure, just not planned failure or malfeasance (no more than a pilot who is trying to land a completely dead airplane and crashes can be blamed as a failure). It's built in to the System, we got the fucking premise wrong and we're not wanting to admit it.
Yup, the Ponzi is based on the notion of going forth and multiplying. Only a matter of time before the physical constraints were tested (and found to be all too real).
100% GRIFT.
Question: When does a con end?
con = confidence. it ends unto death. but ...
it is passed from generation to generation
as an essential part of the human psyche
for action and participation in the affairs
of people in their society, culture and environment.
there the rub and rube
That which cannot go on forever won't.
I believe that humans end up in a big overthrow of their belief systems in cycles. Whether this occurs as a result of "confidence" or other (environmental changes- i.e. next glacial period) is up for grabs.
Eventually we're forced to come back to earth. No amount of "confidence" or tricks to the contrary can alter this projection.
More 9/11 nonsense from G@ sorry G$ nope GQ ugh! Gq ... oh well.
You're doing the right thing here GW...questions first, then discarding the wrong answers to those questions, until you are left with simple fact & truth.
an antiquated concept: the binary nature of reality
rather, the universe is inherently super-complex and we should mistrust any and all proofs
indeed, the spirit of science itself and of intellectual conscience is to attack even one's own proofs
to steal a phrase from the enemy "doubt thyself, even if thou doubest thyself: doubt thyself."
this seemingly logical approach is in fact one of our greatest hindrances today - we will be trying to scrape together the sufficient proofs even as they continue to manufacture ever more absurd realities
now of course no one who did not wish to have others ridicule him would argue against a meticulous reduction. only a madman would argue that the scientific method would be inapplicable to analyzing the nature of reality - anf more importantly, this is what i wanted tosay myself
i was concerned ppl wouldnt get what George is doing here either my friend - but you put it perfectly and succinctly
again though, i must bring in my caveats and suggest that while this logical reduction of the material to what cannot be thrown out is of course job #1 - ultimately one must go beyond mere analysis and have some Codifying Synthesis which, even if it cannot be proven to within some degree or percentage of "certainty", offers us a Decisive Context which produces cultural, more importantly Political, end points, milestones, targets for us culturally
i would argue that no meticulous reduction of the elements by itself can ever produce such a synthesis (barring rounding up say 500 people and interrogating them; george bush, dov zakheim et al., that might get the ball rolling but lets be honest about how this is going to play out gentlemen!)
So, of course truth should never be sought after?
That ain't the way I swing.
If all the failed theories that have come before had been deemed to be true...I would be the one seeking vengence and would have acted. But thats not the case. We've (well, some) have been treated to some pretty wild accusations...proven to be false.
Again, I will say, IF...the government had blown its responsibilities, that we had given them, to look after our well being, whether financial or personal safety, what would they do?
They would throw shit at the wall everywhere, having people look for "änswers" anywhere but where they actually reside.
I'm not faulting the intentions of some (but definitely not all) seeking real answers...I have always said, the government fucked up and let these assholes on our soil. It was their fault, probably not even malicious...just stupid...plain incompetence.
Can anyone seriously think they are competent enough to pull this off when they are completely incompetent in overseeing the simple stewardship of our economy? We constantly ascribe more intelligence to pandering fools (politicians) the actual idiots who place others in positions of responsibility than they deserve.
We all know it...yet we look for UFO's or some other damned thing to explain madness.
Elect complete dumbasses, who can't make it in the real world and your probably going to get a herd of dumbasses.
"Can anyone seriously think they are competent enough to pull this off when they are completely incompetent in overseeing the simple stewardship of our economy?"
NASA. The Manhattan Project. On and on... to believe that the govt is incompetent in everything it does is a pretty self-limiting view. Of course, you're welcome to that sort of analytical approach, for all that that would get you... (which, apparently appears to be the aim of shifting everything over to the private sector, even the very failed paradigm of perpetual growth; for all your efforts at pushing I'd think it good business sense that you were to profit from all of it...)
NOTE: someone has already beaten me to making the point that you're assuming that just because something is failing YOU that it is a failure based in incompetence.
You're STILL missing the faulty premise... I'm sure that upon failure that you too will strive for whatever you can grab to demonstrate that you're not a dumbass, and while I couldn't agree that that's the case, you leave little room to agree that your premise is in any way different from the existing one.
Go ahead and try to jump all over me on this. I'm a ZERO GOVT kind of person. I defend only logic and reason.
"Can anyone seriously think they are competent enough to pull this off when they are completely incompetent in overseeing the simple stewardship of our economy? We constantly ascribe more intelligence to pandering fools (politicians) the actual idiots who place others in positions of responsibility than they deserve."
Unless:
The perceived incompetency is false, and its all part of the plan. I find it hard to believe, nay impossible, that the current 'stewardship' has been screwed by ineptitude, which can only lead one to believe that it is all been part of a well thought out strategy. These pols are not incompitent nincompoops, they are all at least somewhat intelligent by our standards. Giving them an 'incompetency' excuse is letting them off the hook, akin to an insanity defense. While I would like to believe it because the alternative is infinitely worse, I think that we can only arrive at one conclusion.
All of their actions and the effects thereafter are planned. A $1.5T deficit and $16T ('official') debt cannot be an accident. "Whoops, I left off a zero in there somewhere"
Apply this to 911 and what conclusion do you reach?
Im not raggin on ya, generally I agree with your posts, just voicing my opinion.