Ten years after 9/11, I find there is little that I need or want to add to what I have already written on this topic. Rereading the essay I wrote the day of the attack, it still seems relevant. So does my explanation of the militia obligation.
The best tribute we can give to the victims of 9/11 is to stand with those who have risked their lives and (often) died in opposition to Islamic terrorism and tyranny – from Todd Beamer to Neda Soltan to Seal Team 6. On a planet shrunk by modern communications and transport, in a war of shadows in which non-state actors threaten us on a scale previously reserved for national militaries, we must all be vigilant warriors.
Remember and be ready.
I still don’t understand the motivation of the 9/11 attack. If it was done by religious fanatics, why did they attack buildings only in the US… why not the EU, or China, or Russia? Plenty of people there that deserve to be shown “the true way of Islam”, plenty of infidels, so to speak. If it is just for oil then the problem is about energy availability, arming people won’t solve that problem, it is not certain that it will even prevent another such event. I am having a really hard time understanding the motivation of Islamic Terrorism and why its destructive power was targeted at the US, assuming this Islamic Terrorism exists of course. Or maybe the media only talks about the 9/11 tragedy, if this is so why are they ignoring all other terrorist activity? Surely such terrorists have a more general hatred for people who are not indoctrinated in Islam, a few buildings in the US can’t possibly accomplish their divine quest.
@Victor: Terrorism is a tactic that aims to change behavior and aims to change its targets’ way of life. In that aspect, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ten years ago today were a 100% success. Mission accomplished.
I think on this day we need to do more than “reflect” on it; do more than sad weeping. We need to remember our anger and let it fuel our vigilance.
I think it is a disgrace that 10 years later there is still nothing there but a hole in the ground.
We built the Empire State building in 18 months.
Interesting that the media will not show the planes hitting the buildings, or the Islamic mobs dancing in the streets. It might fuel politically incorrect passions.
@Viktor
They did attack other countries on other days, but on 9/11 they attacked the Great Satan. One of the strategies they’re using by concentrating on us is perhaps best explained by Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’Of course, those other others who do not support the target indicate by that non-support that they are amenable to becoming dhimmis and collaborators rather than part of the Resistance.
I’m going to be a little heretical here and say: if there’s no commercial need for the office space, then rebuilding office buildings is the wrong way to memorialize the event.
HTML fail
Ian Argent:
No market for office space? In my NYC?
Does it really matter if there is a market for the damn office space? In NYC?
To me that is not the point. The point is giving a big middle finger to the terrorists.
@Darrencardinal:
There’s not nothing there. Pictures of the construction in progress. Sure, we built the Empire State Building in 18 months, but do you know how many people died building that thing? We now have laws and regulations! If someone so much as gets a paper cut, they’ve got to fix the safety!
Non-state actors have always threatened us at the scale they do now. I point out the Indian Wars and Poncho Villa as two examples that had very large scale Military involvement against non-state actors.
>> @Victor: Terrorism is a tactic that aims to change behavior and aims to change its targets’ way of life. In that aspect, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ten years ago today were a 100% success. Mission accomplished.
Terrorism is more for social solidarity than an actual rational activity. You can defuse terrorist threats through marrying them off and de-alienation. Think about it: what do you actually change by killing civilians? Would we actually cede to their demand and adopt Islam? Nope. Instead, we send special forces and own your ass. It’s not about effectiveness to achieve political goals at all.
In any case, the damage 9/11 cause to us is more about our government’s inappropriate reactions to the situation than the actual act of terrorism itself. Think about all the people we lost to car accidents each year? What we would do if governments didn’t wasted so much money for half-ass security measure that violate our freedom and doesn’t make us more secure?
I am not questioning the hunt for Osama bin Laden, I just wish we didn’t have to send our freedom down the drain, often for no benefit at all.
Viktor Says:
> I still don’t understand the motivation of the 9/11 attack.
The motives were clearly stated by Al Qaeda, and were threefold: the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, especially too near Mecca, US support for Israel, and US sanctions against Iraq. Infidels, whether Marines or Jews was the primary thing, imposing sanctions against a Sunni brother the other reason. These reasons were stated many times by various leaders of Al Qaeda before and after the attack, including in Bin Laden’s infamous “Letter to America”.
Which is to say, their reasons were superstitious nonsense.
Bin laden wished to attack our financial and military power. He also stated that he wished to draw us into a land war in the middle east, preferably two. Last time I checked we are involved in three. Long term goal..bleed us dry economically just like the soviet union.
No matter how crazy the motivation,
First rule in conflict…don’t do what your enemy wants you to.
A group I am involved with organizes a motorcycle run to raise funds for the construction of the Shanksville memorial. It has been my honor to speak at that event for the past several years. The Shanksville site has changed over the years as they moved the temporary memorial around, but it seems that every time I spoke there, I was facing the hole in the ground where flight 93 ended. Seeing that and speaking is one of the more difficult things I have had to do.
To honor the forty heroes, I post and share what I said there on September 12, 2010.
“Thank you all for riding with us today. I would also like to thank District 3 for their efforts in putting this event together, and for allowing me to make a few remarks here.
My message today is about giving thanks.
Nine years ago, four airliners became weapons in the worst terrorist attack this country has ever known. None of us will forget that day.
At 8:46 am, American Airlines Flight 11 impacted the North World Trade Center tower.
At 9:03 am, American Airlines Flight 175 impacted the South World Trade Center tower.
At 9:37 am, American Airlines Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.
At 9:57 am on that morning, the passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 93, having been hijacked themselves, took charge of their destiny.
Six minutes later, at 10:03 am on that morning, Flight 93 ended here, and the ground we stand on became forever stained with the blood of heroes.
In part because of their sacrifice, we have much to give thanks for.
I thank God that we live in a place whose most important legal document begins with the words, “We, the People…”
I thank God that we live in a place where all men and women are truly created equal.
I thank God that we live in a place where our right to practice the religion of our choice is protected by law.
I thank God that we live in a place where voicing our opinion might not make us popular, but it won’t land us in jail.
I thank God that we live in a land where the term “Certain Unalienable Rights” has true meaning.
And I thank God for the service men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect those unalienable rights.
And most of all, today, I stand humbly before God to give thanks for the heroes whose blood stains this soil. Heroes who willingly paid the ultimate price so that others might live. In a world that can sometimes be a dark and mad place, the deeds of the passengers and crew of Flight 93 stand as a shining beacon of hope. We must be thankful for that, and never forget what they did.
Once again, I conclude with a prayer written by someone else. Would you please join me in the 23rd Psalm of David…
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul; he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.”
[and with that, four hundred bikers walk silently away]
May God bless us all, and especially the heroes on this day.
Jessica Boxer: Seems to me that all they did was achieve the exact opposite of their goal.
Even if we’re talking effective massacre of civilians, I wouldn’t care about explosive making, hijacking planes… Just buy guns…Unload them all at places which have no guns, such as schools or military installation that forbid gun carrying just like that mass murderer did in Norway.
Terrorists are neither efficient in operation and kill damage nor effective in achieving stated political objectives.9/11 is simply an outlier.
>>Bin laden wished to attack our financial and military power. He also stated that he wished to draw us into a land war in the middle east, preferably two. Last time I checked we are involved in three. Long term goal..bleed us dry economically just like the soviet union.
I heard it’s an excuse to surround Iran, which is supposely a threat. So said my conservative political system teacher. Even if the enemy of the Americans want them to be there, the Americans also want to be there….
What’s killing us, ESR said, is that our social security entitlement…not our military budget….but it does sucks that military spending isn’t making the situation back home better.
kiba Says:
> Jessica Boxer: Seems to me that all they did was achieve the exact opposite of their goal.
You are probably right. For sure their holy lands are now overflowing with infidels, and Sunni has taken a major blow.
However, we’re Americans (I am at least), and we don’t really care about their superstitious nonsense. Here at home though we have also taken a hit of fairly major proportions. Gazillions of dollars, thousands of men and women killed, oil prices through the roof, and a significant impacts to our civil liberties. The nature of government is that it grows. Can anyone think of a scenario in which the TSA will back off their current insanity? This is the first year in my adult life I have not been on a plane. Given the choice between the TSA porn channel and ugly Betty’s gropefest I think I’d rather walk. That is a pretty major cost to us all. And, to be honest, I think the greater loss is that this gross imposition on our liberties has not much impacted the amount of air travel. Who know Americans were so soft that they’d sell their liberties so cheap?
Ironic really because I don’t think the terrorists really ever cared about that stuff.
What we are facing here is a religious/ideological threat. It’s a global one, much like the threat communism posed, and like the fight against communism, we have to maintain a containment policy. This means a long, tiresome and expensive struggle until the fanatics run out of steam, and their natural constituancies finally repudiate them. We just have to do it…even at a time when our other problems seem just as bad, or worse.
It will be a multi-generational effort. We will see more terrorist attempts, more ‘Islamic Republics’ and a lot more carping from our own people before the Islamic world finally sees the light. We just have to hold on long enough. I pray that we all have the fortitude to do it.
It will take time, but “This, too, will pass.”
In 2001 food poisoning killed roughly the same number of people as the 9/11 attacks. Check your hysteria.
I read the following today:
“Al Qaeda spent roughly half a million dollars to destroy the World Trade Center and cripple the Pentagon. What has been the cost to the United States? In a survey of estimates by The New York Times, the answer is $3.3 trillion, or about $7 million for every dollar Al Qaeda spent planning and executing the attacks. While not all of the costs have been borne by the government — and some are still to come — this total equals one-fifth of the current national debt.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html
Combine the monetary total with the damage to civil liberties, and I’d say the terrorists won. Asymmetrical warfare is all about return on investment, and 9/11 paid off big time. Since the Saudi conservatives and Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) leaders who financed the operation are still around, I’d say the reported “death of Al Quaeda” isn’t worth considering – the financiers will start another front organization whenever they feel like it.
A number of people have pointed out that Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks have cause the United States to do a number of self destructive things – the Patriot Act, the TSA, not one but two land wars in Asia, and conclude that this means Al Qaeda achieved its goals. And it is true, they have lead us to spend a lot of blood and treasure. But what have they gained? They’ve lost their puppet government in Afganistan and been forced to relocate to Pakistan. I fail to see how they have come out ahead at all. It is possible for both sides to lose.
All teh wrong questions are asked in this blog.
Here is the right question:
Where are all the Islamic terrorists?
http://blog.oup.com/2011/08/islamic-terrorists/
Btw, Al Qaida chose the USA because young Muslims want to live in a free country, and looked at the USA as an example. Just like all other humans, Muslims want rather to be free and wealthy than oppressed and poor. The attacks on the USA and Europe were intended to create a rift between these young Muslims and the West. And the people in the West, this blog included, played along marvelously with this plot of Al Qaida.
So now these young people risk their lives and take to the streets to demand their freedom at home. So in the end, Al Qaida lost because Muslims neither want violence nor oppression.
@Morgan Greywolf
“Terrorism is a tactic that aims to change behavior and aims to change its targets’ way of life.”
OK this seems reasonable but to what end? How did this change the lives of the american people (aside from being more afraid of such violence, paying higher taxes and having less liberties) and what did the terrorists gain from it? As far as I know the military efforts of the US did not stop, I heard this effort became even bigger. So if the terrorists are pissed off that there are american soldiers on their land, the only thing they did with the 9/11 bullshit was to cause more troops to come to their lands, not exactly mission accomplished.
@TMR
“Bin laden wished to attack our financial and military power. He also stated that he wished to draw us into a land war in the middle east, preferably two. Last time I checked we are involved in three. Long term goal..bleed us dry economically just like the soviet union.”
As far as I know the military industry is THE most profitable industry in the US and by no small margin. So they are actually doing USA a favor if they are trying to get into war.
This trail of thought makes me consider the case in which the someone killed american people in order to have an excuse to go to the countries from which the terrorists came from. Since these countries have oil, things start to look quite ridiculous, at least to me. This is business at its worst.
All this terrorism stuff does not make sense to me if the terrorist motivation is strictly religious nonsense. The results from the attacks have no benefits for the terrorists but offer huge benefits for the US military industry which in turn is used to obtain oil.
I’m just defending the common conspiracy idea, that the American people were suckered in to donate their own time and lives in order to invade and rob other countries of their resources. What do you think?
That’s true only if you consider the military as a closed system. Its industrial output exists for the express purpose of being destroyed, and it siphons off resources from the rest of the economy. There’s a reason that Oceania made sure to stay constantly at war.
>I thank God that we live in a place whose most important legal document begins with the words, “We, the People…”
>I thank God that we live in a place where all men and women are truly created equal.
>I thank God that we live in a place where our right to practice the religion of our choice is protected by law.
Et cetera, as nauseum. Maybe you should thank the people who actually did the creating and maintaining, rather than your superstition du jour.
It is this same sort of stupid religious babble that powered the 9-11 attacks in the first place.
@William B Swift
“Maybe you should thank the people who actually did the creating and maintaining, rather than your superstition du jour.”
Absolutely. God didn’t do anything to make my life better, the people who create and maintain did, still do and will continue to do in the foreseeable future. Hats off to all of them.
@Roger – did all those people die of food poisoning within 1.5 hours of each other?
Did all those people die of food poisoning as a result of a murderous conspiracy?
Check your idiocy.
@William – if you read Kevin’s words and see the same mindset as that which concieved 9/11, then I would be far more concerned about you posessing the sort of warped banal mentality that has enabled the greatest of evildoers throughout time.
>Seems to me that all they did was achieve the exact opposite of their goal.
What if their true goal was to cause the the US & its allies to spend and get into a debt of trillions by investing probably not more than a million into the original terror attack? If look at it from that point of view they kinda rather won. Money is the nerve of war, and it is like killing a million enemy soldiers by sacrificing one…
Or, scratch that, it does not matter what the original goals were. What matters is a fact – that if 19 people spending under a million can effect a spending of trillions, then that way it is a financially unwinnable war in the long run…
@Shenpen and others
“What matters is a fact – that if 19 people spending under a million can effect a spending of trillions, then that way it is a financially unwinnable war in the long run…”
And statements of the same meaning.
I have only this old proverb to add:
A fool and his money are easily parted
Now, who were the fools?
I don’t think Al Qaeda has a clever plan to take over the world. I don’t think they even aspire to be that competent. OBL was surprised when the twin towers fell. I don’t think they had a clever plan to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The CIA had the clever plan.
I think 9/11 was a classic barbarian raid. They were trying to count coup on the USA. They wanted to raise their prestige in the Islamic, particularly Arab, world. I think it worked, for a while. The Arabs danced in the streets the same way you do after your football team wins, for the same instinctive reasons.
I think we overanalyze terrorism and overestimate its sophistication. Terrorism is a reversion to barbarian style warfare. Count coup on the enemy to raise your prestige and destroy theirs.
@Viktor: I’m just defending the common conspiracy idea, that the American people were suckered in to donate their own time and lives in order to invade and rob other countries of their resources. What do you think?
I would have to say that, if you sincerely believe this, that you’re a fool. And if don’t, but are just hiding behind the “just sayin'” sheild, that you’re a malicious troll.
For the simple fact that, to “rob other countries of their resources”, you actually have to *take* those resources. Not go to enormous efforts to pay handsomely for them.
@TMR: First rule in conflict…don’t do what your enemy wants you to.
You’re kidding, right? Enemies bluff. Enemies make mistakes. Tip: Don’t play poker.
Jeff:I fail to see how they have come out ahead at all. It is possible for both sides to lose.
Absolutely agreed, with the caveat that the financiers of Al Qaeda are still running free. What they will be doing in ten years is anyone’s guess.
Bob:I think we overanalyze terrorism and overestimate its sophistication. Terrorism is a reversion to barbarian style warfare. Count coup on the enemy to raise your prestige and destroy theirs.
I think you have it right where Al Qaeda is concerned. Others have used asymmetrical warfare to defend societies that rate as “decent” or better on some kind of sane scale.
Asymmetrical warfare, whether you call it “terrorism,” “fourth generation warfare,” or something else is a tactic (or a strategy depending on the scale of the conflict.) All it really says about the people using it is that they are resource poor but otherwise intelligent. The important thing to remember is that wars require enormous amounts of money. The side which spends their money more intelligently is usually the side that wins.
When you look “winning” in terms of defense, that frequently means “cost the enemy so much money they can’t afford to fight any more and must go home.” Enormous amounts of recent history can be understood by considering the issues raised in my last two paragraphs. (I don’t make any claims to genius, BTW, I’m summarizing the conclusions of other people. Read John Robb’s blog, or his book “Brave New War” for a much deeper analysis than mine.)
Personally, I’ve always found this http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6232 to be fairly convincing.
# Winter Says:
> Btw, Al Qaida chose the USA because young Muslims want to live in a free country,
That is not why Al Qaeda said they chose the USA. They said they chose it because of troops in Saudi, support for Israel and sanctions on Iraq. What is your evidence that the motive you ascribe is correct, and the motive they claim is incorrect?
> Just like all other humans, Muslims want rather to be free and wealthy than oppressed and poor.
I don’t believe that is true. In fact, I think it is one of the great mistaken assumptions of the War on Terror. No doubt there are many Muslims who want to be free, and I don’t doubt that most would rather be rich than poor. But many people want to impose their own form of tyranny on others and are perfectly comfortable being similarly repressed themselves to achieve that goal. I think a yearning to be free is a cultural meme. We who live in the west have been infected, and assume that everyone holds that same view. But that is not the cultural meme in many societies, including, I think, much of the Islamic world.
> The attacks on the USA and Europe were intended to create a rift between these young Muslims and the West.
That is not what Al-Qaeda said was their purpose. I don’t doubt they might lie, though frankly, because of a complex interaction between their intentions and their religious beliefs, I think their stated motives are pretty accurate. We in the west can’t even imagine bringing down terrorist just because we have troops stationed too near Mecca. But that is because we misunderstand the twisted insanity that is the extreme forms of Islam.
> So now these young people risk their lives and take to the streets to demand their freedom at home.
I think it remains to be seen if they are demanding freedom, or just a different flavor of tyranny. Events in Egypt do not bode well for the former.
Todd’s last name is “Beamer” with an A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Beamer
ESR says: Thanks for the correction.
William B. Swift, it was “this same sort of stupid religious babble” that created the USA in the first place.
>William B. Swift, it was “this same sort of stupid religious babble” that created the USA in the first place.
Wrong. I’ve written about this before; it’s one of the subjects on which conservatives are wilfully blind. See Deism and the Founding Fathers.
“What if their true goal was to cause the the US & its allies to spend and get into a debt of trillions by investing probably not more than a million into the original terror attack?”
And what if it wasn’t? Bob is right, this was not their goal, and they had no idea that it would result. So whether it’s good or bad (I say some of each), it’s not “giving them victory”.
@Jessica Boxer
I have a very strong suspicion that the reason the USA invaded Iraq had nothing to do with the stated reasons. So why should I believe OBL on his word?
Al Qaida wanted to topple the Saudi king and take over country. This was part of a larger plan to instill a Taliban like regime to the Arabic (or Islamic) world. The biggest bone of contention of Arabic fundamentalists is the focus of their youth to Europe and the USA. All the fundamentalist creeds want one thing first: Cut off the ties between Muslims and the free world.
Underlying all the many other reasons to attack the USA, and Europe, is the feeling to isolate the middle east and South Asia from the Western world.
What exactly is controversial in this analysis? (which I got from people who actually study Muslims)
@Jessica Boxer
“I don’t believe that is true. In fact, I think it is one of the great mistaken assumptions of the War on Terror.”
So I assume you never ever talked to a native from the Middle East? Those thousands of people marching every week in Syria while being shot at somehow, do it because they are paid to do so? As were those doing the same in North Africa and Iran?
@Jessica Boxer
“I think it remains to be seen if they are demanding freedom, or just a different flavor of tyranny.”
Your disdain for people who literally risk their lives for freedom is appalling. They are demanding freedom quite loudly and unambiguously. Whether they get it is only partly in their power.
When you look “winning” in terms of defense, that frequently means “cost the enemy so much money they can’t afford to fight any more and must go home.”
It can mean that. It can also mean “cost the enemy so much, and drag it out so long, that they’re no longer willing to fight any more, and decide to give up and go home.” To that end, it helps if you have willing allies who will undermine their morale from within, and persuade them that the fight is hopeless, pointless, morally wrong, not worth the cost, whatever works to persuade them to give up. That strategy failed for the Japanese in WW2, but it worked for the North Vietnamese, and we can see it in progress now.
Darrencardinal
That’s a $3.3 billion middle finger, for the WTC 1 tower alone, according to estimations made a year ago. I suspect that the terrorist are not feeling particularly offended. That said, record-tall buildings have always been more about erecting one appendage or another at someone, rather than any kind of sane real estate business. The previous twin towers took over two decades to break even, the Empire State Building was not fully occupied for a good while after its completion, the current tallest building in the world, Burj Khalifa, was inaugurated in the middle of a massive real estate implosion in Dubai, and even the name of the tower was changed to that of the sheikh who bailed out the project, and so on. It’s the same with virtually every record-breaking tower.
That is not why Al Qaeda said they chose the USA. They said they chose it because of troops in Saudi, support for Israel and sanctions on Iraq. What is your evidence that the motive you ascribe is correct, and the motive they claim is incorrect?
What’s your evidence that the motive they claim is correct? Why do you give it a presumption of correctness, over any other possible motive? Do you imagine that people who have no problem slaughtering thousands of innocents would cavil at lying?
Sorry, Eric, you’re wrong. The only deist in the bunch was Paine, and that’s why they all despised him. Jefferson was not an trinitarian Christian, and nor were Washington, Adams, Madison, Franklin, and many others in that group, but they were clear that they believed in a personal Creator who continues to run the world, giving victory and defeat in war as He chooses, and who listens to and is influenced by prayer, fasting, and good works. In short, they were unitarian in belief, though only John Adams belonged to an openly unitarian church. (Patrick Henry, OTOH, was an orthodox Christian, and caught grief from his fellow Christians for hanging out with those heretics.)
>Sorry, Eric, you’re wrong.
No, you’re still mistaken. I’ve looked into this in considerable depth. Much popular and even academic history is distorted by an insistence on making the Founding Fathers look more conventionally religious than they actually were, and you have been taken in. You have a lot of company.
@kiba
> Think about it: what do you actually change by killing civilians? Would we actually cede to their demand and adopt Islam? Nope. Instead, we send special forces and own your ass. It’s not about effectiveness to achieve political goals at all.
This is good question. And it bothers me when I think about it because if you think about changes achieved… they all are aligned with the needs of the people on the top (who will need to change U.S. to police state pretty soon because “money carrot” will no longer work).
Think about it:
What the U.S. rulers got?
– The ability to investigate lives of the citizens without the court order.
– Good official explanations for economic troubles.
– The ability to reject bids of other Countries (like Unocal)
– The ability to send troops all around the world “to fight terrorism”.
What the Al-Qaeda got?
– The right to brag about insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) event.
– Bombs and lost lives (I’m not talking about terrorists here, I’m talking about wars which were possible because U.S. is now in “everything is fair in a war against terrorism” state).
Looks pretty strange, isn’t it? I’m not saying the acts were literally organized by the government agents. They don’t need to do that. You only need to look the other way – and terrorists will be back… and this whole hoopla looks like this exactly what happened. But I guess we’ll never know… at least not any time soon.
There are elements of counting coup in all warfare. The object of battle is not to kill everyone on the other side. That means the losers fight like cornered rats. It is rather to break the opposing units’ will to fight, preferably permanently. One of the most effective ways to do that is to kill large numbers of the enemy suddenly and violently, but anything that works will do.
Asymmetrical warfare and terrorism are not the same. Partisans and guerillas seek to attack the enemy. They attack collaborators because collaborators support the enemy.
Terrorists do not care about the military value of their targets. They only want to count coup. Look at Munich, 9/11, Madrid, Nairobi, and other recent targets.
I suggest that the stated reasons for targeting “The Great Satan” were to identify the USA as an enemy. You can’t really count coup on your friends.
Winter Says:
> Your disdain for people who literally risk their lives for freedom is appalling.
Seriously Winter, you are surely aware that people risk their lives for bad things all the time. History is replete with examples of people who risked their lives to bring about a society that was truly horrible, often deluded in their goals that their new society would be utopia. In fact the very thing we are talking about is an incident where 14 men chose to die for a cause that I presume you think is appallingly evil.
I don’t know the all motivation of the people in the so called Arab spring, however, I do know that there are strong elements in favor of implementing a Sharia based state. Do you think women not driving, honor killings, burqas and tortuous executions of homosexuals and rape victims somehow should be called “freedom”?
They revolt out of hatred for the corrupt regimes they live under, and out of religious fervor. No doubt there are some true Benjamin Franklins in there, but there are certainly many Che Guvarias, and a few Robespierres in there too.
The fact is that things are not going well in the most advanced of these Arab spring countries, Egypt. As I said in my original comment, I don’t know where it will end up, perhaps good, but frankly the indications I have seen are not good.
The lesson of history is that most revolutions are followed by a reign of terror and Napoleon. As Mubarak heads for the Monsieur Guillotine, perhaps a just outcome, I wonder what reason we have to believe that a liberal democracy will emerge in these medieval countries.
However, I hope for their sake that I am wrong.
@Jessica
“there are certainly many Che Guvarias [sic]” doesn’t mean the same thing to a Leftist that it does to you and me.
Winter Says:
> What exactly is controversial in this analysis?
I think some of what you say is basically correct. However, even if Muslim fundamentalists want too keep out Barbie, Britney and Bubble gum, it doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the OBLs fatwa. On the contrary, this document calls for the killing of civilians for the three reasons I have outlined above. I don’t read Arabic, but as far as I can tell there is not reference to MTV in there.
For those who ask “why didn’t he lie”, I’d remind you that for a Muslim a fatwa is a religious opinion. You don’t lie in these things if you are an observant Muslim. I’d also remind you that Al-Qaeda is a tiny subset of “fundamentalist Islam.”
> So I assume you never ever talked to a native from the Middle East?
Actually your assumption is wrong. I have tried pretty hard over the years to build a network of people I know from many areas of the world, including about a dozen people who actually live in the Middle East (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, Kuwait and UAE.) I also know several such people in the flesh here in the US, however, I consider them less reliable, since, living in the US, they suffer from even stronger selection effects that the ones I know from the net.
BTW, perhaps I am being paranoid, but I wonder why the media has decided to call this thing the “Arab spring” rather than the “Muslim spring.” I don’t know if it is deliberate, or even the original source of the phrase, but if we hope that Iran gets included in the changes, then I think the former would make them feel rather less alienated. Anyone know the origins of this expression?
@Jessica Boxer
Its is called the Arab spring because the protesters are Arabs. They include Christians and every creed of Islam. The protesters made it a point to protect each other’s religious freedoms. Or lack of religion.
Calling it a Muslim spring attacks the protesters in their hearths.
@Jessica Boxer
The protesters were non-violent, except when confronting the rabid dog of Libya. And even then asking for him alive.
So why the blood thirst of the Americans?
I am not following events too closely lately, but I did read the first responders were not allowed to attend.
I am not going to press this point beyond raising it, and observing any feedback. I feel we owe it to the victims, to do good science.
I have few questions which I would appreciate if anyone can apply the scientific method and give me sound scientific answers, not hand waving. Trying not to sound like a kook, and I am not implying that I support to totalitarian regimes. Just that the data that I am aware of appears to be inconsistent.
1. How was it possible that our F15s were not able to intercept these planes, given that a commercial airplane turning off course and becoming non-respondent is I assume an emergency actionable offense for air traffic control to report? The plane that hit the Pentagon did so over 1 hour after the first hit WTC. Why is all the evidence not available for peer review? I remember the AGW scam, and the importance of peer review to good science.
2. Why was the BBC reporting both on the text on the screen and the reporters verbal announcement that WTC7 had fallen, while I was watching this with the building still standing in the background behind the reporter? I can provide a link to this video if anyone doubts.
3. Why was it reported Bin Laden’s body dropped in the ocean without a single photo of public evidence to eliminate all possible doubt? What is the explanation for interviews (I have seen, links can be provided), of local villagers saying that the helicopter never landed at the compound, that they farmed vegetables inside the compound, and that Bin Laden was never there.
4. Why are independent (peer review) investigators now allowed access to the evidence, specifically the structural steel debris etc? Is this good science?
5. Why is 9/11 so conveniently correlated with the governments massive onslaught of the destruction of rights, including Habeas corpus, sexual violation at airports purportedly expanded to include schools, other mass transport, entertainment events, etc.. I am not aware of statistical history, but it seems I see an upsurge of prosecuting people for filming the police, including one case seeking in life in prison. The state national guards have been federalized and used to fight wars not on the homeland. Local police have been deputized by the feds. Local clergy have been deputized by the feds. Etc.. Is this all just circumstantial, incidental without directed intention? Where is the peer review of all these developments?
Typo: 4. “now allowed” to “not allowed”.
Shelby: because everyone really is out to get you. We’re listening to the transmissions from your teeth right now.
Now go crawl back under your rock like a good little worm.
@Greg
“I would have to say that, if you sincerely believe this, that you’re a fool. And if don’t, but are just hiding behind the “just sayin’” sheild, that you’re a malicious troll.”
I don’t believe anything the media says. I don’t believe stuff, I either know or don’t know, beliefs are irrelevant. I am writing this because I want to hear other opinions and arguments on the conspiracy idea, for and against. I am not hiding behind anything and I don’t troll, I am interested in hearing what people think on the matter.
But I know what you are, you are a fucking idiot who insults people because you “think” that a person fits under a label based on a few sentences you read in a comment on the internet. So I hope you keep insulting, at some point you will insult the wrong person.
Let me point the insults to you so you don’t have to strain yourself by thinking too hard: “fool” and “malicious troll”. I don’t “think” like you do, I know you are such a person because the insults are in your sentence.
Now that I got that out of my system I am asking you if you have arguments against the conspiracy idea because it is obvious that you don’t have arguments for it. Hint: you don’t need to reply if you have nothing to say to fools like me.
@Ken
You are the worm in this case. Since you can not possibly understand why (you’re a worm after all) I will explain it to you in worm tongue: You insult people because you don’t agree with what they say. In this case, you don’t think that the questions Shelby’s asking are worth asking (probably because you’re way too smart and informed (that’s possible actually)) so you decide to throw insults.
So please, either say that you don’t agree and if you feel like it, explain why. Don’t insult people. If you still haven’t realized insulting often pisses people off and nothing good comes out of angry people. Also insults are pointless in the context of conversation, I leave it to you to guess what people who post useless comments are called.
@Shelby
Information is not available, scarce or conflicts with itself when the people who decide whether it should be publicly released have no interest in doing so for reasons that are not known. I don’t know why these things are kept in the dark, I can only guess and so can everyone else who is not directly linked with the crap we are talking about right now. The one thing that I do know is that when people hide or twist information it is always wrong.
The fact that there are people like that Ken guy and Greg who throw insults because they think that conspiracy believers are worms/fools/malicious trolls and people like you who are on the exact opposite side means that people are misinformed. What is actually going on is unknown and this is what is troubling.
Eric, the Left has pretty much said either that 9/11 didn’t matter, or that it was justified, or that Bush did it. That’s already been covered enough that I will say no further.
However, I’ve noticed a lot of conservatives lately reverting to a pre-9/11 mentality, and I’m wondering if anyone else has noticed it. Mark Steyn, in particular, seems hung up on how unworthy the American people are. While he cleverly talks about “Let’s roll over,” in reference to Todd Beamer’s “Let’s roll,” that’s the only lesson he seems to have gotten from Flight 93. Apparently, in his mind, all the people capable of responding to a terrorist attack were either (a) on Flight 93, or (b) in the National Review office.
Flight 93 wasn’t important because its passengers were better than average. It was important because they were average. Not only that, but they’d been told all their lives that the way to respond to men with weapons was to give them what they wanted. Nevertheless, these average, and poorly mentally prepared, people saved Washington from another deadly attack.
It seems to me that Steyn and those like him aren’t comfortable with the thought that average people can rise to the occasion–at least not until they’ve been purged of the decadent pop culture that turns all people into cowardly slugs, unlike the NRO types who have read enough Plato to make them better men.
This is also related to the fact that, while the establishment Right has belatedly come to support the 2nd Amendment, they really don’t grok it. If they oppose gun control, it’s in the same vein as opposing Gardasil; they oppose it because the government is doing it (and I can sympathize with that, believe me). They don’t, however, quite understand the concept of individual sovereignty–the idea that RKBA is a SPECIAL right that is necessary for the security of a free state.
Contrary to what Steyn thinks, there are still hundreds of millions of Todd Beamers out there–even ones who listen to rap music and haven’t read philosophical texts.
Anyone whose eyes haven’t been opened a great deal by the last ten years either already knew to expect the worst of our military-industrial-security-judicial-media complex, or still has his head up his^H^H^H^H^H^H in the sand.
It probably wasn’t the CEOs of Boeing, Raytheon, Halliburton, and Lockheed-Martin who inspired OBL to crash some planes. Still, they had a plan in place for just such an occasion, and we’re living with the results. I am less free, less safe, less mobile, and less wealthy than I was ten years ago, and so are most of you. Part of that probably relates to “the bubble”, but most of it is our national worship of the Broken Window Fallacy. I found myself unable to stomach 98% of the so-called “tributes” aired this weekend. The mainstream’s complete acceptance, even celebration of our societal tragedy just adds insult to injury.
I hope all you militarists live long enough to hear your children curse you for your short-sightedness.
I think South Park said all there is to say about the conspiracy behind 9/11.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce
> 1. How was it possible that our F15s were not able to intercept these planes, given that a commercial airplane turning off course and becoming non-respondent is I assume an emergency actionable offense for air traffic control to report?
“emergency actionable offense”?
> The plane that hit the Pentagon did so over 1 hour after the first hit WTC.
Yup, and the f15 scrambled to intercept the plane that was taken down in Penn didn’t have any on-board weapons.
You think that pre-911 there was a useful plan for dealing with kamikaze attacks and that said plan and the related mechanisms was turned off.
How about providing some evidence that such a plan existed. Pointing out that it’s unthinkable for it not to have existed is not evidence – the US govt does “the unthinkable” quite often.
Note that providing said evidence doesn’t require you to get info about 9/11.
@Viktor: I don’t believe anything the media says. I don’t believe stuff, I either know or don’t know, beliefs are irrelevant. I am writing this because I want to hear other opinions and arguments on the conspiracy idea, for and against. I am not hiding behind anything and I don’t troll, I am interested in hearing what people think on the matter.
If, after 7 years (in Iraq) of facts on the ground, you’re still “asking”, and taking opinions, on an offensive blood libel (some of us remember “blood for oil” very, very well)- then calling you a fool was being generous. Thank you for proving me exactly right.
Words mean things. Blood libels have a cost. If you think that bringing in a foolish, long-debunked libelous conspiracy theory and then hiding behind the shield of “I’m just defending a theory and gathering facts” is going to fly, and isn’t insulting…. Well honesty isn’t your strong suit, either.
@Shelby:
given that a commercial airplane turning off course and becoming non-respondent is I assume an emergency actionable offense for air traffic control to report?
What makes you assume that? And to whom do you assume it would be reported? And what do you assume they would normall do with the report, if there were no conspiracy? Come on man, think: what was the standard response to hijackings, until 10 years ago? What did everyone expect hijackers to do?
Why is all the evidence not available for peer review?
Um, because it is not the practise of any government, anywhere, to release sensitive information to the public, including all enemies? Because doing so could well earn a conviction for treason?
Why was the BBC reporting both on the text on the screen and the reporters verbal announcement that WTC7 had fallen, while I was watching this with the building still standing in the background behind the reporter? I can provide a link to this video if anyone doubts.
Come on, what’s your theory? Why do you think it happened? Do you imagine the reporter was in on the conspiracy? Or that she was given a script and read it too early?! The real answer is obvious to anyone with some common sense: everyone had known for hours that the building was going to collapse, it was only a matter of time; all the media were reporting this long before it happened. This reporter must have either heard a rumour or misunderstood something she heard, and thought the expected collapse had happened. In the video she says “the details are very very sketchy”, and that she doesn’t know any more than “what you already know”.
Why was it reported Bin Laden’s body dropped in the ocean without a single photo of public evidence to eliminate all possible doubt?
Now that is a very good question, but what has it got to do with events 10 years ago? 0bama was in charge this year, and was certainly not about to cover up for Bush, now was he? Unless you’re so crazy as to imagine that they’re in cahoots!
Why are independent (peer review) investigators now allowed access to the evidence, specifically the structural steel debris etc? Is this good science?
Can you give any other example, in any other investigation, of such evidence ever being made available to any Tom Dick or Harry who wants to look at it and opine? Since when is the investigation either of crimes, accidents, or enemy attacks ever submitted to “peer review”? Who are the investigators’ “peers”?
the destruction of rights, including Habeas corpus,
In what way has Habeas been destroyed, or even weakened? On the contrary, it’s stronger now than it’s ever been. Ever since habeas has existed, prisoners detained by the military as enemy combatants have never had access to it. Civilian courts always recognised that it was simply none of their business whom the military was holding, or why. (See Schiever’s case, and that of the Three Spanish Sailors) But in 2007 the US Supreme Court decided that such prisoners do have the right to go to a civilian court to challenge their classification as enemy combatants, and the military has to provide evidence that the classification is correct, and therefore that the prisoner is not entitled to habeas. Thus, far from being destroyed, the right has been strengthened.
am not aware of statistical history, but it seems I see an upsurge of prosecuting people for filming the police,
That one’s obvious. How exactly would you have filmed the police, more than 10 years ago, without their noticing?
The state national guards have been federalized and used to fight wars not on the homeland.
What’s new or concerning about that? When has the National Guard not been a federal force, and when has it not been sent to fight in whatever wars the USA is engaged in? Are you really unaware that National Guard units fought in Vietnam?
Local police have been deputized by the feds.
Again, when has that not happened? And what’s even remotely concerning about it?
Local clergy have been deputized by the feds.
Now WTH are you talking about?
9/11 conspiracists have this bizzaro belief that the US government (or the Illuminati, what a great game but I digress) is wildly competent at mass coverups while most other folks don’t believe that the US government is wildly competent at anything.
And sometimes “not winning” is backing someone that gets you bombed into oblivion and getting thrown out of power. Folks that actually control countries and have palaces to lose evidently needed a little refresher in not going too far ten years ago. Saddam wasn’t one of those but it certainly reinforced the point anyway. It sure did cost us…a lot more than it was probably worth to reinforce that point after taking down the Taliban.
I really liked George HW Bush but didn’t think much of dubya.
It really shouldn’t have to come to this, but for the intentionally dense, like (truly out character, IMO) Shelby:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/911-myths?click=pp
For all your remedial 9/11 myth debunking needs.
It takes a great deal of willful ignorance to accept the “clash of civilizations” line, which is ironic for someone who considers himself opposed to the notion of the State while parroting official state doctrine. It is the US government, the nation that’s the leader culturally, economically, and militarily of the West, which has been the major supporter of Islamic extremism, not its adversary.
Saudi Arabia, a government that adopts one of the most ultra-orthodox views of Islamic law in history, receives tremendous diplomatic, ideological, technological, and military support from the US. One can rightfully condemn Iran’s dismal human rights record, but the level of abuses does not even begin to compare to that which occurs in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s continued support for ultra-fanatical armed Islamic groups in Pakistan’s frontier region starting in the 80’s has proven to be massively destabilizing throughout a region that is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
The US–particularly, the CIA–armed and financed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan mujahidin extremist who massacred thousands of civilians in Kabul during the Afghan Civil War in the 90’s [see Tomsen, P., “The Wars of Afghanistan”].
The US continues to support the Bahrain monarchy, which carries the features of an apartheid state by enforcing official discrimination against its Shia majority. The Gulf Cooperation Council, which receives military training and weaponry from the US, brutally cracked down on a popular, peaceful civil rights campaign. The GCC’s position has been that the civil rights campaign is an Iranian-supported conspiracy, but human rights groups refute this [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/22/how-bahrain-oppressing-its-shia-majority].
While you have highlighted the abuses of Iran, none of these more egregious issues above receive any attention, since they are beyond discussion within official doctrine. Indeed, the position that the West, and in particular the US, is at war with Islam profoundly ignores basic facts. One can go on, but the few points above are sufficient.
No. What’s your point?
Bollywood vs. Conservative Islam— a rather cheering angle on the power of the market to remind people that they’d rather enjoy their lives.
At the same time, Bollywood is closer to traditional Muslim values– for example, true love triumpahs without alienating the lovers from their families– than Hollywood, so it’s more likely to succeed.
****
It’s possible that Al Qaeda would have gotten more ongoing support if it had limited its targets to the US and Europe…. but it didn’t. It committed a lot more attacks in the Arab world, though I don’t know how the death totals compare. It lost support because it obviously couldn’t be lived with…. anywhere.
I don’t know whether there’s something intrinsic about terrorism which leads to that sort of behavior, or if
a more narrowly focused Islamist terrorist organization could happen if a suitable leader appears.
@Plato: You are assuming the US government and Saudi Arabia, among others, are monolithic entities. They’re not.
The interactions between elected officials, appointees and career bureaucrats alone within the US gov’t guarantees that no one person is really in control of what the US gov’t says or does, and the State Department in particular is essentially ungovernable and is often at odds (or even at war) with other portions of the gov’t, particularly elected Republicans. That aside, the US is also hopelessly inept at realpolitik.
Saudi Arabia is also deeply conflicted. The (some might say) pathologically conservative strain of Islam that took root there in the 18th century is something the ruling family has a great deal of ambivalence towards. On one hand, the crazies helped them get power way back when, but on the other hand the crazies are the biggest threat to the Sauds enjoying the fruits of blessed life as oil ticks (how many thousands of pampered princes do they have now? last I read it was ~7000). So the Sauds pay lip service to and give in to the crazy, partly, to survive. They’re remarkably two-faced entities, and supporting them (the Saudi ruling family) is not the same as directly supporting the spread of extremism, but in practice it turns out that indirectly it is.
Er, all that said, there may not a clash of civilizations but there is definitely a clash of cultures – multi-sided and multi-level- which is ongoing.
It’s not that they’re universally incompetent, just that (like most folks) they’re not competent at anything that doesn’t interest them. Things like providing health care, educating people, protecting the environment, protecting the rights of minorities, etc. fall by the wayside. They’re not profitable. But a false-flag operaton to make the public accept a resource war and the curtailment of freedoms necessary to find and squelch opposition to that war is a high-risk, massively high-reward gamble (especially in this peak oil era) that TPTB are going to make sure and get right.
That’s the idea, anyway.
I’m not a big believer in “Bush did 9/11” conspiracy theories — at least not anymore, since reviewing the evidence — but when the Project for a New American Century releases a report saying “We’ll need a new Pearl Harbor in order to justify building our empire” and lo and behold, we get a new Pearl Harbor — and the alleged perps are a mercenary network created and funded by the CIA — you’d have to be a damned fool not to expect eyebrows to be raised.
the alleged perps are a mercenary network created and funded by the CIA
Except that that’s bullshit.
Greg, you state that a faction of Republicans are opposed to the State Dept. policies, implying that they are opposed to support of Saudi extremism. However, the same circle of Republicans are simply not up in arms about this issue to the extent that they are towards Iran. Take a look at the Iowa Republican Debate transcript [1]. Iran is hotly debated, where different candidates are outdoing themselves in bellicosity. Saudi Arabia is not even mentioned. Yet the abuses in Saudi Arabia are far more dire and extreme than in Iran.
You state that Saudi Arabia is two-faced, wherein extremist support is done covertly under the nose of the US. That’s incorrect. Saudi support for Islamic extremists during the Soviet-Afghan war was matched and supervised by the CIA.
You are correct that I assume that the US govt is monolithic and that this assumption is false. However, making this assumption doesn’t refute my points about how profoundly wrong Sam Harris’ argument that the West is at war with Islam. The CIA is a major military institution of the US, and what it does reflects some aspect of US policy.
1. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/12/full-transcript-complete-text-of-the-iowa-republican-debate-on-fox-news-channel/
I don’t want to argue over subjective issues.
No one presented data to refute my questions. Unscientifically attacking the person of those who questioned the MONOPOLY over the conclusions from hidden data was the signature of the AGW scam.
To be scientifically satisfied, I want a forensic investigation open to a collection of scientists from opposing points-of-view, and let them independently present their reports. It doesn’t need to be open to everyone, just a sufficient cross-section that isn’t under suppression of a commission, which is claimed to have been the case, by both at least one who resigned and another who was on the commission.
Milhouse’s smartphone proliferation duly noted, and I had thought of that too.
Milhouse presented no data on the air traffic controllers’ actions and results in prior hijackings.
Some claim the clergy has been recruited by DHS/FEMA for county emergency scenarios, see page 21 of the linked pdf. Another report. This was not a key point in my comments. I just threw it in because I hate the concept of religion (of any form) used to control people’s minds.
I want to know the chain of personnel events that lead to that text appearing on the BBC screen, “WTC7 has collapsed”.
Milhouse, the CFR link I provided states US citizens have no Habeas in times of war. US citizens with Japanese and German ancestry were imprisoned during WW2 and their land was confiscated. Thomas Jefferson said “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one”. I wonder if you have followed the full scope of the recent Fast & Furious scandal. USA was secure with a responsible gun owner under every blade of grass.
@Greg: The PM article is purportedly replete with straw man arguments which don’t hold up to scientific peer review. Source and source. Here is sample:
@William B Swift, @esr I am not particularly religious. I anticipate the potential existence of a Higher Being without being convinced. I have a profound distrust for people who allow their religious convictions to affect the lives of others.
That being said, the words I shared were spoken about a hundred and fifty yards from the place where forty good people died horribly while trying to make a difference. Whether you believe they made a difference or not is immaterial. The fact that they died trying is what matters, and by doing so they brought that piece of abandoned strip mine a little closer to God, Allah, Yahweh, or whatever your belief happens to be.
To stand in that place and not feel that is (to me) inconceivable, and my words were meant as a tribute to their sacrifice, not as an endorsement of any particular religious view. YMMV.
@Millhouse: the data apparently refutes your and Popular Mechanics’ claim that intercepting hijackings had not been done before, quoted from one of the sources I provided. Propaganda is bullshit. There is much more data at those sources. I don’t know who is correct, that is why I want a stop the suppression of good scientific process.
@Plato & Greg: a report from a foreigner who claims he was falsely imprisoned and released in Yemen and witnessed CIA involvement. I have no clue what is the truth over there. Anyone want to volunteer to go over there to find out?
Shelby, I’ve never seen a single 9/11 conspiracy theorist advance a coherent alternate theory. There is no rational hypothesis beyond the one that includes four airliners hijacked, two flown into the WTC towers, which then burn to structural failure, a third crashing in Pennsylvania and the fourth flown into the Pentagon.
Plainly games with “asking questions” while advancing no rational counter explanation is nothing more than a vile kind of conspiracy trolling. Even if there had been scenarios considered of a hijacked plane flown into a building, no one was going to order a shootdown on speculation. No fighter pilot (non Soviet that is) would shoot down a plane until concrete proof of intentions, and it was not plain until too late on 9/11/01.
# Shelby Says:
> I wonder if you have followed the full scope of the recent Fast & Furious scandal.
Yes, indeed, it is a disgrace of epic proportions. Even more disgraceful is the soft press coverage. For sure, if a Republican were the president, we would be at impeachment by now.
However, were the crazy conspiracy theory about 9/11 true, it would be of massively larger size, and massively more disgrace than Fast & Furious. The worst crime in F&F so far is that a Federal border agent may have been killed with one of the guns. Yet in 9/11 thousands of people, including hundreds of emergency workers were killed. Much, much worse.
Yet, F&F unraveled quickly, in part because a few decent men put their lives and careers on the line to do the right thing. Kudos to them. The much larger and dreadful putative conspiracy, couldn’t last a minute, the size it would have to be. To think differently, especially with all the oodles of independent examination, is just plain ridiculous. You might as well believe that NASA faked the moon landings.
Shelby, Milhouse’s point that today the right to habeus is greater than ever before is correct. Your CFR article predates several Supreme Court decisions about the topic with respect to detainees Hamdi and Padilla. Prior to the most recent decade, the WWII era Quirin case was far more sweeping in the breadth of power given to the Federal government with respect to wartime habeus.
Dan – Did all those people die of food poisoning as a result of a murderous conspiracy?
Roger Phillips – No. What’s your point?
Tick, tock, tick, tock…waiting for your penny to drop.
Totally OT bleg : I need an inverted linux gnome/kde desktop theme to stop my retinas getting fried. I’m using Compiz Invert right now, but I’d like something a little less harsh. Any advice?
To be scientifically satisfied, I want a forensic investigation open to a collection of scientists from opposing points-of-view, and let them independently present their reports.
Why? What “opposing points of view” are there? Can you think of any other investigation where such a thing has been done?
Milhouse presented no data on the air traffic controllers’ actions and results in prior hijackings.
What data do you think I need? Are you so detached from reality that you don’t know how everybody expected aeroplane hijackings to go, until 10 years ago?
Some claim the clergy has been recruited by DHS/FEMA for county emergency scenarios,
Huh? Of course local clergy are going to be expected to help with any emergency. That’s pretty much what they’re for, isn’t it? How do you see anything even slightly sinister about this? How does it add so much as a nanogram of weight to your case?
This was not a key point in my comments. I just threw it in because I hate the concept of religion (of any form) used to control people’s minds.
Again, huh?! Mind control?! What are you on?
I want to know the chain of personnel events that lead to that text appearing on the BBC screen, “WTC7 has collapsed”.
Why? Do you ask that every time a reporter gets something wrong? You do realise that happens dozens of times a day, in situations that are a lot less murky than this one. Why would there need to be a “chain of personnel events”, and what do you think it would look like? Someone at the BBC heard that the building, which everyone had been expecting to fall, had done so. Tell me, Shelby, what was the “chain of personnel events” that lead to almost every news organisation incorrectly reporting that Gabby Giffords had died of her wounds? Have you spent a moment wondering about that? Does it bother you at all? It doesn’t bother me, because I expect reporters to occasionally get things wrong, especially on breaking stories. So why is this different? Why don’t you tell us what sinister explanation you have for this perfectly obvious flub?
Milhouse, the CFR link I provided states US citizens have no Habeas in times of war.
Bullshit. They have the same right they’ve always had, unless they take up arms for an enemy, and are taken prisoner by the military. Prisoners of war have no right to habeas corpus, and have never had it; and it makes not the slightest difference what passport they hold.
US citizens with Japanese and German ancestry were imprisoned during WW2 and their land was confiscated.
So what has it got to do with the events of ten years ago? Why list it among liberties lost as a result of this conspiracy you think happened? Besides which, you’re wrong on several counts: 1) US citizens of German ancestry were not interned; 2) Nobody’s land was confiscated; and 3) US citizens of Japanese ancestry, who were interned, did not lose their habeas rights; they were granted habeas, and argued their case all the way up to the Supreme Court; what more do you want? Or did you think “habeas corpus” means a get out of jail free card?
Thomas Jefferson said “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one”. Put like that it’s obvious nonsense. Freedom is useless if you’re dead. Franklin’s formulation was much better.
I wonder if you have followed the full scope of the recent Fast & Furious scandal.
Yes. What’s your point about it?
The PM article is purportedly replete with straw man arguments which don’t hold up to scientific peer review.
No, it isn’t. The nutcase web sites you link to wouldn’t know “scientific peer review” if it fell on them from 100 stories up.
the data apparently refutes your and Popular Mechanics’ claim that intercepting hijackings had not been done before,
What data? The only actual evidence your links claim to have is the word of one Walter Burien, whoever he is. Why should anyone pay any attention to his claims? We all know what the standard procedure for hijacked planes was back then: wait until the hijackers contact authorities with their demands, or until they land somewhere.
a report from a foreigner who claims he was falsely imprisoned and released in Yemen and witnessed CIA involvement.
What’s that got to do with anything? Why should the CIA not be involved in foreign governments imprisoning terrorism suspects? Isn’t that sort of thing what the CIA is for? What has it got to do with civil liberties?
How about the conspiracy to make us all argue about conspiracies? Who’s behind that one?
Don’t argue with flat-earthers, folks. They always have an endless supply of bullsh*t answers to anything you say. It’s a waste of time.
Ah fuck it.
Another wasted thread.
Out of curiosity I searched for information on “Walter Burien”. Oh dear!
…and he is….?
Why should I deprive you of the pleasure of searching yourself? :-)
Fair play :)
I was just after a thrilling precis….google informs me of this man’s ‘interesting’ theories.
I think we should all unthinkingly jump onto his bandwagon and careen off into oblivion.
Sure beats dealing with reality.
Sounds like a plan. How long will we spend in oblivion? I need to be back by Thursday evening. Is that doable, or should I wait for the express bandwagon?
Oh fuckarooney…I didn’t think things through that far…I was just into it for the righteous ass-pumping homo-lefty twat-clownery of it all.
Look…I’ve got chores to do….just forget it……
I swear I will fight through this patriarchal oppression and rise to something something something……someday……
I still don’t understand the motivation of the 9/11 attack.
OBL made it very clear. He was angry at the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, which he considered sacrilege. It was in the 9/11 report. Ron Paul explained this to Rudy Giuliani during the last presidential primary campaign.
I thank God that we live in a place where voicing our opinion might not make us popular, but it won’t land us in jail.
You’re two centuries out of date on that claim. Google for “Alien and Sedition acts”.
OBL made it very clear. He was angry at the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, which he considered sacrilege. It was in the 9/11 report. Ron Paul explained this to Rudy Giuliani during the last presidential primary campaign.
And you believe him, why?
> thank God that we live in a place where voicing our opinion might not make us popular, but it won’t land us in jail.
You’re two centuries out of date on that claim. Google for “Alien and Sedition acts”.
What have they got to do with where we live? We’re not in the 1790s, in case you haven’t noticed. Are you claiming those acts are still in force, or that any similar acts would be possible today?
@Greg
You’re still wrong, even though you think that something is debunked does not mean it is. I have absolutely no idea what is going out there, here is why: Everything that I have read and heard on the matter is on the internet and on the news. The internet has no proof of anything related to 9/11 and we all know that the news can’t be trusted, sometimes they say true things, sometimes not and sometimes they modify information, however I can never know which one it is.
With this I can’t know anything, I can only guess and speak to other people about it. The purpose of most of the comments here is conversation for conversation’s sake, no one is achieving anything. The best that can happen to me or you or anyone else is to read some opinion or follow a link that they find interesting which is why I am here, as I’ve told you already. By insulting anyone you don’t achieve anything.
I read the link you posted about the ideological fantasies and I find it very plausible and interesting but not convincing. To be convinced that something is true there must be proof, this is not proof but an interesting theory, text on the internet written by someone. So thanks for that one.
@SPQR: I haven’t been following the recent Supreme Court decisions on habeus , I did see them mentioned at Wikipedia before writing my first comments. I still don’t know if those decisions refuted the CFR claim that the executive can suspend it for citizens during wartime (i.e. if the president declares martial law, etc)? Also I don’t know you or any one can be sure there are not any citizens who are hidden away in secret prisons that we don’t know about, or cases of water boarding ongoing or that were never revealed. Perhaps it is a good sign, and I also noticed that after nearly killing & blinding him in prison, denying him a trial for 7 years (not exactly denial of habeus, but effectively the same), the still imprisoned Martin Armstrong has received medical treatment and his readership has grown to a claimed 500,000+ (more than the NY Times).
It is illogical to deny the scientific method because the people without access to the data can’t explain what happened. It is difficult to explain anything when one doesn’t have access to data. It is also illogical to say that we didn’t intercept the planes because we wouldn’t have the forethought to shoot them down. We had over an hour from the first WTC hit until the Pentagon hit. Is it plausible to assert that Norad can’t protect the Pentagon which houses all the most important people of all our military with more than an 1 hour warning before WTC attack? Also the hearsay is that Cheney was reportedly tracking the plane as it approached the Pentagon, and he chewed out an officer who asked him to confirm that he wasn’t going to give the order to shoot it down.
As for plausible explanations, the structural steel beam failure is speculation because according to the official NIST report, of the beams that were tested none got heated more than 250 degrees (which is insufficient for the collapse scenario), and the rest of the steel was never tested. The best thing for everyone is for the data to be exhaustive, so there won’t be any speculation.
>What have they got to do with where we live?
Stating your opinion can get you thrown in jail today. I was just pointing out that it’s nothing new. Our federal and state governments routinely violate the constitution whenever they find it inconvenient.
Good that you’re man enough to admit you lost.
@Jessica Boxer: Do you mean FEMA and NIST are “independent investigations”?
@Milhouse: I have not stated on this page that I thought a conspiracy happened (logic error #1). I said the investigations were not science. I can’t label something as plausible that is inconsistent and speculative. You have provided ZERO data. I already showed you evidence that you are wrong about the history of hijackings and preparedness (logic error #2). You are free to believe what ever you want. You are free to have the delusion that Norad can’t defend the Pentagon (logic error #3). Looney.
As for BBC, this wasn’t an everyday event, or did you fail to notice (logic error #4).
As for the Japs and Germans USA citizens being imprisoned (i.e. losing their rights) and land in San Francisco confiscated, my understanding is you are wrong. You conflated explicit habeus with that (logic error #5). I wrote “imprisoned”. Bullshit is changing the word to “interned” and claiming that makes any difference.
As for your claims as to what you think habeus is now, you can’t guarantee that “take up arms for an enemy, and are taken prisoner by the military” can not be “declared enemy combatant”, which can recently be done by executive decree (the 1100s series).
Oh the faithful regurgitation of that brilliant “with us or against us” false dichotomy lobotomy illogic, that says the only alternative to fighting for freedom, is to be dead (logic error #6).
I disagree, the PM article is replete with strawmen, because for one of many reasons, they often defer to the NIST report, which didn’t even measure any steel that was exposed to more than 250 degrees (logic error #7).
With 7 logic errors in one comment, and ZERO data, I can’t compete with you bro.
The only actual evidence your links claim
There are numerous points of evidence, such as documents of the standard operating procedure in military documents.
Why should anyone pay any attention to his claims?
He is a claimed eyewitness.
We all know what the standard procedure for hijacked planes was back then:
So then it should be very easy for you to show proof.
wait until the hijackers contact authorities with their demands, or until they land somewhere.
Military operating procedures apparently do not agree with you. And most especially near to the Pentagon.
Someone at the BBC heard that the building
News agencies have some process for vetting information.
Why should the CIA not be involved in foreign governments imprisoning terrorism suspects?
The author states that most are not involved in terror, but rather young men with a very strong belief in fundamental religion. He presents a viewpoint that the CIA is there to forment radical fundamentalism. I am going to make a prediction for you, and lets just wait and see if it comes true. Before the end of 2012, most or all of the oil producing countries of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia is 50/50, but Yemen, Syria, are certain) will fall into the hands of radical fundamentalism, more totalitarian than they are now (turning women backwards), and the oil will be shut off. Thats progress in your “with us or against us”, collectivist “defense” world.
Get some grip on reality. America was never at any danger with a responsible gun under every blade of grass. But this collectivist “defense” delusion is threatening to undermine that.
Mind control?! What are you on?
Did you even read the document.
He was angry at the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, which he considered sacrilege
Fairy tales are nice. Any hard evidence that he did 9/11?
Another wasted thread.
I don’t see how anyone could talk about the clusterfuck scientifically and not have that happen. There are two choices, a) put head in sand accepting official non-science, b) put head in sand accepting no conclusions.
What’s your point about it?
US govt is destabilizing the right to carry and bear arms. That is a BIG one. And it hasn’t stopped, it is increasing. The bigger clusterfuck is coming…I will be back in a couple of years…have fun y’all..
As Shelby highlights, there’s a torrent of Intertube bullshit out there, so much so that it’s nigh impossible to discern anything valuable. So, absent a reliable source of hard facts, I am left to speculate.
I think that any medieval blacksmith could understand why the towers collapsed.
The examples often cited regarding government conspiracies are being cited because we know about them (duh, obviously) so I’m not inclined to believe that our incompetent government could keep the lid on such an evil conspiracy – to murder several thousand people, while framing Islam – for ten years.
Maybe the guy that says he did it, actually did. Too late to ask him now.
Perhaps it makes sense to be profiling and scrutinizing those people that currently have a demonstrable & evident propensity for violence? I profile and discriminate with a very harsh eye nowadays – it might even keep me alive. I ain’t just talkin’ ’bout A-rabs neither.
Sorry, I meant to refer to Viktor, not Shelby.
>That being said, the words I shared were spoken about a hundred and fifty yards from the place where forty good people died horribly while trying to make a difference. Whether you believe they made a difference or not is immaterial. The fact that they died trying is what matters, and by doing so they brought that piece of abandoned strip mine a little closer to God, Allah, Yahweh, or whatever your belief happens to be.
You do realize that this could equally well be said about the hijackers?
One thing we have to thank the New Atheists for is the recognition that “respecting other peoples beliefs” gives epistemic coverage to the outright nutjobs. If you make an exception to rationality for the “moderates”, how do you draw a line. Or as Lazarus Long’s mother put it, “Stupid is stupid, faith doesn’t make it smart.”
>One thing we have to thank the New Atheists for is the recognition that “respecting other peoples beliefs” gives epistemic coverage to the outright nutjobs.
Hmmpph. This is a point I was making long before the “New Atheists” got agents and book contracts.
Actually, I’m OK with those guys. And I can’t even whine that nobody listens to me because, in fact, a lot of people do. It’s just a bit frustrating sometimes to be too far ahead of the curve.
Those comparing Islam to Communism are right…but not in the way they think they are. I suggest you read some Chalmers Johnson and Martin Van Creveld. I also suggest you study the early history of NATO, the conditions surrounding the end of WWII…and a whole lot of other things. The same is true of those who think the CIA was behind the Islamic rebellion against the Soviets…correct in a limited,superficial way.
I don’t have time or energy to respond in detail. You won’t believe me anyway. Go read some books.
I’m not attacking anyone here. Please do not take any of this that way. This is a general observation of the world at large. Most likely lacking in many respects.
To clarify my thinking:
What we have is a three way religious war. It never ceases to amaze and baffle me the spit filled invective delivered towards the poor hopeless Muslim peasant by a bunch of over-educated/indoctrinated people who worship at the throne of their own pseudo-religious edifice. Did they ever question why we would take out the most secular regimes in the middle east…yeah they were crummy dictators….that we helped put in power. Why aren’t we attacking Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait? Last time I checked they were fairly fanatical, and our best buds. Where did most of the hijackers come from? Where does the money flow from? Do they know the history behind the Shaw of Iran? Other than the History Channel/Time Magazine version? Do they understand what was done to the Palestinians to make them so angry? Do they know who is replacing the dictators in the Arab “Spring”? I suspect not. Stating these things will of course be compared to siding with the enemy. On the contrary, failing to understand the motivations of your antagonist is treason of the highest order. Perhaps they don’t even really understand the nature of the conflict or who the true antagonist is. Somebody will always be happy to march people into a machine gun somewhere.
This religious war is between Secular-Democratic-Nationalism, Islam, and the Judeo-Christian worldview. Largely shaped by modernization and technology/communications. None of these religions will survive the onslaught of change, unless they destroy it first. There is, I suppose, a fourth protagonist in scientific/technological progress. Technology is not really a combatant, more like a huge flowing river, slowly undermining the foundations of superstition. These periods in history tend to be violent, unpredictable, and take centuries to resolve. These conflicts can be viewed as merely a continuation of the Crusades/Reformation etc. One of the original combatants-the Monarchy appears to be out…for now.
To this Satanic Menage a Trois you can add: Ignorance, Greed, Corruption, Profiteering, Labido Dominandi, and all the other darker elements of humanity. Include in this mix a bunch of effete, intellectual, bloody-minded, martial-midgets, who for whatever reasons of personal inadequacy, continually advocate “Let’s you him fight”.
All the ingredients for a fetid, bilious shit-stew…..served up steaming hot for our own personal enjoyment.
Like I said….I want an atomic space yacht. Failing that-if any of you have one I’m pretty handy to have around.
@Shelby:
Y’know, you wrecked your own argument when you quoted that letter from the WTC1 tennant:
IOW, more than 20 years ago, they knew that the only credible threat capable of bringing down those towers was to fly a plane into them. If anything, this confirms the official story — that some pissed off Muslims flew planes into the buildings, causing them to collapse.
As for the lack of response by the U.S. military, there wasn’t really a lack of response. All of our defense measures were setup to prepare us against an attack coming from outside the country — planes incoming from Russia or China or other offshore enemies real or imagined. We really didn’t have the capability then of tracking hijacked planes and we really weren’t prepared to stop them with F-16s or whatever primarily because such attacks were unprecedented. Prior to 9/11, the most recent attack on U.S. soil had been the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That’s what we were prepared to deal with, not a bunch of pissed off Muslims flying our own commercial airliners into buildings.
I’m not saying I completely 100% believe the official story — there are certainly inconsistencies — but, OTOH, I haven’t seen one single alternative hypothesis that fits with all of the available facts. All I see out of conspiracy theorists — and hereby I admit to being one and include myself in this — is rampant speculation without evidence to support the claims. Such explanations are not helpful.
@Shelby
1 In the end you will have to trust someone. Telling us all witnesses are lying leaves you nowhere. The real point is that you have to convince us that your witnesses are more trustworthy than the “others”.
2 The “government” cannot prove it was not involved in a conspiracy because no one can. You yourself cannot prove you were not involved in 9/11, neither can Eric. There are simply too many possibilities to disprove. The only way forward is to have some hard evidence that a particular person was involved in both the government and the 9/11 attacks. None of that seen yet. And we have evidence from all over the world that those who hijacked the planes were connected to Al Qaida. Including public admissions from members of Al Qaida.
3 Why do you want so desperately to believe that the American government concocted the 9/11 attacks? The accepted interpretation is so much simpler.
There are earlier attacks that tried to blow up the twin towers and to fly planes into buildings (
GIA tried it on Paris). Planes have been hijacked before, blown up and caused massive destruction (Lockerbie). USA airports had dismal security for national flights for commercial reasons. And so on. So there was really nothing new in the 9/11 attacks, except that they tried to hijack 5 planes at the same time.
There is really no reason to look beyond a gang of terrorists doing all these things in one go.
In short, there is nothing rational in looking for a government conspiracy. Al Qaida certainly did not need any help in executing this attack.
@Winter: While I agree you with most wholeheartedly, that we have to accept only explanations that fit all of the available data, and that the only one that even comes close is the official explanation, I have to take exception with this argument:
USA airports had arguably better security before 9/11 than post 9/11. What has improved — why there seem to be fewer successful hijacking now than in the past — have more to do with changes on the airplanes themselves than by any measures taken in the airport. We now lock cockpit doors, arm the pilots, and have armed air marshals on every flight. Those are useful deterrents. The changes at the airport are less than spectacular: probably more people have gotten stuff onboard than before.
Shelby, if you’re just going to blatantly lie then there’s no point in demolishing your claims one at a time. You are either dishonest or insane; either way, goodbye.
I think that airport security was not particularly bad at Boston Logan airport on 9/11. After all, the terrorists were only armed with pocket knives and box cutters.
The problem was with the rules of engagement.
Before 9/11 the way to deal with a hijacking was to delay. Get the plane on the ground. Block the runway. Delay, delay, delay. Feed them airline food. Be a little slow emptying the waste tanks. Get ready to storm the plane in case the hijackers start hurting passengers. More delay. These guys hijacked a plane. They don’t deal well with boredom.
Now we know better. Now the cockpit doors have been strengthened and passengers aren’t allowed in. The passengers won’t allow another successful hijacking. Everything else done since then to strengthen airport security has been locking the stable door after the horse was gone.
One thing that might help would be bounties on hijackers. $10,000/passenger per hijacker dead, $100,000/passenger per hijacker alive. If the trauma unit can save him you collect the higher bounty. Friends, family and other associates cannot collect, but if they are instrumental in capturing the hijacker the government will waive the death penalty. Mistakes, hoaxes, and other attempts to game the system will be prosecuted as attempted air piracy. We’ll do it anyway, but a little official encouragement would be nice.
Instead, President Bush reacted the way wealthy people usually do when threatened, he beefed up security in general. Wealthy people don’t spend a little extra time with S&W when threatened. They hire it done. They have the resources and other things to do with their time. He and the rest of the government don’t really understand that you can’t cover everyone in the whole country. We citizens have to do it ourselves.
Winter, the Lockerbie plane was not hijacked. There was no precedent for hijacking planes in order to use them as weapons. The scenario everyone expected of plane hijackers was that they would make demands, usually for the release of prisoners, and hold the plane and passengers hostage for these demands. That was what was anticipated as recently as the Presidential Briefing of 6-Aug-2001.
Oh, but Shelby demands “data” to “prove” this. He’s either too young to remember this himself, and too stupid to trust his elders’ unanimous word on the matter, or so delusional that he thinks if he doesn’t see a document then it doesn’t exist. Or he knows the truth very well but chooses to lie about it.
Stating your opinion can get you thrown in jail today.
Really? Where? Examples, please.
Lockerbie showed how much damage could be done. GIA showed the hijacking part.
And I compared security for national flights to those used for international flight outside the USA. Whether it would have mattered is another question. However, I once sat next to an armed guard on a PIA flight into the US. And that was in the 1990s.
I love it when people with no understanding of the military have such firm conviction that they understand what the hell military operating procedures are.
And no, even retired guys don’t always have a clue what current procedures are. One of the side effects of having one of the largest and the most effective militaries in the world is the ton of retired O6+s running around able to give their opinion about whatever. A few of these will be kooks regardless of their exemplary service in the past.
The NEADs story in Vanity Fair rings true to me having observed a few exercises from op floors. We got caught flatfooted and pilots had to take to the air with what they had. I don’t care what intercepts they were doing in the cold war. By 2001 we were full on peacetime in CONUS. What ready aircraft we had weren’t in position to do armed intercepts where we needed them (all four of them on the east coast that day).
As to what the most likely hijack scenario was in 2001 here’s what it is:
“The day’s exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a “traditional” simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. ”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608#gotopage4
“A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. “Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.,” he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they’d land and make demands. “There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608#gotopage18
The whole day was a cluster and for folks wondering what it looks like when you’re behind the OODA power curve that’s it. While they were looking at NY, DC was getting hit. While they were looking at DC, 93 was coming in. By the time they knew that 93 was a threat it had already crashed.
NASYPANY: “Goddammit! I can’t even protect my N.C.A.”
That pretty much sums it up.
The US military makes the hard look easy even when it’s not. This is why folks disbelieve we can hit the Chinese Embassy by accident or we didn’t have enough assets on 9/11 to intercept the attacker. I remember listening to some blowhard giving a keynote tell a roomful of operators that “beating the Iraqi army is the easy part” while thinking “no lady, they only made it look easy, every other military in the world would have had it’s ass handed to them”. She went on to lecture them about how “words are important” and not to use the word jihad or whatever.
Why aren’t we attacking Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait?
Um, why would we want to?
Last time I checked they were fairly fanatical, and our best buds.
Exactly. So why would we attack them? Are you in the habit of attacking your allies? Should we have taken time out during WW2 to attack the USSR?
Where did most of the hijackers come from?
What the @#$% does that have to do with anything? Who cares where they were born, or what passports they held? They were working with the Sauds’ enemy; so how do you reckon the Sauds are responsible for them or their actions? Lord Haw-Haw was from Brooklyn; does that make Fiorello La Guardia or Michael Bloomberg responsible for him?!
Do they know the history behind the Shaw of Iran?
The who? What do you mean by this?
Do they understand what was done to the Palestinians to make them so angry?
Do you mean the CIA was responsible for Arab countries refusing to absorb and resettle them, shoving them into camps, and brainwashing them to think of themselves as members of an invented nation and to blame the Jews for everything bad that happens to them?
Lockerbie showed how much damage could be done. How so? Damage on the ground was minimal and completely unintentional. The major damage was in the lost plane. What sort of lesson could have been learned that might have prevented the 2001 attacks? (I thought the lesson from Lockerbie was that if you have an urgent warning for the airlines, to be on the lookout for a new terrorist tactic, don’t put it in the post, especially during the Xmas season! There are these things called telephones, faxes, email, telex, and I think they still had telegrams back then.)
(The other amazing thing about Lockerbie is how many people were supposed to be on that plane and missed it or changed their tickets at the last minute. With the number of such stories the normal tendency is to dismiss them all, but I personal know two such “survivors”, and believe them.)
> News agencies have some process for vetting information.
Yes, but that process consists of verifying that they’re quoting someone accurately. They call that process “fact checking” but it is really quote checking, which is very different.
> US govt is destabilizing the right to carry and bear arms.
They’ve been doing that for over 100 years. NY’s Sullivan Act was passed in 1911 and it wasn’t the first. I’m aware of significant gun control efforts in the late 1860s and there may well have been some before that.
Do you really think that “the conspiracy” is that old?
Of course I would say that, seeing as how my family is one of the Illuminati.
This wasn’t a quote, it was a white hot breaking news story, during a major event on which details were, in the reporter’s own words, “very very sketchy”. Nobody fact-checked or quote-checked the “news” of Gabby Giffords’ death. And nobody was about to “fact-check” the “news” of another building collapse in the middle of the biggest story anyone could remember. You heard it, you reported it. If it turned out not to be true, oh well. That’s how news works. I mean, who would they have “fact-checked” this with? How exactly would they have “vetted” it? And what reporter worth his salt would hold off on reporting it until it had been “fact-checked” and “vetted”?
It’s not as if the collapse of that building was a surprise when it happened.
Put another way, suppose Giffords had died, twenty minutes after her “death” was reported? Would this be evidence of some kind of conspiracy?
>This is a point I was making long before the “New Atheists” got agents and book contracts.
Sure, many people were, but political (and religious, to the extent that there is a difference) ideas don’t really matter until they get a broad exposure. Why do you think libertarianism is still so marginal, even among people who arguably already are libertarian?
@Milhouse
I found the hole in the ground in Lockerbie rather convincing. But it was nothing new or unexpected.
Winter, planes have fallen down on houses before. Back in the early ’60s there was a plane crash here in Park Slope, just 1 km or so from where I’m sitting. What did Lockerbie add to that? And what similarities did it have to the 11-Sep-2001 attacks?
Planes have flown into skyscrapers before, too. I don’t remember the date (I think it was during WW II), but one of Petroski’s books discusses and has a drawing of when a DC-3 flew into the Empire State Building in the fog. The difference is the scale and the 9-11 attacks being intentional. And the latter is also the difference with Winter’s “hole in the ground”; if I remember what I read right, the timing on the bomb was off, it was intended to go off over the open Atlantic, just disappearing in effect.
That last line was supposed to be “with the plane in effect just disappearing.”
@William B Swift
It was a B-25. That wasn’t the first time a plane has accidentally collided with a tall building.
That’s what I get for not checking after having read it two decades ago.
And that was my first thought when I head the news of the first crash, ten years ago. That it was an accident, just like the ESB crash in the ’40s.
My ex was supposed to be on Air Florida Flight 90 that went down in the Potomac back in 1982. A last minute change put her on a more direct flight to Pensacola. Her parents were understandably freaked. It happens quite a bit I guess.
@Milhouse the scenario that terrorists would use airplanes as terror weapons existed. Of course there are a bazillion such “what if” scenarios and plans to combat them. We still had War Plan Red that detailed how we’d fight the British until 1939…staff has to have something to do. Didn’t mean anyone took the idea that we’d end up fighting the UK very seriously…even if we did build airfields near Canada…
And heck, Tom Clancy wrote Debt of Honor in the 90s where a JAL pilot rammed his 747 into the US Capitol making Jack Ryan POTUS. That’s one way to end a series. Make your main “action” character POTUS. The idea was out there but it was one of many what ifs.
Make that purported tenant. If you do a search on Walter Burien or Bubien you’ll find he’s a major kook, which means there’s no particular reason to believe anything he says. He claims to have once been a tenant at WTC1 (long before the attacks); maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t. Not that being one would give him any special knowledge, of course, or make his words any more valuable than mine or yours, so the assumption that he was one is harmless; but it’s also baseless.
Of course the scenario existed. It was possible, therefore someone had thought of it. But it had no influence on the actual protocol for handing hijackings, because every hijacking until then had gone the same way. And no, Winter, the GIA hijacking you cite went exactly the same way as all others: the hijackers landed the plane and made demands. It’s claimed (with what basis I don’t know) that they had planned to fly it into the Eiffel Tower; maybe so, but they didn’t even attempt to carry out that plan. They landed at Marseilles and never took off again.
Oh, and the two Lockerbie “survivors” I know were not flying together, so their both having not been on the plane represents two independent events.
“And that was my first thought when I head the news of the first crash, ten years ago. That it was an accident, just like the ESB crash in the ’40s.”
When the planes hit, I was on a commuter train returning home from my overnight shift. On arrival my SO told me:
SO: “A plane hit the World Trade Center. They say it’s a terrorist attack.”
me: “Oh…that’s awful. Are they sure? An Air Force bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1948.”
SO: “There were TWO planes.”
me: “Uh oh….”
TMR said: First rule in conflict…don’t do what your enemy wants you to.
Unless your enemy understands the situation poorly, and what he wants you to do will lead to your victory.
Osama bin Laden wasn’t exactly von Clausewitz – what he wanted, in your telling, was actually the perfect way to defeat his agenda.
(It worked, after all, though not without problems, as are endemic to large military endeavors.
Al Quaeda is reduced to a joke, and the Islamist notion that America “won’t fight” [reinforced by the non-response to the Cole attack and the various African bombings] is reduced to the lie it always was.
Doing what he wanted was the correct response, because he had no idea what he was up against.)
Yes, exactly. To crash one aeroplane into a building may be regarded as a misfortune; to crash two looks like carelessness.
Um, that was in response to LS
The intention of my prior post and this one, is to put an end my blogging.
I have not lied, nor do I intend to imply a top-down conspiracy on 9/11. With hard evidence, the conspiracy theories (speculation) will mute.
The drug war as a front for drug running and the attacks on gun rights, is not a top-down conspiracy, quite the opposite, no one is in control of the Olsen scramble.
dishonest or insane
Provide proof that I knowingly told untruth or my medical records. else you are arguing both for and against speculative assertions.
wrecked your argument … the WTC1 tennant
No. I want the good science of investigating potentially relevant data, not doing a google search on personality. The relevant data is the alledged 20 years of nearby air force base activity reports.
All of our defense measures were … from outside the country
Hard data, not hearsay subjective noise.
rampant speculation without evidence
Ditto the official reports, which will remain the case until a statistically significant sample of the structural steel. Occam’s Razor doesn’t imply the scientific method, which requires the falsifiable hypothesis. We can’t falsify lost evidence.
Telling us all witnesses are lying leaves you nowhere
Personal truth is speculation. Statistically significant evidence is science.
The “government” cannot prove it was not involved
To say I am not satisfied with the science, doesn’t logically mean that I am implying I am implicating the government. If A not proven, doesn’t mean B is implicated. The response of “how could it be possible for any other outcome…yadayada”, is irrelevant.
Why do you want so desperately to believe that the American government concocted the 9/11 attacks?
Why do you make a false assumption about what I think?
Provide proof that I knowingly told untruth
That’s easy. You claimed that “according to the official NIST report, of the beams that were tested none got heated more than 250 degrees”, and yet according to the very conspiracy-theory site that you linked as evidence, the NIST found that 3% of the peripheral beams they tested did get higher (much higher) than 250°, which implies that the core got even hotter than that. You lied about what your own nutso source claims, let alone about what actually happened. That’s enough to substantiate my accusation.
The relevant data is the alledged 20 years of nearby air force base activity reports.
Which the kook you cite as an authority has seen, right? Or are you just speculating about what they might contain, and demanding the right to have some fellow kook go through them.
until a statistically significant sample of the structural steel. Doesn’t your own source claim this is impossible because it’s all been sold off?
Hard data, not hearsay subjective noise.
What everyone knows needs no proof.
Personal truth is speculation. Statistically significant evidence is science.
What does that even mean?
Why do you make a false assumption about what I think?
If you accuse the government of a coverup, there must be something for it to cover up.
trust his elders’ unanimous word
You are not my elder. You haven’t provided complete government documents about activities and procedures.
Really? Where? Examples, please
You present some hard data first.
The winner of this argument understands technology is growing, and not the elder dinosaurs who cling to what is dying.
former senior executive at the F.A.A., … on the condition that I not identify him
Hard evidence please, hearsay is not admissible in court.
They were working with the Sauds’ enemy
Simplistic and one-dimensional speculation. Data?
Neither of us know. It is likely very complex, with competing interests within the various governments. You play checkers, and I play Spock’s multi-level chess.
[Lockerbie] The major damage was in the lost plane
Killed may have included a joint team of CIA, FBI, and govt drug war agents related to the heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley. Tangentially are Gary Webb’s forensic expositions on the drug war’s connection to drug trafficking.
what reporter … would hold off on reporting it until it had been … “vetted”?
Speculation. Investigate.
Would this be evidence of some kind of conspiracy?
Who here said it was.
actual protocol for handing hijackings
Thousands of military protocol documents and activity reports please, including Pentagon protection.
You are not my elder. You haven’t provided complete government documents about activities and procedures.
If I’m not your elder, then you’ve just been caught in another lie. If you’re older than me then you certainly know how all hijackings went before 10 years ago, and how authorities would respond to them. There is no need for government documents to prove what everyone who’s older than about 25 remembers.
That’s not how it works, and you know it. If you make a claim, especially an extraordinary one like that, it’s up to you to prove it.
Killed may also have included a joint team of Martian, Tau Cetian, and Time Lord ambassadors, who had just concluded talks with the Mediterranean dolphins, and were on their way to Area 51. That has about as much foundation as your suggestion.
Why on earth should I? What have I got to investigate? You’re the one making wild accusations, why don’t you investigate them, and come up with hard data to prove whatever it is your diseased brain thinks is the true explanation. Instead, we have your unsupported assertion that all news outlets carefully “vet” every news story and rumour before it allows it to air, and therefore must have known that the building hadn’t yet fallen when it reported (why?) that it had. I suppose that according to you they also knew Gabby Giffords was alive when they reported her death (again, why?), and every other time they report things that didn’t happen (which occurs many times every single day).
@Milhouse: you are unable to prove I KNOWINGLY stated an untruth. You are making wild speculation, given I simply typo-ed and forgot a single word “core”. Many of my comments demonstrated that I often unintentionally omit words. And it doesn’t change the statistical point. Here follows the relevant quote.
which implies that the core got even hotter than that
Speculation. Data?
If you accuse the government of a coverup
I have not accused the entire government of anything. Individuals do things. The government is an abstract.
All I want is science. You deploy your political strawmen and false dichotomy illogic, to obfuscate my call for science.
What does that even mean?
You don’t know the difference between personal reality and statistical evidence?
@Milhouse: you’ve lost. Checkmate. Science doesn’t make wild assertions, it collects data, then makes models of the statistically significant data. Goodbye.
Milhouse,
Onus is on you to provide data proving that Martians, Tau Cetians, and Time Lords were NOT on that plane. My sources — the Raëlians, Weekly World News and the ZetaTalk lady — provide data to the contrary.
Hard evidence please. Speculation is not science. Cave Johnson, we’re done here.
Shelby writes: It is also illogical to say that we didn’t intercept the planes because we wouldn’t have the forethought to shoot them down. We had over an hour from the first WTC hit until the Pentagon hit. Is it plausible to assert that Norad can’t protect the Pentagon which houses all the most important people of all our military with more than an 1 hour warning before WTC attack? Also the hearsay is that Cheney was reportedly tracking the plane as it approached the Pentagon, and he chewed out an officer who asked him to confirm that he wasn’t going to give the order to shoot it down.
This is utter nonsense and only shows ignorance of the issues. First, in a crowded airspace, it is difficult to sort out which of the air traffic is not under friendly control and vector aircraft to it. Secondly, very few aircraft were on active alert on 9/11/01. It takes time to get jet aircraft in the air from a cold start. In the confused situation with limited information, an hour is not as long as you seem to think. Cheney had no way to “track” aircraft himself, had no authority to order anything himself and could only rely upon reports from others who had confused and limited information.
But this picking at the faux issue of the temperature of the steel, Shelby, is intended to do what? Show you are some great skeptic? Horse manure. There is only one purpose to picking at the temperature of the steel, to undermine the explanation that the towers collapsed catastrophically due to fire compromising the strength of the steel structure. There is no other purpose to your comments. If the towers did not collapse due to catastrophic failure caused by fire then why did they collapse? Pretending not to offer an alternative explanation is dishonest. And frankly, I find it a particularly vile form of dishonesty.
The NIST report is very complete, and those who find ways to avoid its conclusions should justify why they feel the need to hold onto the insane, contrary belief that there was some ridiculous conspiracy to emplace demo in those building to await a pair of aircraft flying into them.
If I’m not your elder, then you’ve just been caught in another lie
You may be older (I’m 46), but you are not my elder, meaning I disown you as a member of my grouping. It seems the degrees-of-freedom in your mind’s logic capacity is limited to duality. Your logical errors are beyond 10 at last count.
Killed may also have included a joint team of Martian, Tau Cetian, and Time Lord ambassadors
Haven’t seen one data point of them ever boarding an airplane. Have you? Strange you imply that the probabilities are equal to my suggestion that we may not have all the data on who was on board the Lockerbie plane. This is the typical disinformation technique, to equate unequal things and draw attention away from inconvenient truths as follows.
While you obfuscate, you avoid explaining away that 1% of the core beams is not only statistically inconclusive, but is statistical vulnerable to (even unintentional) cherry picking, similar to medical trials that are not sufficiently randomized and thus unscientific.
I suppose you will next stoop to trying to dig up dirt on me personally, as if that somehow removes the non-science of the official reports.
@SPQR: nice banter. Did you say anything?
Someone claims Norad, Fema, and the Pentagon had considered and even run drills involving “using a jet as a rocket against buildings”. I don’t have time to verify if that claim is accurate.
The recordings state the commanding officer ordered the F15s out over the Atlantic ocean. It also shows that breaking windows with supersonic flight was a not a restriction, as claimed by the thus debunked Popular Mechanics.
Yes, Shelby, I said something. Evidently, you have decided to double down on 9/11 Trutherism.
We see Shelby, that you assemble a list of vague, contextless, tiny “points” that appear to imply things you don’t actually bother to prove. Its crap.
WOW…what a turn things have taken here….
@ Sigvald “Unless your enemy understands the situation poorly, and what he wants you to do will lead to your victory.
Osama bin Laden wasn’t exactly von Clausewitz – what he wanted, in your telling, was actually the perfect way to defeat his agenda.
(It worked, after all, though not without problems, as are endemic to large military endeavors.
Al Quaeda is reduced to a joke, and the Islamist notion that America “won’t fight” [reinforced by the non-response to the Cole attack and the various African bombings] is reduced to the lie it always was.
Doing what he wanted was the correct response, because he had no idea what he was up against.)”
Terrorism is not a tactic employed by those in a position of strength.
You make some valid points. I do not think they know what they are truly up against. I do. It worries me. Unfortunately we are all up against it in the end.
We will happily vaporize the whole damn lot of them if it comes down to it. I personally would like to keep that particular genie in the bottle.
The jury is out on the rest, and will only be known in a couple decades. The Problem is scope creep. If the mission was merely to neutralize Al Qaeda, Fine…but now it is to remodel the Middle East in our image…..good luck with that one. I’m afraid I’ve got to side with past history. Time will tell.
Interesting that you should bring up Clausewitz…Van Creveld is a critic. Some would argue incorrectly. Both have valid points. I’m afraid in the end economics runs the show. The rest is just so much mental masturbation. Mine included.
economics runs the show
Yup. It gets interesting around page 7 forward.
@Shelby
You still have not explained why Al Qaida even needed the help of the USA government.
Arabs and other extremists have been hijacking airplanes from the 1970s.
The fact that Milhouse is clueless about earlier attempts of trying to fly airplanes into buildings is not really informative. Instead of uninformed opinion, we could rely on people who have actually studied terrorist actions (reading Bruce Schneier’s column is both entertaining and informative). And these informed people actually document a string of plans to do just that.
And even suggesting that the air force would shoot down passenger planes before 2001 is completely absurd. It had happened twice before, in Korea and Iran, and both times the military involved were in very deep trouble. Doing so would require a lot of time before the relevant decisions and commands would have traveled all the levels.
And suggesting you can burn a plane load of kerosene in a building without severe structural damage is rather,…. eh, clueless? We now know that a building should be prepared for that, we did not before 2001.
So, please, explain why Al Qaida needed help? Especially as they did not even planed the towers to fall.
@Winter: I hope you will read the “Yup” linked document in my prior comment, to understand it is not as simple as the “USA govt”. If you understand who Martin Armstrong is, and you read carefully, I think you view of the world will be permanently altered. This is documented recent history. Who here can claim Armstrong is a kook?
I don’t really care if the kerosene caused structural failure or not, I just want it to be proven scientifically.
If you are looking for plausibility that kerosene did not bring down the WTC, I can provide them, but that is not at all my point.
If you want to explore that, I do hope you know that some of the kerosene fell immediately down the elevator shaft, and there was a fire in the basement, with at least one man sustaining severe burns in basement. The explosion must have been severe in the basement, as the witness saw damage (to cars if I remember correctly) there when he saw the burned individual.
Also other steel buildings have been hit planes and burned and not collapsed. Again this is not my point though. I am just calling for the evidence to not be suppressed.
@Shelby
“I don’t really care if the kerosene caused structural failure or not, I just want it to be proven scientifically.”
This is where you go wrong. You cannot prove history. Period. Science can tell you which causes lead to what effects. It cannot tell you what happened 10 years ago. There is a reason the word “history” has two meanings, one of which is “a tale”.
Now if we go back to history, as a “science”. We know how that works. History digs up “documents”, “artifacts”, and “traces”. Then it connects the dots into a picture, using as few lines as possible to connect the dots. A building on fire collapses. The fire was very hot. The building’s structure depended on steel. Connect these dots with as few lines as possible. What do you get? The fire caused the steel to become weak after which the building collapsed.
This has not happened before, you say?
No, but no one has tried it on these buildings before. Other buildings are different, because all buildings are different. You can claim an encyclopedia full of “buts”. It still happened, simply because shit happens. Every accident is build out of “if only this had not happened” moments. That is why they are called “accidents”. Because they just “happen”. If you cannot accept that, you are in for a very unhappy life.
You want to implicate explosive charges or other agents to make the building collapse the moment the fire broke out. That are a lot of extra lines for which there are no dots. Dots like, people placing charges or damaging the structure. People knowing, or planning, the planes to be flown into the building on EXACTLY those places where the damage was done. Someone detonating the explosives at exactly the right time.
That is a lot of demoniacal people who were willing to kill thousands of fellow citizens. None of whom got a conscience at the wrong moment. So, what you are saying is that there are thousands of people in the USA who have pledged their life to kill their fellow citizens. Thousands of demoniacal people who are able to gain the trust to get in positions to actually realize this mass murder, to get organized to do it and to do it in a way so that no one finds out. That is a very bleak outlook on humanity you have.
I still do not see why Al Qaida needed help. You still need to explain that.
@Shelby
About this Armstrong guy. He rediscovered the Kondratiev wave. That has been know since 1925.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kondratiev_wave
Actually, the current phase is a dip that was in the 1980s predicted to start in 2008. Rather on time. So what is exactly new about that.
And a gold standard leads to permanent deflation. Which is as bad, or even worse, than inflation. Adam Smith needed pages to explain the intricacies and problems of precious metal standards. And that was in the 18th century. You just have to accept that prices are unstable, and currencies are even less stable. As the gold market is build on people’s fears and dreams, it is hardly “transparent” and “rational”. Making money on other people’s follies is an accepted business model. So him becoming rich is not very newsworthy.
You cannot prove history
Rubbish. Correlation doesn’t guarantee cause & effect, but statistically insignificant conclusions are meaningless.
For example, carbon dating isn’t statistically accurate in establishing epoch correlations?
I only asked for statistically accurate correlations. Sampling 1% of the structural steel (in the hot zone, thus perhaps 0.01% overall) is worse than sampling none of it. If you don’t understand that, then please go back to school.
You want to implicate explosive charges
I never said that. I keep saying I only want to have statistically accurate conclusions. Otherwise, I will conclude that I don’t have enough data to conclude. That is science.
If you haven’t connected the dots by now, let me be more explicit. Read the “Yup” linked document. I think a scientific investigation might reveal who was funding the effort. I suspect it might also prove the building collapsed due to kerosene. That is irrelevant. I just want to follow the evidence and see where it leads. But there are some powerful elements who don’t want us to have the evidence. And I don’t think it is because of explosives, rather is for the reasons that are in that linked document.
About this Armstrong guy. He rediscovered the Kondratiev wave.
He has explained that some of his work is similar to Kondratiev. He has also written explaining that gold can’t be the only money. But none of that is the point of mentioning him here. Read the entire linked document if you want to understand the significance of who he is and what data he offers us.
You want to implicate explosive charges
I didn’t write nor imply that.
I want statistically meaningful conclusions. Otherwise, I will conclude that I don’t have enough data to conclude. That is science.
I think a scientific investigation might reveal who was funding the effort, with those in Armstrong’s nemesis the “CLUB” as likely candidates, perhaps not directly but as derivative effect. I suspect it might also prove the building collapsed due to kerosene. That is irrelevant. I just want to follow the evidence and see where it leads.
I still do not see why Al Qaida needed help
I suspect the money trail will lead back to the “CLUB”, right from the beginning such as funding the Afghan resistance fighters.
You cannot prove history
Correlation doesn’t guarantee cause & effect, but statistically insignificant conclusions are meaningless.
For example, carbon dating isn’t statistically accurate in establishing epoch correlations?
I only asked for statistically meaningful correlations. Sampling 1% of the structural steel is as statistically meaningless as sampling none of it. Worse still, I think that was 1% of the core steel in the impact zone, thus perhaps 0.01 – 0.03% of total core steel of the building
@Shelby
“I suspect the money trail will lead back to the “CLUB”, right from the beginning such as funding the Afghan resistance fighters.”
OBL was a multi-millionaire (hundreds of millions). His family’s “Saudi Bin Laden Group” is worth >$5B. OBL is funded by Saudi fundamentalists which are Billionaire+.
Why would Al Qaida need some US idiots to rake up the few hundred thousand dollars needed to organize the 9/11 attacks?
And EVERYone hating the USSR was funding Afghan resistance fighters. As usual, giving a man a gun does not give you control over him. And that was shown again in Afghanistan.
OBL is funded by Saudi fundamentalists
Did you read the document I linked?
@Shelby
“Did you read the document I linked?”
I tried to, but it does not make much sense to me.
If you want to tell me the USA is run by the banks, that should be self evident after the 2008 financial meltdown. That these bankers fight each other like courtiers in the medieval Byzantine or Italian courts is only to be expected. And if they run the country, they run the courts.
I have been told for so long that the USA judicial system does not intent to uphold justice, that I actually believe they do not. As the USA sees it fit to torture prisoners, or outsource the torture, I see nothing really new in this piece. As long as USA citizens cheer when reminded that people get serially raped and killed in prison, why should I care when it happens to themselves? (Actually, I do care, but I do not see why I should care more for this one person than for all the other 2 million prisoners).
And I still not see why Al Qaida needed the help of these “investors”? Everything they did could have been done by determined people and a few hundreds of thousands of cash. Training and know-how were available in the near-east and South Asia. Depending on some scheming Americans would be an operational risk.
You still did not answer this question and I cannot find it in this rambling piece you linked to. That some people could use this destruction for their own good, that was to be expected. People are like that. But you can be an undertaker without killing people. And reading the funeral schedule to rob the houses of those attending a funeral does not mean you murder the deceased.
Anyhow, this is becoming quite boring. Go and watch South Park. That is much more entertaining
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce
tl;dr
I didn’t read it all, but I strongly suspect Shelby is suffering from the CSI fallacy.
OBL…Al Qaida…
It is difficult to fight ghosts.
That some people could use this destruction for their own good, that was to be expected
Exactly. Now we just need some hard evidence. Where should we start to find it?
Do you have any hard data of who paid for and orchestrated this attacks? If so, please share it with me.
@Shelby
“Do you have any hard data of who paid for and orchestrated this attacks?”
Al Qaida. OBL officially said so. The hijackers got their money from Al Qaida. We even have a Libyan former fundamentalist (now in London) who was informed by OBL about the attacks beforehand, without the exact nature. So, OBL was involved from the start, and Al Qaida paid them. What more do you want.
The funding of Al Qaida too, is well known. Ample rich fundamentalists to pay up in the Arab world. Like there were for the IRA, and the Palestinians, and the Basks.
Really, Americans are just a nuisance in these circles.
The hijackers got their money from Al Qaida
Breaking News! According to Richard Clarke, Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor in the White House 1998-2002, they probably got their money from the CIA. Apparently there is some evidence to be released in a documentary.
What more do you want
Hard statistically significant evidence lest you make foolish conclusions based on hearsay and fairy tales.
HTML fail on the 2nd link.
@Greg: CSI effect? Is there a drug cure? I haven’t watched TV for 9 years.
Regarding Martin Armstrong, perhaps you didn’t read to the end where he explains how certain vested interests denied him habeus for 7 years. So what is that BS about habeus being stronger than ever? The “CLUB” were threatened because he was teaching the Japanese corporations how to not be manipulated by the “CLUB”. He explained in great insider detail the reverse takeover of the USA by the “CLUB”, which accelerated after 2001.
He used a computer model. The other person who used a computer model to demonstrate corruption was Catherine Austin Fitts, former Asst Sec of HUD under Jack Kemp and insider to Drillon Read on Wallstreet. Do you realize Armstrong is in the high0-genius IQ range and Fitts is probably 140+ at least?
Here’s a quick link, there are lots more you can look it up. http://karenlotter.suite101.com/investigating-the-csi-effect-a37177
In the real world, it’s very difficult to have every single thing proved with 100% certainty with unquestionable physical evidence. Refusing to settle for less (there’s a reason why our criminal justice system works to a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “to absolute irrefutable certainty”) even when the evidence is strong, but not perfect, leads you to some very strange places. Ockham’s Razor still applies…
@Shelby
“Hard statistically significant evidence”
In history? Never heard about such a thing.
“lest you make foolish conclusions based on hearsay and fairy tales.”
That would include every link you posted here on that. I was not there, I did not see it, I have not spoken to the witnesses. So, everyone could have written these papers based on any hallucination.
But actually, the CIA funding the opposition is SOP. Every communist cell ever founded on USA soil was funded and run by some three letter organization. And many of those in Europe and Asia too. Anyhow, OBL once fought for the USA.
Btw, the CIA messing things up big time is also SOP. They seem to be universally loathed in the intelligence community for messing things up. It is a valid question whether the benefits of the CIA have outweighed their costs to the USA. Maybe the USA would have been much better off without the CIA.
> The other amazing thing about Lockerbie is how many people were supposed to be on that plane and missed it or changed their tickets at the last minute.
It’s not that “amazing”, it’s actually par for the course for planes involved in accidents. It’s either spooky, a statistical mirage, or a statistical fluke. Regardless,
Does that “amazing thing” happening to planes involved in accidents tell us that “the conspiracy” has been downing planes for decades, via a variety of means? I ask because if you’re going to blame people’s behavior wrt Lockerbie on some cause yet not blame the same cause for the same behavior in other cases…..
@Shelby
“Do you realize Armstrong is in the high0-genius IQ range and Fitts is probably 140+ at least?”
So what? You do not really think a high IQ protects against stupidity, don’t you? Or delusions, for that matter.
Please read (again) THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm
Winter says:
> I have been told for so long that the USA judicial system does not intent to uphold justice, that I actually believe they do not.
In the USA the job of the judicial system is to uphold the law and legal process, not ensure justice. It is the job of the legislature to ensure the law and legal process are just. There are certainly some exceptions to this rule, but this is the general design. There is a bleeding that goes on from one to the other, which is pretty worrisome, where the judicial system and police are capricious in their enforcement and prosecution. They call it “discretion” but I call it arbitrary power. It encourages the legislature to pass overly broad laws and then leave the police and DA to decide which of the putatively criminal acts is in fact criminal. For anyone who fears a police state, such a situation should send chills up their spine. It reminds me of that Ayn Rand quote:
“There’s no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
> As the USA sees it fit to torture prisoners, or outsource the torture,
FWIW, I’ll go on the record and state that I think there are some circumstances when this is a necessary evil for the acquisition of information. What I really object to is that it was done in a secret dark place without any chance of public or judicial review. As to whether it is illegal, I don’t really know. More capable legal minds than mine apparently disagree.
For sure, if someone I loved was in a ticking time bomb situation, I’d happily get out the garden hose myself. Feel free to call me immoral if you like. If you do, then please explain to me the source of your moral code and why I should accept that same code.
> As long as USA citizens cheer when reminded that people get serially raped and killed in prison,
On this I’ll say a hearty Amen. I find a disturbing trend amongst many of the “torture is terrible” folks, where they complain bitterly about the few isolated incidents of really, really bad people, to get really, really useful information, and yet ignore the systematic abuse of the weaker, more redeemable people in our prison system, purely for the sadistic enjoyment of the scum of the earth. Obviously you are not one of these hypocrites. How nice we finally agree on something.
@Jessica Boxer
“How nice we finally agree on something.”
Oh, we agree on more things. I just seldom comment on things I agree with.
Everybody who has ever heard of him (which is damn few). He is a kook. The fact that you think nobody could claim that proves that you are completely off the wall and ready for a straitjacket. What on earth would make you think that any sane person could consider Armstrong anything but a kook?
I just searched for him, since I’d never heard of him before yesterday, and the very first thing I found was that his big “discovery” is a 3141-day business cycle, which is of course 1000 times pi. “Physics helped me understand the mechanism that would drive the business cycle but mathematics would perhaps answer the quantitative mystery. I soon began to understand that the circle is a perfect order. Clearly, major historical events that took place in conjunction with this model involved the forces of nature as well […] Through extending my studies into physics, it became obvious that randomness was not a possibility “. How can anyone read that and not laugh? How can anyone read that and have the slightest respect, either for the writer or for anyone who cites him as an authority on anything?
Winter, evidently another kook, writes “The fact that Milhouse is clueless about earlier attempts of trying to fly airplanes into buildings is not really informative”. There were no such attempts. Ever. Previously you claimed there was one attempt, but that was false. The GIA crew may (or may not) have had plans to try something like that, but they never attempted it. Surely you knew that; so were you lying or is there some other explanation?
@shelby
Even if anyone here had those actual military procedures you wanted they couldn’t give them to you. So you’re asking for the ridiculous, knowing it cannot be produced. However, here are the procedures as of 9/11 as written by Rutgers researchers.
http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/2011/2-protocols-for-responding-to-hijackings/
And yes, the transcripts and tapes of NEADS show that NORAD was incapable of defending the pentagon on that day. That’s not hearsay. That’s what was being said on the op floor that day. It is not illogical and in fact very plausible given our military posture at the time. The first aircraft hit WTC at 8:46, the second at 9:03 and the Pentagon at 9:37. This is a very short amount of time given a large part of that 50 min was spent in confusion and their focus was on NY and not DC. That the bad guys could actually coordinate such an attack was not anticipated.
The amount of steel tested is within the bounds of the requirements for forensic testimony by an expert witness (scientist). Your understanding of “science” seems rather narrow. Sufficiently narrow to justify nearly anything you don’t like as non-scientific. Big Bang, evolution, global warming (man or otherwise), etc.
Winter wrote: If you want to tell me the USA is run by the banks, that should be self evident after the 2008 financial meltdown.
Right. Another kook.
@Milhouse
As I am indeed making diner at the moment, you are right, I am a cook. Just home cooking.
Milhouse: Please don’t let your frustrations with other posters spill over onto Winter.
Winter: Is the EU any different? Everyone is terrified that multiple large banks will fail if the Greek government defaults. What else is new?
@Millhouse:
>Winter wrote: If you want to tell me the USA is run by the banks, that should be self evident after the 2008 financial meltdown.
>Right. Another kook.
Baby. Bathwater.
I’m quite sympathetic to the rest of what you’re saying, but there is some indication that US gov’t policy around the time of the ‘meltdown’ was guided by undue favoritism toward certain financial institutions. Regulatory capture is real. The ‘Goldman mafia’ appears to be quite real, at least there’s quite a bit of circumstantial evidence for it. Crony capitalism in general is definitely real.
Our current administration just seems to be an extreme case- they don’t seem to even bother to hide the fact that they’re trying to run the economy for the direct benefit of some parties (including certain banks), at the expense of others (like say, Lehman, or the bondholders of GM and Chrysler, etc).
Nigel,
Nice rumor. Where’s the hard, statistically significant data?
Did you build your own full-scale models of the WTC towers, insturment them with sensor gear, and then fly jet liners into them to collect real-time samples of the temperature of structural steel under those conditions?
No?
Then sit down and shut up. We’re doing science here.
(N.B.: Shelby can’t be reasoned with; mockery or being ignored is his dessert. To him “science” consists of collecting very sketchy “data” and demanding a much higher evidentiary standard of your opponents. For example insisting that you produce thousands of pages of possibly-classified military protocol information in order to disprove the incredible story of a single guy on Coast to Coast who is just dang sure that F-15s should have been scrambled. I don’t think he’d be satisfied even if you miraculously did produce such documentation, or ran the WTC replica experiment.)
“The hijackers got their money from Al Qaida”
Breaking News! According to Richard Clarke, Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor in the White House 1998-2002, they probably got their money from the CIA.
More evidence of kookery. Richard Clarke?! He’s whom you consider a credible source? The man who saved bin Laden’s life by tipping off the UAE that we knew his location? That Richard Clarke?
Regarding Martin Armstrong, perhaps you didn’t read to the end where he explains how certain vested interests denied him habeus for 7 years. So what is that BS about habeus being stronger than ever? T
Bullshit. He “explains”, does he? And of course that settles it. What utter nonsense. Of course he had full access to habeas. He wasn’t being held by the government in secret; on the contrary, he was held on the orders of a judge! How in the world could you possibly twist that into a claim that he was denied habeas? We’ve already established that you’re insane, but do you also have no idea what habeas corpus is?
Do you realize Armstrong is in the high0-genius IQ range
No, I don’t “realize” this. I have no way of knowing whether it’s true, and nor do you. So why should I believe it? Not that it matters in any way, but still, why believe something with no basis, just because a kook says so?
Winter again: the CIA funding the opposition is SOP. Every communist cell ever founded on USA soil was funded and run by some three letter organization.
Bullshit. You made that up.
Anyhow, OBL once fought for the USA.
You lie. OBL never fought for the USA, was never funded by the USA, and there is no evidence suggesting that he ever had any connection with any part of the US government. For a time he and the USA were both fighting a common enemy; that is all.
It’s not that “amazing”, it’s actually par for the course for planes involved in accidents
Is it really? That would itself be amazing, if true; but I’ve never heard nearly as many such stories about any other incident as I’ve heard about this one, and as I said I personally know two separate people who survived in this way.
It’s either spooky, a statistical mirage, or a statistical fluke.
My guess is that it’s a statistical fluke, but how does that make it less amazing?
@Winter: Thanks for the link to the Laws of Stupidity, the page was really funny, but the author goes wrong where he doesn’t recognize the BASIC LAW, which is:
“People tend to be very smart and very stupid at the same time.”
I call this Ponella’s Law, after the engineer that first expressed it to me. It’s true. You should remember it when dealing with people that express strong, but stupid views, based on erroneous ‘facts’. Just because the porch light is on, it doesn’t follow that anybody is home.
Milhouse Says:
> as I said I personally know two separate people who survived in this way.
Just out of curiosity what is the radius of the social circle that includes these people? And how many other people do you know that are at or inside that radius?
(Oh, and have you ever met Kevin Bacon, and when is your birthday? :-)
“beyond a reasonable doubt”
That means statistically significant.
How can you with any sincerity accuse me of pushing for 100% certainty, wherein in the recent few blogs, I stated numerous times that 100% coverage of any phenomena is impossible, due to entropy. Where I have explained that I first published my theory in 2008, that entropy is the fundamental force, and no one believed me. Yet in late 2009, Erik Velinde proved the same theory, by deriving Newton’s law of gravity, F=ma, from the dimensionLESS entropic force, and scientists around the world are embracing the amazing fundamental theory that addresses the inability to reconcile Einstein’s Relativity with quantum mechanics, and some have remarked, “why didn’t we think of that, it is so obvious”.
Now once again, no one here believed my assertions higher on this page, until I provided shocking details, which have shut them up, except a remaining few who are too stupid or lazy to read enough to realize how foolish they are, or Milhouse’s case I guess too stubborn or senile to recognize when the facts have him cornered.
Refusing to settle for less
Precisely what “innocent until proven guilty” entails.
Otherwise you have tyranny, which I understand is a concept many people subconsciously subscribe too. That they do so is explained by their desire that man can control his future, insurance, fix-interest rate return on bonds, etc.. Which I already explained in the prior recent blogs, is an entropic dead-end. Oh but I never expect you to be smart enough to assimilate such deeper interrelationships and fundamental theory of universal forces of nature.
In history? Never heard about such a thing
Stratification in ice cores statistically confirming certain relative epochal events. DNA statistics confirming certain migratory patterns. Etc..
That would include every link you posted here on that
I don’t have the burden of statistical significance yet, because I am not forming any conclusions yet. I only need to show probable doubt of the statistically inconclusive official mass delusion.
Nevertheless, my source Richard Clarke is an insider who was the top Counter-Terrorism official during 9/11, reporting directly to the President. And now the CIA has threatened to illegally charge the journalists who have figured out the names of the two female CIA agents who Clarke implicates in his assertions, and there is plenty of corroborating evidence that these two women did indeed block the information from reaching the Clarke and FBI. I can’t spoon feed every detail to you, you can read (including the sub-links).
@Milhouse: I will refute your ignorance of Armstrong next.
@LS
“People tend to be very smart and very stupid at the same time.”
This is implicitly recognized under the law that all groups of people, smart or not, have the same proportion of stupid members.
@Bob
“Winter: Is the EU any different? Everyone is terrified that multiple large banks will fail if the Greek government defaults. What else is new?”
My impression is that the bankers are further away from the real power on the continental EU. It is more like the USA in the UK and Ireland. But in those countries a larger fraction of the GDP are generated in the banking sector (the city). But it could be that the difference is illusory. Our governments are very afraid about banks failing. That was the whole point of saving Greece: Saving the banks that had lend to Greece (and AIG that wrote the insurance). Now that the banks are more or less safe, Greece will be let go if they do not make some real effort.
@Milhouse
I still think you are uninformed and clueless (or trying to game us). Hiding behind rudeness and word games does not change that.
Who, John Yoo? The man who tried to gerrymander the definition of “torture” to exclude the actions of ShrubCo? HAHAHAHA. It’s amazing the lengths Republicans will go to to excoriate Bill “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” Clinton for his dishonesty and goalpost-moving over a slatternly woman he slept with, and yet give a free pass to Shrub and his cohorts for using the same tactics to literally get away with mass murder. The law is clear: under the War Crimes Act of 1996, you violate the Geneva Conventions, you get a life sentence at least.
Oh, you’ll find no shortage of complaints about the prison industrial complex from the sort of people who object to torture But prison rape is usually committed by other prisoners. For sure these people deserve to be locked away in solitary for the rest of their lives, or worse. The wardens have some culpability in not maintaining order in the prisons, but they are not the primary perps here (in most cases).
Our nation’s leaders, who are supposed to be upholding freedom and human rights — the very ideals of this country — authorizing and ordering the torture of captured suspected terrorists (civilians at that!) in violation of the Geneva Conventions, is an entirely different issue.
Correction: change “corroborating evidence” to “corroborating hearsay or evidence”, because it isn’t released yet, only sketched out.
@Shelby: Precisely what “innocent until proven guilty” entails.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt”. The rest of it matters. Not “beyond ANY doubt”, based on the selective evidentiary demands of someone with an agenda.
>Otherwise you have tyranny, which I understand is a concept many people subconsciously subscribe too. That they do so is explained
>by their desire that man can control his future, insurance, fix-interest rate return on bonds, etc.. Which I already explained in the
>prior recent blogs, is an entropic dead-end. Oh but I never expect you to be smart enough to assimilate such deeper
>interrelationships and fundamental theory of universal forces of nature.
OK you’re not just strange with poor communications skills, and inconsistent standards of evidence. You’re insane.
Just out of curiosity what is the radius of the social circle that includes these people? And how many other people do you know that are at or inside that radius?
One of them is the husband of my first cousin once removed, the other is my second cousin. They’re both in my extended family, which includes perhaps as many as 1000 people. Or the circle could be defined as the London branch of my family (though one of the two no longer lives there), which at the time numbered about 30-40.
Careful, Greg. You’re talking to Shelby Moore! The only man on the planet who ever considered that functional programming languages might require a separation of interface and implementation.
do not really think a high IQ protects against stupidity
Agreed. My point is that before you can form a conclusion on these individuals, you need to spend a few hours reading a lot of their writings, because there is a lot of depth of details that won’t be gleaned if you want an elevator summary as you and Milhouse tried to initially do by only focusing on Armstrong’s theory of cycles (which btw, he was paid $10,000 per hour and was fully booked around the world, because his computer model was able to sniff out capital flows that presaged market moves).
Armstrong’s crime was that he was too successful at helping clients avoid the front-running gyrations in the markets that the CLUB create and profit on. The final straw was apparently when he caused George Soros et al to lose most of the money he had made breaking the bank of England, by foiling the CLUB’s plot to devalue the Yen right at the time the Japanese corps do their quarterly forex transactions. He taught them how to hedge these. The CLUB had him confined on a bogus contempt of court charge for 7 years, with numerous judicial procedural unconstitutionalities, etc. He eventually prevailed to the point he is now on house arrest, even though he should be free already, due to the plea bargain he was coerced into making with the Feds. But they still have him tied up in procedural delays, that continue to deny him habeus after nearly 8 years.
The dude was advising Margaret Thatcher, central banks, and other very significant institutions. He was requested by numerous govts to run models, e.g. the USA’s DOE asked him to run a model explaining his prediction of $100 oil by 2007, when oil was at $10 in 1990s and everybody thought that prediction was crazy. He has numerous other successful predictions. Read the document I linked for all the details.
He is highly respected, and many wealthy have come to his aid, which is probably the only reason he is alive to tell this story. At one point that had him in solitary confinement and had beat him up so he was going blind. Some congressmen rushed to his aide. He now has 500,000 readers, and it will be a million before end of 2012. His readership may be growing faster than smartphones. He serves no political or religious movement.
He is a student of history and he can recite details from Roman empire forward in the minute details without consulting a reference text.
@Milhouse: Everybody who has ever heard of him (which is damn few). He is a kook.
Dementia.
I don’t care if his PI cycles are worthy since that is not germane to the total body of information on him that applies here (even though institutions around the world pay him to run models), I will note that PI is in the derivation of F=ma from the fundamental dimensionless entropic force of nature.
@Jeff Read: disprove the incredible story of a single guy on Coast to Coast who is just dang sure that F-15s should have been scrambled
I never said anything about talk show radio.
Did you not listen to the link of the recording I provided? The pilot of the squadron said in real-time that they were out of over the Atlantic, then when asked why, he said the higher commander had scrambled them in that direction. They were then instructed to turn around and break as many windows as necessary to get back to the Pentagon at supersonic speed.
my source Richard Clarke is an insider who was the top Counter-Terrorism official during 9/11, reporting directly to the President.
Rubbish. He was out of the loop. He had no idea about the plan to take down the Taliban, that had been approved on 10-Sep-2001.
Nevertheless, my source Richard Clarke is an insider who was the top Counter-Terrorism official during 9/11, reporting directly to the President.
Typical of your misrepresentations, Shelby, Clarke was not “the top Counter-Terrorism official” on 9/11/01. And from early 2001, he reported to Stephen Hadley and Condi Rice of the NSC. Something he complained of in his memoirs “Against All Enemies” if you bothered to read it. Because Clarke spends the entire memoir trying to puff himself up and pretend that if he hadn’t been ignored, he’d have saved us all. Which is of course nonsense because he didn’t actually know anything about 9/11 either.
For that matter, You’ve never actually read the 9/11 Commission report have you?
@Jessica Boxer: Feel free to call me immoral if you like.
It is not an issue of morality. As demonstrated by the recent revelations alleging two women in the CIA were able to stop information from reaching Counter-Terrorism chief Clarke, the so called oversight can fail, and it can be you one day on the waterboard. Armstrong’s case is another example. But it is okay, I know this is what societies subconsciously tolerate. We will never stop humans from doing heinous acts of injustice.
My only hope of ending this phenomenon, is my open source technology work which I have already explained in the prior blogs. I want a technical solution, because as evident by comments here, it is impossible to convince people with logic. People only ultimately do (on the statistical aggregate) what the entropy forces them to do. Yeah I realize this comment will fly right over the head of most readers, so be it. My IQ is simply too high for them for ever keep up. It is lonely being 1 in 10,000+.
nice we finally agree on something
Ethically I agree. Entropically speaking, this is natural apparently. Hope we can change it with technology, bbecause I don’t expect that to change on logic and widespread IQ.
@SPQR: Clarke was not “the top Counter-Terrorism official”
Thanks for correcting me about the word “top”. I don’t think it removes from my point about he meeting the minimum credibility to source as a reasonable doubt to the official story, which is statistically inconclusive anyway.
from early 2001, he reported to Stephen Hadley and Condi Rice of the NSC
And I wonder why that change was made? Was he a little bit too dangerous?
@Milhouse: Richard Clarke?! He’s whom you consider a credible source? The man who saved bin Laden’s life
BS. He was ordered to do that. That was before 2001, and there were overriding concerns with some in the intelligence community. Can you offer any logic other than repetitive character assassination.
[Armstrong] had full access to habeas. wasn’t … in secret; … he was held on the orders of a judge!
And the judge was violating due process, and there massive details, but for example, he was never told what he was held on contempt for. Then the case was vacated, etc… Go read and educated your ignorant self. You are not paying me to continually to this work for you.
That is effectively the same as no habeas, even if you can make some insane technical argument. As I wrote to you before, you change the word imprisonment to internment for the WW2 case, then insanely claim that habeas was not violated.
@Jeff Read: only man on the planet who ever considered that
As I predicted, you will stoop to attacking me, when you can no longer defeat the logic. So predictable you are.
I never said that even at my website. What I said (and it is a fact), that none of the languages I analyzed have this separation and I gave a technical explanation of the distinction I am referring to. And thus I assume you still don’t know what this key distinction is, because it isn’t embodied in that general statement of conflation.
@Nigel: That the bad guys could actually coordinate such an attack was not anticipated.
Apparently you not read the allegations of Richard Clark and the investigative journalism research which claims to have the name of the two women inside the CIA who are responsible. These journalists contacted the CIA as standard journalism ethics require, and now they have been threatened that if they release those names (which were obtained from public information, doing clever Google searches), that they will be charged with a law that is only supposed to apply to government employees. This is apparently an unconstitutional attempt by the CIA to block the landslide of revelations that is coming.
I say within a couple of years at most, no of you official story defenders will have a leg to stand on. This is why Clarke is getting more bold now, because he realizes the journalists have the necessary data to make the allegations stick. Once those names go out, there will be a massive investigative domino effect.
As I said, checkmate to fools who believe in any fairy tale told without science.
And I don’t have any more time to debate the people here.
I really need to end this. So if I don’t reply, it doesn’t mean I can’t refute you. If means, you are not paying me enough.
I have made my point already. Anyone reader who is going to get it, can get it from what I have provided.
Thanks to everyone and most especially to this blog owner, for tolerating me to share my side.
I feel I have done all the good work I can do here for now. It is getting repetitive and I really have a greater work to do.
My best to everyone here, including Milhouse.
Greg of course I don’t agree with your characterization, but I don’t have time to explain it to you. Think what you want.
>Careful, Greg. You’re talking to Shelby Moore! The only man on the planet who ever considered that functional programming
>languages might require a separation of interface and implementation.
Oh, every bright person at some point comes up with some insight that they derived independently, even though someone else happened to have come up with it first. Just means you’re smart, but should probably read more.
But when someone starts claiming, at length and in a semi-public forum, that he is the only person to grasp the deeper structure of reality and that no one else has the intelligence to even follow his insights… that’s worrisome. Clinical, even.
To try to get back on topic and not spend time bashing anyone- for fun I reread the militia duty post. And then I came across this: http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/foghorn/quick-summary-of-the-proposed-national-right-to-carry-act-h-r-822/ Personally I like the idea but dislike the “you can do use the Commerce Clause to justify *anything*” concept it incorporates.
I have a friend (now an ex-friend; we got a friendvorce on the basis that she’s a fucking nut) who believed all manner of 9/11 conspiracy stuff. She put up a blog post about it. There was no plane that struck the pentagon. It was a missile. How do we know? The hole was too small. (Have you ever seen the video where the Navy rammed an F-4 Phantom (via catapult, folks, no one was in the plane) into a reinforced wall? The plane turns to fucking DUST. That side of the pentagon was in the process of being reinforced in the unlikely event that someone might try to, oh, RAM A PLANE INTO IT.) There was no debris. (Leaving aside the easily googlable images of people standing next to huge mangled jet engines found on the grass — again, FUCKING DUST.) On and on and on. Someone she was close to left a comment: “I saw the plane fly overhead in Washington, D.C.” And proceeded to describe in detail the shadow it left on the ground.
WHAM. The entire blog post was taken the fuck down. It was the most hilarious thing I’ve ever seen in my life. No apology, no “gee, I was wrong, how did I get suckered into that?” follow up post. Just ERASE ALL TRACE OF ITS EXISTENCE. Right down the memory hole. Because this person can’t emotionally afford to be perceived as wrong.
I should have filed for a friendvorce right then. That’s like the number one telltale sign of a kook. I truly, genuinely fear for this person’s kids.
Thing about 9/11 conspiracies is that they’re pretty tempting to anyone who questions the status quo. Yeah, those buildings look like they came down a bit too controlled. The problem is, their freaking stories don’t add up. In order for the demolitions to be controlled, an entire infrastructure of explosives, cabling and other shit needs to be installed days or weeks in advance, walls need to be knocked out so you can mount the explosives right on the support columns, etc., and that won’t go unnoticed in a functional office building with tens of thousands of people walking around. Jet airliners are either fragile enough to not have penetrated the WTC towers xor robust enough to punch a cartoony silhouette into the REINFORCED side of the Pentagon.. Truthers try to have it both ways. Plus you need to be able to pay off or threaten hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of eyewitnesses in order to make the grand conspiracy work. So yeah, the far-fetched notion that 19 Arab hijackers successfully coordinated and pulled off the attacks right under the nose of the world’s greatest superpower is the least plausible explanation for the WTC attacks — except for all the others. Conspiracies work if you’re only doing Guy Fawkes shit like burning the Reichstag. But for the feds to muster the massive amount of coverup and special effects necessary to achieve something with as much drama and spectacle as airliners full of people crashing into the WTC (and believe you me, the terrists were going for drama and spectacle here) — well, the faked-moon-landing theory is more credible.
Oh, and as for 7 WTC and the BBC, conspiracy theorists overlook one thing: the reporters and the editors at the BBC are Brits. As in not New Yorkers, don’t know the area intimately. I lived right near New York and stood in the shadow of the WTC towers several times. I wouldn’t have recognized 7 WTC if I passed right by it. Could you expect a reporter from London to do the same, unless they worked at or near the WTC complex and were intimately familiar with the area? That would be like asking me to identify a particular building in the City of London. At the time the story broke, 7 WTC was on fire and had a huge gash in it. Rescue workers knew it was going to come down. The area was closed off. Primary sources were probably unavailable for comment for fact-checking purpose, since — herp, derp — they were rescuing people and putting out fires and shit. It’s not like they could tap someone on the shoulder and say “Excuse me, I’d like to get to 7 WTC just to make sure it’s still standing; could you point to where it is?” What the BBC knew they got via the game of telephone. The reporter opens by saying “details are very, very sketchy” and muddles on the best way she knows how with the info she has available. Neither she nor her producer could reasonably be expected to identify 7 WTC on sight.
I used to believe in this garbage too. I think it was Bill Whittle’s site that linked to the video of the F-4 Phantom turning into powder when it struck the reinforced wall and that, for me, was the big penny drop. I disagree with Mr. Whittle politically and ideologically, but he has earned my respect on these and other grounds.
Shelby, you reek of one of those people with great emotional investment in being perceived as being right and smarter than everyone else. You want to be taken seriously, you better prove yourself otherwise. Hard, statistically significant data, please, not hearsay. You can start by coming up with an alternative hypothesis to the default one for the WTC attacks. You say you’re not saying a’s a conspiracy, but what the fuck do you think it is? Gremlins? And why do you think it is that instead of nineteen fanatics turning planes into weapons? Interviews on kook web sites don’t count as data. Not when you’re demanding classified protocol documents and structural-steel temperature measurements from your opponents.
Doubt you’ll deliver, though. Didn’t Eric ban you once? He should’ve; you’re wasting everyone’s time and Eric’s bandwidth and disk capacity with your little rhetorical tar-baby. (And I mean that term in its non-racist sense.)
Shelby, I found your previous arguments intriguing, but don’t brag about not watching TV.
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=717
Hey Shelb, ever consider that when people stop trying to reason with you it may not be because they’ve been silenced by your awesomeness?
What am I saying, of course you haven’t.
Clarke ain’t got a leg to stand on. He himself says he has no evidence to support his accusations.
Oh wait, that’s right, science and HARD, STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE are only requirements for people who disagree with you.
You said that in a comment on this blog. I could provide hard data if you like. Anyway, your proposed grammar and ramblings about a language without an implementation is about as far removed from something that computer scientists will take seriously as Imari Stevenson’s notebook scribblings are from an actual working video game. Of course, if they don’t take you seriously, I guess that means they’re just fools who don’t understand the separation of interface from implementation, for not respecting the genius of its proposed interface in the complete absence of an implementation. “Consensus and working code” is how shit gets done in CS. Where’s your working code?
Oh wait. Forgot who I was talking to. Again.
Do you wish to subscribe to his newsletter?
# Jeff Read Says:
> The law is clear:
So, if the law is clear, why is nobody in jail? Because Eric Holder is a tool of the vast right wing conspiracy perhaps?
Like I say, I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law to know it frequently doesn’t make sense, and is often bordering on immoral.
> But prison rape is usually committed by other prisoners.
This is a dreadful thing to say. Whenever you take away people’s right to provide and protect themselves, whether they be children, the mentally handicapped or inmates in a prison, you take on the obligation to provide and protect them yourself. Of course we all understand that mistakes happen, people drop the ball occasionally and these incidents should be dealt with appropriately.
However, when the problem is systematic, to the point that by some counts 25% of male inmates in our prisons are raped and abused systematically and daily, then it is no longer a mistake. It is the grossest dereliction of duty, and arguably an accessory crime in itself.
America, land of the free, my government, is this very day proximately, perhaps directly responsible for the constant, ongoing brutalization of hundreds of thousands of men, mostly petty criminals. Yet the cacophony is over placing three of the worst men in the world in extremely uncomfortable positions, to derive information to save thousands of lives. If that does not illustrate the screwed up priorities of the Huffington Post crowd, I don’t know what does.
> Our nation’s leaders, who are supposed to be upholding freedom and human rights
There is a saying, let 9 guilty men go free lest one innocent be punished. But where does that stop Jeff? Should we let 99 guilty free to save one innocent? 9,999 to save one innocent? We can guarantee that no innocent is ever punished by shutting down the criminal justice system. However, the simply fact is that there are two sides to the coin. Failure to punish the guilty also has a cost to the innocent too. There is little doubt in my mind that making three very bad men extremely uncomfortable saved the lives of hundreds or thousands of decent, innocent people. Dead people don’t have any rights.
@Jess: thanks for fine-tuning my statement, actually I do watch non-MSM video on the internet.
@Jeff Read: agreed, talk is worse than useless. Just now I replaced dozens of screens of explanation at the Copute site with a notice that nothing else will be said until it is released. I also closed my blogging forum to non-members. I will open source late, rather than early and incrementally.
Conflating your kooky friend with me, is your mistake. Maybe that is why you lost your objectivity here. The difference is I never claimed that any wild theories were true. I simply said that I remain ethically bound to not make conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt, which is our legal code of ethics in the USA. And I am open to information that has enough data to be reasonable path of investigation. It doesn’t mean I accept Clarke’s allegations. Armstrong has much more data, but I would need to hear more from the other side before concluding.
@Greg: even though someone else happened to have come up with it first
I never said that I was sure I was first in 2006 and 2008, but I am sure I was before Velinde because he wrote that he realized it in summer of 2009. I did not derive the F=ma equation, but I have some publicly written statements that show that was one direction I was going to try to derive it. I got off on Copute tangent. Actually the original idea came to me in 1990, but at that time I didn’t understand in terms of entropy, just visualized the universe as infinitely small orthogonal particles, and was able to explain gravity “visually” that way.
@Winter
“People tend to be very smart and very stupid at the same time.”
“This is implicitly recognized under the law that all groups of people, smart or not, have the same proportion of stupid members.”
No. You misunderstand. Not groups of people…individual people. Single individuals do smart and stupid things all the time.
Example: Albert Einstein cheated on his wife and she divorced him. The settlement stipulated that, when he got the Nobel Prize, she would get the money.
“Men! If the smartest man in the world couldn’t get away with it, what chance do you have?”
-Jay Leno
I have no idea what you are arguing about here but no, you aren’t allowed to fly supersonic over CONUS without permission. NEADS MMC provided that permission but 9/11 wasn’t a normal day. The reason they were over the Atlantic is prior to 9/11 all the techniques, tactics and procedures (TTP) were focused on external threats. Which is why all the preset air corridors were set up that way and why all the fighters deployed from the east coast all flew east (toward the ocean) before heading to their designated stations.
If you are arguing that the F-16s should have been able to get to the Pentagon from Langley on 9/11, that’s true only if you simply look at the F-16 spec sheet without looking deeper.
I’ve seen these arguments which state categorically that if X aircraft flew at 1242.12393 mph they could have gotten there “IN TIME”. Never mind that the aircraft might not have had the fuel, munitions or target information to make such an intercept. Never mind that the top speed of these aircraft are all at high altitude in clean configuration. Never mind that if you actually fly at 1242.12393 mph you don’t just break windows, you show up on station needing to tank in fairly short order rendering you useless if you actually have to conduct a search for hostile aircraft.
Sure I’ve read them. When I said nobody I meant while you might have some scenario where the bad guys can orchestrate a multi-plane hijacking to conduct a time-on-target (mostly) attack on major US landmarks but in terms of folks actually believing that any terrorist organization had the ability to pull this off with four separate teams willing to do a suicide mission? Nope.
That Clark had some intel that “something big was going to happen” I can believe. That it mattered in how we would have responded? Nope. All of the NORAD tactics were predicated on external threats to the US. All of the hijacking procedures were predicated on the belief that hijackers typically wanted to negotiate for something, not crash themselves into buildings.
Why is it hard to believe that we screwed it up? We got Pearl Harbor wrong. The Japanese completely screwed up Midway despite gaming out pretty much what happened before hand. Operation Eagle Claw (Iran hostage rescue) was a complete debacle. They made a movie called Black Hawk Down about Mogadishu. Military disasters and screwups happen.
I believe it was in response to the oklahoma city bombing. Barn doors are useful even after horses leave.
@Nigel: the recording doesn’t agree with you. It was clear they felt someone gave the wrong order. And again, you like others here make many claims, without citing sources. Bad science.
What an F16 could or could not do is irrelevant. You and others keep arguing strawmen. The admitted fact is they were scrambled in the wrong direction and it was not because breaking windows was not allowed. The controller said, “break as many windows as you have to”.
Why is it hard to believe that we screwed it up?
And I want to know who, how, and why, and let the prosecutions come where they may.
Most of this thread is an awe-inspiring demonstration of the old saw, “Never argue with an idiot, people might not be able to tell who’s which.”
@Mr. Swift: Appears you study how to best flame. Productive.
Shelby, you are not even bothering to read Nigel’s comment before posting an irrelevant “rebuttal” that isn’t.
And Clarke is not a “minimum” credible source because his book “Against All Odds” contradicts his sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in multiple ways. But more importantly, even Clarke’s puffing himself up actually establishing nothing about your argument.
Why? Because you don’t have one.
@shelby No, the problem is that they were following procedures and Nasypany lost the ball as to where they were vs where he thought they were. I don’t blame him, I’d have lost full SA long before he did. The sources are the recording and the transcripts which even if you have read or listened to apparently don’t understand the context.
They were not scrambled in the wrong direction. They were scrambled and they went according to the normal procedures which is to proceed east (90 degrees) for 60 nmi because that’s the normal egress route for Langley. That’s what the tower ordered because that was a surefire direct flight plan that would be acceptable to the FAA. You can hear Langley TRACON and quit 2-5 talking about using the normal vector (langley 90 for 60) in the recordings. Langley Tower decided it didn’t matter as long as they got in the air someone (like Giant Killer) would get them going in the right vector if they got them in the air. It’s debatable whether that’s the best call but it’s one that works. It is arguable that Giant Killer dropped the ball by not overriding this but even at Otis they flew east before heading to NY.
They hadn’t been handed off the Giant Killer yet when Nasypany was initially pissed. Giant Killer directed them North as desired at 0938 but under FAA Washington Center control. In the National Air Space (NAS) the military doesn’t fly where the they want. They are guided by the FAA because nobody wants a F-16 plowing into a 747. Despite the fact it’s a big sky and small airplanes the east coast corridor is busy as hell. Naysypany is pissed because he’s misinformed that Giant Killer dumped them in Whisky 386 at 0940, two minutes after Giant Killer has already vectored them toward BWI.
Here’s the scramble procedures:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13883539/T8-B19-Miles-Kara-Trips-Fdr-Letter-of-Agreement-Oct-1-1994-Re-Scramble-Procedures-255
Langley flushes them into a loiter for Giant Killer to coordinate with Washington Central to get them wherever they need to be for a handoff to Huntress for the intercept.
@Nigel: Sincerely that is impressive that you found that. Unfortunately, my understanding or lets say reasonable assumption is that normal movements document is overruled in a dire emergency on an attack on the homeland, per other regs that my prior source provided and by simple common sense. I don’t know where you are sourcing the other claims you made, and your command of the jargon wants to impress regardless of its veracity.
Sometimes appearance matters the most. Salute.
@Everyone: I been trying to think of how I could relate these accusations of insanity and the choice between “happiness” (i.e. appearance of normality at any cost, and no inconvenient unknowns) today and “freedom” tomorrow. Because it seems that the issue of this thread, is not any one particular factoid, but rather a fundamental one about questioning authority always at any cost. I was looking for something that focused specifically on that issue, and why science requires us to never stop questioning. I also wanted to find some way to extract myself from this social experiment gone amok– easiest if I discredit myself. I was also thinking about an economics course I took where a certain Joseph didn’t share the grain he stored for the 7 fat years, but rather how he enslaved the people in their mistake during the 7 lean years. The lesson being that no matter how good one’s intentions, one can’t save the people from themselves. We only save ourselves, or join the collective. How stupid of me to try to change the mind of the collective. But I knew that already, so why did I try and lose my own time and reputation?
I read chapter 19 of 1984, while reflecting on this issue. I never read it before. In O’Brien’s infallible logic, I have been thinking that everyone here is 100% correct and I am 100% wrong, not even 99.9% mind you, only 100% will suffice.
Do I get a “Party” membership card?
@LS
“No. You misunderstand. Not groups of people…individual people. Single individuals do smart and stupid things all the time.”
I understand. I considered that implicitely included because the author tells us he found as many stupid professors as stupid janitors.
There is a cultural stereotype (incorrect I think) that would assume it likely that janitors are not smart. However, I can vow from personal experience that professors are almost always smart (as in Higher than average IQ). And they can be just as often stupid.
So as I understand it, this was covered in the article.
That’s very ironic that terrorist group created, trained and supplied by CIA in order to perform terrorist attacks against Soviet peacekeepers in Afganistan turne against their bosses and mount terrorist attack right in the heart of Manhattan.
I wonder if it’ll make CIA instructors think twice before making another terrorist group…
@Viktor:
You answered your own question. Any way it looks, the freedoms historically joined by Americans are a threat to all totalitarian regimes anywhere.
There’s a saying that you “train as you fight and you fight as you train”. This is why our military spends a lot of time doing exercises. That is why they were preparing to do a hijack scenario that very day.
The reason that they flew east for 60 miles is because that’s how they trained. This is considered a good trait because reverting to training beats the heck out of being caught in an indecision loop and doing nothing. Is it optimal? Heck no. But a workable decision fast is generally better than a optimal decision later in a crisis.
Some folks can think/do exceptionally well during a crisis. These 5 percenters can win battles but you don’t know who they are during peacetime. Hence lots of training and TTPs to follow in a crunch. The five percenters will call audibles and short circuit procedures to great effect…good or bad.
If you get it right, you get promoted. If you get it wrong, you end up retired. Assuming you survived the experience either way.
In a crisis situation the reasonable assumptions for human behavior are that many will freeze, most will fall back to training and a few will excel.
Pardon the jargon. It’s not meant to impress any more than programming jargon. It’s just the words used in the domain and I don’t claim to be an expert.
@winter It is said that doctors are often the easiest folks to scam out of money…
“I wonder if it’ll make CIA instructors think twice before making another terrorist group…”
Yes, there are ‘waves’ of this. (Fear of blowback.) The blowback from Iran in the 70s (remember that we put the Shah in power in 1953) virtually paralyzed the CIA for years. Every time we intervene in other countries, there are bound to be some really bad consequences along with the good.
Back in the late ’50s, there was a best-selling book, “The Ugly American”. It focused on southeast Asia, and warned about how various tinhorn dictators were using fear of communism to gull us into supporting them. Now we have to watch that we don’t get suckered with fear of Islamic terrorists.
“That’s very ironic that terrorist group created, trained and supplied by CIA in order to perform terrorist attacks against Soviet peacekeepers in Afganistan turne against their bosses and mount terrorist attack right in the heart of Manhattan.
I wonder if it’ll make CIA instructors think twice before making another terrorist group…”
Well, all except that’s not what happened at all. Al Queda was not created by the CIA. Nor really was the Taliban, which arose long after the Soviets ( “peacekeepers” eh? ) were gone. And in reality, the CIA’s major error was not in creating “terrorists” but in outsourcing such to the Pakistan’s ISI. The Taliban had ties to the Pakistan ISI, not the CIA. Osama Bin Laden did travel to Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and did some fighting there, but was not directly associated with any CIA-front resistance group.
@Nigel: if I were inclined to argue against you, here is how it would proceed.
Without sources your speculation is just that. We would need the full access to all the recordings that day, in order to conclude what transpired beyond a reasonable doubt. Because those recordings exist(ed) and are withheld, thus reasonable doubt exists among a large % of the population.
Those who toe the party line to the extent of ridiculing those who simply want to remove that doubt for which evidence may still exist, have a problem explaining how a rogue cancer within the otherwise upstanding govt, would not be able to accomplish such a feat. Because as you say, the feat could be prepared for in very subtle, undetectable ways, such as making sure training was done in the direction away from planned targets.
But like any forensic issue, the truth is probably buried in some small piece of evidence, and so one can reasonably doubt why the evidence is co-opted.
Milhouse at al can ridicule any factoid and it still won’t refute the above logic. As for the rogue element hypothesis, Clarke says the fact is that 50 people in the CIA knew that the hijackers were already in the USA and they knew they were Al Qaeda, yet this information did not reach his nor the FBI desk, as every other significant threat information did automatically. What is the Occam’s Razor explanation for that? There are even sources who say they wanted to tell the FBI and were ordered not to, by these 2 women in the CIA that secrecykills allegedly will name.
Any way this thread was not an entire loss for me, because I read 1984 finally, and I was shocked to see that he had subliminal theme throughout that book, which had taken extensively from a theological book. Orwell’s real message apparently was not the one most readers think it is. I did not google yet to see if anyone else had noticed this, probably so.
And this thread taught me that we do a disservice to humanity when we repeat the same point more than three times. Our role is to facilitate the path for those who are destined to be the metaphorical grain holders, not the slaves who will give themselves for our grain. I just joined the Illuminati. (and if you believe that, I have a bridge for sale too)
Without sources your speculation is just that. We would need the full access to all the recordings that day, in order to conclude what transpired beyond a reasonable doubt. Because those recordings exist(ed) and are withheld, thus reasonable doubt exists among a large % of the population.
That there might be some dispute about the exact details of how certain things happened is irrelevant to the big question of who committed the terrorist acts. Attempting to conflate the two is dishonest.
Milhouse at al can ridicule any factoid and it still won’t refute the above logic. As for the rogue element hypothesis, Clarke says the fact is that 50 people in the CIA knew that the hijackers were already in the USA and they knew they were Al Qaeda, yet this information did not reach his nor the FBI desk, as every other significant threat information did automatically. What is the Occam’s Razor explanation for that? There are even sources who say they wanted to tell the FBI and were ordered not to, by these 2 women in the CIA that secrecykills allegedly will name.
The existence of procedural barriers between sharing intelligence among the CIA and the FBI was discussed in great detail at the time. Its significance was downplayed in the 9/11 Commission report in part because of the involvement of Jamie Gorelick as a DOJ official in the decision and her appearance on the 9/11 Commission. However, this does not advance any of your vague insinuations at all.
It might be ironic if it were true. But it’s a vicious lie.
And “Soviet peacekeepers“?! WTF is that? Do you also talk about the German peacekeepers in the rest of Europe in 1939-45?
No, “we” didn’t. The Iranian people restored the Shah to his place as the constitutional monarch, overthrowing the junta that had illegally overthrown him a few months earlier. The CIA’s only role, as far as I know, was in funding the Shah’s propaganda campaign to win the people over; at the time of the coup it was popular, but it lost popularity fast. Part of that was the public seeing the results of the new communist-supporting regime’s policies; it stole BP’s property, so the UK blockaded its ports. But there was an orchestrated, CIA-funded, campaign to bring this message home to people, to blame the economic hardship on the coup leaders rather than on the British, and to create a groundswell of opinion for restoring the constitutional government.
And in 1975 we learned the hard way that the book was wrong, and the Communist threat was very real.
Wow, google reports that no one has realized that 1984 contained a positive, uplifting subliminal theme. Everyone seems to be focused on the overt theme of totalitarianism.
Attempting to conflate the two is dishonest
In the movie for 1984 nearly everything was black (dark) or white (pale) for the slaves.
it’s a vicious lie
Thought criminals must die!
The Occam’s Razor explanation for that is clear: Clarke is lying. I can’t believe you really asked that question.
Huh? Is that just a random response from the Magic Eight Ball?
Clarke is lying
2 + 2 = 5.
You asked for the Ockham’s Razor explanation; that’s very clearly it. Surely even you can’t deny that.
that’s very clearly it
Since it is so in your mind, then that makes it so. And if we can make it so in other party member’s minds, then it is reality. We can even make 2 + 2 = 5 true, if we can make it true in the minds of the party members.
Occam’s razor? The CIA is incompetent.
That has the added bonus of fitting a lot of other data.
Wrt the former Shah of Iran. You might want to ask some Iranian’s about how they see their national history and the roles of BP and the CIA. And what was legal.
And any one who does not think so, must die! Because they are dishonest! 2 + 2 has always been 5. They are criminals for thinking otherwise.
Occam’s razor? The CIA is incompetent
Illogical. Then how did they keep an alleged 50 people quiet. Milhouse is correct, the only other theory that works is that Clarke is a criminal.
Do you even know what Ockham’s Razor is? Or is it just a term you use at random, like “habeas corpus” (or, as you seem to spell it, “habeus”)? If you know what the Razor is, just apply it to my answer and to any other, and the result is clear. The Razor selects my answer by a huge margin over any other. So why do you reject it? You’re the one that brought up the Razor in the first place, after all.
Lying is not a crime.
What does their view have to do with what actually happened?
# Shelby Says:
> Then how did they keep an alleged 50 people quiet.
Mind control, obviously. I read a web site that said they have developed a special mind control ray that they stole from a crashed alien space ship. It emits a special sub atomic particle called a synapsinite, by varying the inter neural gap potential through a six dimensional phlogiston wave at a frequency of 2.71828183 mega cycles per second.
Of course, the documents are secret, and the decryption key is written on the back of Barak Obama’s REAL birth certificate, which is stored in a secret vault under the Vatican’s archives.
But trust me, they exist. They discussed it all at the last Trilateral commission meeting. I have a friend who’s cousin’s wife was a waitress at the meeting, and she told me the whole story.
> Milhouse is correct, the only other theory that works is that Clarke is a criminal.
Or perhaps Clarke is actually a robot…
What does their view have to do with what actually happened?
Nohing at all, as it is widely known that Iranians are incapable of forming an informed opinion on the political and economical developments in their country, and even if they were capable of such, said opinion would be subordinate to the interests if the USA, the goals of any given CIA mission, and the opinion of a random blog commenter ?
why do you reject it?
I didn’t reject it. I said it is 100% correct. The only other possibility is that Clarke is not a liar.
Lying is not a crime.
It is under oath. Also Clarke stated that the 50 CIA insiders who knew, was a “fact”, so I assume he would also say that is a fact under oath. For him to say something is a fact and then be unwilling to say so under oath, would mean he is not credible.
Mind control, obviously
Yes Clarke must be committing treason to state as a “fact” that 50 people within the CIA knew.
Also the journalists at secrecykills must also be liars, or their “sources” must be liars, because they report that has been corroborated.
So there we have it. Either Clarke is a liar about allegedly corroborated “facts”, or he is not. Which is it?
I need to listen again to the Clarke interview. I think he said the “50” was a known fact from the 9/11 investigation.
*****So there we have it. Either Clarke is a liar about allegedly corroborated “facts”, or he is not. Which is it?*****
What if some parts are lies, some parts are truths, and some parts are shades of the truth? I’m not getting in on this exchange neyond this comment (I hope), but I think I’m reading an awful lot of black/white/either/or’s in some of this. Fact is, much of the world we live in is not pure “this-or-that”.”
Also, help me understand something – I seem to have lost sight of it now – what is actually being discussed? Is it whether 9/11 was a US gov’t conspiracy or what?
Regarding scientific reasoning – science is so often hypothesis, and detective work. You can’t cite a source for every thing believed or deduced under the sun. Take evolution. Evolution we accept because all evidence points in that direction. No one has many-millions-year-old filming of the morphing, rising, and falling of species and geology. It’s unsourceable in absolute, concrete, irrefutable by sourcable documentation/etc. Now, if you were a creationist…(slams the lid down on that box before it erupts into nuttery and vitriol).
*****with your little rhetorical tar-baby. (And I mean that term in its non-racist sense.)*****
Nope, sorry Jeff – you’re busted. You said tar-baby. Off to the Death Camp of Tolerance for you. Followed by a ride on Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boatride. Followed by Apologies to Jesse Jackson.
Sorry…couldn’t resist…
six dimensional phlogiston wave at a frequency of 2.71828183 mega cycles per second
Agreed, we must certainly conclude by Occam’s Razor that Martin Armstrong and his 3.1459 cycle theory of economics, and the elaborately documented hoax of him being paid $10,000 per hour by Japanese corporations to help hedge in battle against the NY “CLUB” of banksters, with clippings of evidence from MSM (NY Times, Equity Magazine, etc) publications about him, must be a fantastic mind control experiment achieved against the 500,000 who signed up to receive his newsletter (and I am not one of them so that 500,000 is not total readership).
And Habeas corpus does not technically mean the body has to be produced with due process, but rather only means timely judgments, even and the judgments don’t have to contain any charges, and the bail can be changed from $1.3 million to $10 million when someone offers to put up the $1.3 million, and then eliminated entirely when someone offers to put up the $10 million. Anyone who thinks otherwise is random, dishonest, insane, automatically has delusions about Illuminati, UFOs, and should be referred to the blogorrhea section of the thought police.
And has he said this under oath? No, he has not.
You assume?! Of course you do. Your entire case from the beginning has been comprehensively based on nothing but assumptions; one can’t go a paragraph in your stuff or your sources without coming across an unsupported assumption which is then immediately taken as incontrovertible truth from which the most far-reaching conclusions may be derived. And yet you demand of everyone else that they produce “hard data” which is often unobtainable, even to support what is common knowledge. You are not only insane and a liar, but also a hypocrite.
And your problem with this is?
The writ of habeas corpus means that a court can demand that the government produce a prisoner it is holding, and explain why it is holding him, and convince the judge that it has a good reason to do so. That is all it means. The USA citizens of Japanese descent who were interned (not imprisoned) were granted habeas; in fact they had so much access to the judiciary that they took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. How does that translate into their not having habeas. And of course it is a contradiction in terms to claim that a person who is being held by the government at a judge’s order is being denied habeas.
Which means that 50 CIA agents are criminals. Which requires fewer assumptions? That one person of already-low credibility has made up a story, or that 50 people in a trusted position each willingly participated in a conspiracy to…do what, exactly?
What makes them “journalists”? And how many are they, and of what proven sanity, that the possibility of them requires fewer assumptions than the alternative?
Well, I’d say the opposite really. That domino fell and then…no more really toppled over. There are some folks with the belief that the Vietnamese are now our likeliest useful future ally in the region.
I think not so much but I do agree they probably are the only country in the region without some kind of chip on their shoulder about the US and actually willing to work with us.
You assume?!…And your problem with this is?
Occam’s Razor says I must assume the most likely and obvious.
but you said “100% coverage” isn’t possible in nature due to entropy, so how can you say he is “100% correct”
Shame on you, don’t you know it is dishonest to insinuate that, when the overall conclusion is the only one that can make any sense any way.
I’m reading an awful lot of black/white/either/or’s in some of this.
So what does that teach you?
Is it whether 9/11 was a US gov’t conspiracy
The entire govt? Every single person in the govt? Or a few bad apples?
You can’t cite a source for every thing believed or deduced under the sun
Science always cites its sources of evidence or prior art. It is an absolute requirement of peer review. Everything else is opinion.
I couldn’t either. Every time I say “tar baby” I think back to that part of Clerks 2 where Randal attempts to reclaim the term “porch monkey”.
Which means that 50 CIA agents are criminals. Which requires fewer assumptions?
Or it means they were given an order, and the criminals are the Tenet, as Clarke hypothesizes. Perhaps include Blee and the other bloke.
My best friend and track buddy from high school was a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force, who was a top finisher triathlete even up to 2006. My father who was a west coast division head attorney for Exxon helped him get the letter from a senator to get the invite to the USAF academy. Blaine and I argued about 9/11, he shut off communication with me because of it, and he died of brain cancer in 2008. He told me that many high ranking people in USAF disagreed with many things, but they always followed orders, unless it violated their oath and even then it had to be a clear violation of oath, not a hunch.
Also Clarke explains the FBI was finally informed on Aug. 21 and then a principals meeting on Sept. 4, so perhaps some of those “50” who were aware where trying to pressure from behinds the scenes and were satisfied that they had done their part. In that Sept 4 meeting, Clarke alleges that Tenet et all, did make the case for stepping up threat level and action regarding Al Qaida, but Clarke claims they didn’t raise the issue of the hijackers known to be inside the USA already.
one person of already-low credibility
I don’t agree. You say he did certain things to lower his credibility and I heard him say he did that because he was following orders, which raises his credibility in my eyes. I respect a man who respects his commander and uses a lot of caution before disobeying an order, because I was taught by my best friend that is a necessary ingredient for the military to function well.
What makes them “journalists”? And how many are they, and of what proven sanity
Show me your papers! I incorrectly thought that this was in Amerika, and not Europe where most of your relatives are.
More insanity. How on earth would you reach that conclusion? Psychically? If so, I must inform you that your powers aren’t working.
When did he start making this claim? Because it contradicts his previous version of events (which is not unusual for him, so I’m not disbelieving you). His previous version was that he had clearance for the phone call, not orders to make it. (Or do you not know the difference between the two?) That claim was contradicted by the two people he claimed gave him the clearance. But who is he claiming gave him the order?
of course it is a contradiction in terms to claim that a person who is being held by the government at a judge’s order is being denied habeas
Read below and weep.
That is all it means.
And this was violated in Armstrong’s case, as I have told you to read the linked document numerous times. Here follows some of the relevant portion.
How on earth would you reach that conclusion?
Rereading what you wrote, I am mistaken to say it was most of your relatives, only a branch of them in the past. Apology.
When did he start making this claim?
Wikipedia says in context of the Bin Laden criticism, which is cited from transcript of the 9/11 Commission hearings.
Stop right there. If he saw a judge, then how has he not had habeas? The moment you mention “judge” your entire case goes away.
Assuming for the moment that this account is true, which we have no reason to do, how do you know it was a pretense? Are you talking about constitutional habeas or statutory? Statutory habeas is not a right but a privilege granted by Congress, and in the ’90s Congress imposed strict limits on it, including hoops that must be jumped through in the right order before it can be invoked. This story (if true) sounds like that. So how do you know this procedure was not required by the statute?
Stop right there. This is obvious bullshit that even a crazy person like you should have caught. Of course Congress can suspend Habeas. The power to suspend it, “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”, is right there in the constitution. How could the Supreme Court possibly have contradicted that? The only controversy in the Civil War was whether the President could suspend it without Congress’s approval; the fact is that he did, and he got away with it.
No, it didn’t. Of course its limits only apply to statutory habeas, not to constitutional habeas, which Congress can’t ordinarily limit.
Armstrong was not imprisoned by the government on its own initiative; the government was only holding him on the order of a judge. So how does the quoted sentence make any sense at all?
And nobody was challenging either the fact that he was being held, or how long he had been there.
You also missed the fact that 30-40 people is not even remotely close to “most” of my family, of whose size I also gave a (very) rough estimate in the very same comment.
WTF has that got to do with the topic? You claimed he says he was ordered to make the phone call that tipped off the UAE that we knew where bin Laden was. When did he start making this claim?
Keep one thing in mind. I already know that Armstrong is a kook, merely from the fact that he believes he has discovered a business cycle that is precisely 1000 times pi days, and is governed by the laws of physics. That is enough to render him a kook, and to discount everything else the man has to say. So his unsupported claims about the circumstances of his imprisonment are worthless. The fact is that he was held for contempt of court, which he could have cured at any time by producing the stolen assets. He claimed he didn’t have them, but the judge didn’t believe him; why should we?
@Milhouse: USA citizens of Japanese descent who were interned (not imprisoned) were granted habeas; in fact they had so much access to the judiciary that they took their case all the way to the Supreme Court
A corrupt executive order and a corrupt judicial ruling that denies the civil rights intended to citizens does not make it a non-violation, due some narrow compartmentalization of terms. The intent of the founding fathers was not to intern citizens and deny them rights. Habeas corpus is integral with due process, it can’t be separated out no more than white on rice. That is why I said, you are not my elder. How can you claim to be an American and defend the compartmentalization of our rights as citizens?
My father (a high placed attorney) once told me when I was negotiating a $1.2 million contract license of my CoolPage to Homepage.com in the dot.com era, that all contracts have to be fair, otherwise they are not valid. I was worried about parts of the contract being under-specified if taken out of context, i.e. compartmentalized.
Corrected civil rights link.
Shelby, your Armstrong link is horse manure. Besides the points that Milhouse made, it misrepresents Boumediene decision. More amusingly, who was it that was denying the claim that habeus is stronger today than ever before? And here you have a link that falsely claims that Boumediene decision was being violated … or is the point I’m making too subtle for you? After all, it is obvious that you don’t understand the function of the writ of habeus corpus.
My father (a high placed attorney) once told me when I was negotiating a $1.2 million contract license of my CoolPage to Homepage.com in the dot.com era, that all contracts have to be fair, otherwise they are not valid.
OK, that was completely hilarious. As well as an utterly false characterization of contract law. At this point, Shelby, I’m literally ROFL.
If he saw a judge, then how has he not had habeas?
Incorrect. Of course, technically you may be correct. But he still lost his civil rights, which is what habeas corpus is supposed to protect, which is the intent of the American system as originally formulated.
Statutory habeas is not a right but a privilege granted by Congress
Incorrect. The inalienable rights are never statutory. I know the constitution and bill of rights is dead, so you are correct technically. But my point was never about your technical victory, it is about the truth.
Your Freudian insecurity is evident, as every comment of yours must declare I am “insane” or “crazy”. You can’t stand on logic.
Of course Congress can suspend Habeas
Incorrect. Not against only some citizens and not the other ones.
government was only holding him on the order of a judge
Incorrect. Go read the document. He had already read his plea bargain in court and was free to apply for his writ, so he could finally be released after 7.5 years of corrupt hell.
You also missed the fact that 30-40 people
Incorrect. I said apology, and said it was not most. I saw the 1000 when I reread your comment.
As well as an utterly false characterization of contract law
Are you calling me liar?
My father’s specialty is in contract law, and he is extremely highly paid for it. So I trust his opinion more than yours. What are your credentials?
He was involved the Exxon Valdez case (I think this was before he running he was running the entire west coast legal division). Our house in Thousand Oaks, CA was filled with briefs all over the place. The West Coast Divison office for Exxon is in Thousand Oaks, before it was in Century City, Los Angeles, and I had been to both of his offices.
Shelby, I don’t play Internet resume with trolls. However, I find it amusing that I’m supposed to be impressed with the city your house was located in. Especially since I lived in Thousand Oaks for about a decade …
However, contract law does not test “fairness” in contracts except in a specialized area called “adhesion contracts”. Such would have nothing to do with $1.2million contract for selling your underwear much less any contract being negotiated by corporate legal departments.
Your comments, Shelby, are frankly getting less coherent.
I already know that Armstrong is a kook
Prove it.
I lived in Thousand Oaks for about a decade
Then you know where 908 Camino dos Rios is, or google maps can tell you. And you know where the Rockwell International Science center is, where I was an intern off of Lynn ranch. And you can look up Ira Goldberg a research scientist, who hired me from a hardware store.
My father’s explicit point as I remember it, and perhaps I am mistaken, but that was that I could not sign away my rights by being tricked by a sneaky clause. As I remember it, he was advising me to not be too anal on the details and lose the deal.
My father graduated at the top of his law school class.
much less any contract being negotiated by corporate legal departments
Perhaps this is your mistake. It wasn’t between corporate legal departments. It was between an inexperienced individual, myself, and a corporate legal department. My father’s point as best I remember, is that no court was going to hold valid a contract that was too much one-sided, due to some legal trickery when one side is not as empowered with legal capabilities. The other side knew that I was negotiating without a full-time attorney.
Milhouse Says:
> merely from the fact that he believes he has discovered a business cycle that is precisely 1000 times pi days,
Excuse me Milhouse, have you never heard of “The Circle of Life”? They made a whole movie about it!! All Shelby is doing is putting a mathematical structure to the basic reality of the animal kingdom. “We eat the antelope, and then we die, and our bodies nourish the ground. From the ground grows the grass which the Antelope eat — it is the circle of life Simba.” By this, I have clearly demonstrated that the nutrient cycle between antelope to lion to antelope again is clearly proportional to pi, we can extrapolate this data.
Since it is axiomatic that business is like a jungle, we substitute business for jungle, big business for lion, and consumer for antelope, and we see that the business cycle is also clearly proportional to pi.
Based on the stellar work of Mr. Armstrong, from the lock up, with advice from the local drug dealers, the pimps and the whores (who after all are experts on the local business cycle), he has experimentally determined the constant in the equation to be 1000 days.
I think you do him a great dis-service by ignoring the opportunity this affords. The scum American legal system is only locking him up so he can’t travel to Norway for his Nobel prize.
Excuse me, I have to head to Ameritrade to day trade my way to prosperity… I’ll let you know how it turns out.
(Things are a little slow at work today :-)
Lol Jessica B. Aptly stated. Hook me up with the Ameritrade biz, I’m tired of being cold, hungry, wet, and dirty waiting for my chance at bad guys when they’ve been inside our borders all along!
@Jessica Boxer: you and Milhouse are entitled to your opinion, but you have proven nothing about Mr. Armstrong, except for your ability to be derogatory towards someone you don’t know, who has not antagonized you. Are you proud of that? I have seen no proof from any of you, on the major financial claims that he has made, such as that he was paid $10,000 per hour, or the financial facts of his case. I suggest that for your characterization of Armstrong as a kook to be respected, you will need to present some proof that his financial claims are false.
Defenders of the current state of the legal system (which I thought pained you Jessica?), will present their arguments about the procedural technical issues of his case, but that isn’t relevant to the orthogonal financial facts.
Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance of economic cycles? The Kondratiev wave is a seriously researched topic. Although I am very skeptical about the relevance of PI in cycle study, more generally it is quite well known that economies have a spring, summer, winter, fall cycle. The capital and political cycle charts, the product cycle chart, the deflation, reflation cycle chart.
Btw, I stumbled on this peculiar middle-east power projection chart, didn’t study yet to see if it has any useful data, so I am sharing it since the page topic is related to middle-east fundamentalism.
“My father graduated at the top of his law school class.”
Evidently, you didn’t. Ah, well, I’ve been having too much fun and probably pissing off Eric.
Evidently, you didn’t
haha, of course I did. Note, you did not define your terms. tsk, tsk.
I’ve been having too much fun
Me too, playing with you like cat with a mouse ball, and you don’t even realize it.
You claimed [Clarke] says he was ordered to make the phone call that tipped off the UAE that we knew where bin Laden was
No, you claimed that Clarke did that. I didn’t comment as to whether I agreed or disagreed with you.
Clarke has not been convicted of any crime you allege. The commission was not able to prove that his call saved bin laden, nor that it was Clarke’s intention. As I suggested to you in a prior comment, apparently there were (not publicly known) overriding concerns in the intelligence community at that time, as that was before 2001, such as perhaps that there were very key allies of the USA present with bin laden at that time and weighing the cost of killing them too. Clarke said the failure to strike bin Laden was a CIA decision.
My link explains that there was an attempt to do character assassination on Clarke, and then after the public effect of that was accomplished, some claims against him where later dropped. Typical political stunt, which seems to be your methodology here.
@Jessica and WCC:
You miss the point that most of Armstrong’s consulting work stems around long-term waves, about being hedged over the short-term, and helping institutions and governments produce economic models. This wasn’t just (or even often) about cycles, but about modeling international capital flows in some cases. What he did was compile a mountain of historical data in his computer and use it to identify patterns that replicated both large and small. So you day-trading or even short-term trading innuendo shows you don’t know about him, yet you claim you do.
I’m making too subtle for you
No, you are just wrong, as is the current corruption of our constitution and inalienable rights. Perhaps you have a vested interest?
Statutory habeas is not a right but a privilege granted by Congress
The Constitution did not allow a “statutory habeas”, it is implied by the common law because by any sane logic it is clear the Constitution was not referring to a privilege that didn’t already exist.
No where does it mention the power to create another category of habeas. The 1789 act merely codified the common law habeas. This was corrupted in a series of unconstitutional actions brought on during the time of the Civil war, at which time our constitution died. Due to the 1868 14th amendment, 99.9% of people don’t know they are no longer sovereigns of the original “United States of America” mentioned in the Constitution, but now instead subjects of a federal corporation the “United States” (see USC Title 28, Sec. 3002, Par. 15), instead of sovereigns with inalienable rights. A bit more obscure and sketchy, the definition of drug in the law, says applicable to the health “of humans or any other animal”, legally classifying us as animals, thus dehumanizing us from our inalienable rights that animals don’t have.
Shelby Says:
> You miss the point that most of Armstrong’s consulting work stems around long-term waves,
No buddy, I think you are confused. Lance Armstrong was the cyclist, Bethany Hamilton was the wave girl.
>…his wasn’t just (or even often) about cycles…
Come on, stay focused, is it surfing or bicycles? I’m having a hard time keeping up.
> I stumbled on this peculiar middle-east power projection chart, didn’t study yet to see if it has any useful data
Oh good!!! A random link that you haven’t even bothered to read, but you think that the few remaining readers of this blog post who haven’t dozed off will be curious to read even more! Thank God we can trust it, after all it is has the imprimatur of being published on the web!!
Last time I had an exchange with you on a previous thread you were complaining about being locked up trying to finish your work. When were you planning to do that? I think your genius has done about as much convincing around here as it is likely to do.
One thing I will agree with you on: you definitely are one in ten thousand.
Oh my.
Shelby, what do you do when you enter a court room and see that the flag has gold fringe?
@Jessica Boxer:.
Bethany Hamilton
If you are as cute as her, I will do what ever you say. :D
When were you planning to do that?
Yes that would be nice for me too.
Oh my.
Yeah I was hoping that would let us end the debate, because you can think I am insane, and then we don’t have to debate any more right?
How about it? Can we stop now?
what do you do when you enter a court room and see that the flag has gold fringe?
I can’t answer this question, because it will offend too many people here, because I am a non-religious Christian and so my answer would quote the 2nd commandment. When I say non-religious what I mean I never go to a church building, never try to follow some whacko who is leading a church to do anything (e.g. Inquisition, etc), nor do I try to indoctrinate people, nor do I deny science. I merely am a Christian because it has wisdom on how to be libertarian, or more accurately an anarchist.
Why don’t you just make your rebuttals, and do it without attacking me personally, then I will try to not reply and let you and others have the final world. Just be nice please.
Positive news. The Pirate Party in Germany. Looks like they are advocating greater civil liberties, especially with regard to data and freedom-of-information. I thought this might be interesting to the audience here. Bloomberg says they have a shot of unseating Merkel’s coalition party.
Bloomberg says they have a shot of unseating Merkel’s coalition party.
By “Merkel’s coalition party” I assume you mean the CDU/CSU coalition; if you think the Pirates have any shot at all at “unseating” the CDU/CSU, or that Bloomberg reported any such thing, then this would just be more evidence of your insanity.
my answer would quote the 2nd commandment.
Really? Your answer about the gold fringe that adorns the flag in some courtrooms would quote the 2nd commandment?! I can see flag-worship as a form of idolatry, but how does that relate to the gold fringe?
@Milhouse: And “Soviet peacekeepers“?! WTF is that? Do you also talk about the German peacekeepers in the rest of Europe in 1939-45?
The Nazis invaded other countries (much like US did to Iraq).
Soviets helped Afganistan government to suppress terrorist uprising (which was promoted by CIA money and instructors supplied via Pakistan ISI).
I do not see how undereducated you have to be to mix those cases.
You mean the communist government that the Soviets had installed a few years earlier.
Jay, there is no moral difference between the USSR and the Third Reich, and anyone who supports either one should drop dead. And I mean that literally.
@Jay
“Soviets helped Afganistan government to suppress terrorist uprising (which was promoted by CIA money and instructors supplied via Pakistan ISI).”
“Terrorist uprising”?
You mean a popular revolt, aka civil war, against the president? The Soviets supported the then ruling president. But the soviet army was as much keeping the peace as the USA was doing in Vietnam. The destruction caused by the war against the Soviets gave rise to the rule of the war lords that made the people cheer when the Taliban arrived to stop the carnage. Except that the Taliban proved to be maybe even worse than the war lords. Note that the Taliban are ethnic Pashtun who will fight all the other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. They attempted genocide against the Hazara people during their rule.
Everybody expects a new civil war in Afghanistan after the foreign troops withdraw. And the ISI might then find out that the Afghan war spills over into Pakistan even more than it is now.
@Milhouse: that’s what nazis like to say.
Nazi made genocide, USSR stopped it: there’s clear moral difference in here, moreover they are exactly opposite.
@Winter: Soviets fought terrorists and helped legitimate government of Afganistan (established by local people btw) to protect population.
It’s nothing like USA acts in Vietnam – you can drive to Atlanta and ask former lt. William Calley.
Soviets never did in Afganistan anything like My Lai Massacre.
The difference between peacekeepers and conquerors is that simple: peacekeepers do not kill children. Ever.
@Jay
“The difference between peacekeepers and conquerors is that simple: peacekeepers do not kill children. Ever.”
See page 34 and 42 (and there is more)
http://afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf
(http://www.universaljurisdiction.org/world/afghanistan/445-soviet-civil-war-taliban)
Obviously, Afghanistan is one of those places where there was it was extremely difficult to find out which one was the “good” side. The only good side was unarmed.
Wow, there’s someone defending the Soviets? Stalin killed anywhere from 20-60 MILLION people between famines, purges, brutality and idiocy. I think his body count far exceeds that of Hitler.
Soviet war crimes were never tried because they were on the winning side.
No, the Soviets didn’t do one Mai Lai, they did dozens and far worse:
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7b69p12h&chunk.id=ch014&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch014&brand=eschol
This isn’t to minimize Mai Lai which is a stain on our history but there is no equivalency between us and the systematic brutality of the Soviet leadership. Our saving grace that day was the actions of Thompson and his crew which I believe more exemplifies American behavior than those of the perpetrators of the atrocity.
Soviets fought terrorists and helped legitimate government of Afganistan (established by local people btw)
There is no such thing as a legitimate communist government. It makes no difference where the people who established it came from (though anyone who claims the Afghan communist coup was not orchestrated from Moscow is lying).
the soviet army was as much keeping the peace as the USA was doing in Vietnam.
Bull. The USA was rescuing the South Vietnamese from communist slavery; the USSR was imposing it on the Afghans. That makes all the difference in the world.
Even a very small amount of history would be enough to teach you that the USSR after Stalin was radically different. Not nice by far, but not the carnage of Stalin.
@Milhouse
You want to suggest that the Brazilian presidents are not legitimate?
Even a very small amount of history would be enough to teach you that the USSR after Stalin was radically different. Not nice by far, but not the carnage of Stalin.
And Hitler’s successor might have been less bloodthirsty than him, but that wouldn’t make national socialism or the Third Reich any more legitimate. The subsequent Soviet regimes were still slavers and murderers, just not on quite as wholesale and enthusiastic a level.
You want to suggest that the Brazilian presidents are not legitimate?
I don’t know enough about them to say, but communist rule is always illegitimate. It is by definition theft and slavery.
test 1
test 2: hitler
test 3: wholesale
Conspiracies work if you’re only doing Guy Fawkes shit like burning the Reichstag.
That wasn’t much of a conspiracy. The guy they caught for it almost certainly did it. The idea that the Nazis did it was a successful piece of communist propaganda.
You want to suggest that the Brazilian presidents are not legitimate?
I don’t know enough about them to say, but communist rule is always illegitimate. It is by definition theft and slavery.
I’m trying to post a comment but some word or phrase is being caught in a spam filter.
test 4: slavers and murderers
test 5: enthusiastic
Soviets fought terrorists and helped legitimate government of Afganistan (established by local people btw)
I see. That’s why they used booby-trapped children’s toys and poison gas. Because they were so popular there.
Well, I see my comment from 1:08 was finally released from the spam filter. I still don’t know what word or phrase trapped it.
USA was rescuing the South Vietnamese from communist slavery
ROFL.
ROFL.
It’s no laughing matter. Look what happened when the Democratic Party betrayed South Vietnam and it fell.
Rofl…
no such thing as a legitimate communist government
No counter-example that ALL govts digress to collective dystopia.
All collective ideologies: anti-islam, anti-communist, anti-religion, anti-irrationality, anti-sexuality (feminism), …
…are dick fear.
Collectivism is dick fear. Roflmho.
Anti-communism is not dick-fear, it’s fear of being murderered, robbed, raped, or enslaved. And George Carlin may have been funny but he was a piece of excrement.
it’s fear
Exactamundo.
being murderered, robbed, raped, or enslaved
We never (BS!) do that (BS!).
There is no hair on my knuckles (BS!).
Lol. :D Smile, relax, and fuck a lot (it really helps).
It was very easy to figure out who “Frances” is in the secreykills allegations. Assuming that is not her middle name, but her first name. And then realize that secrecykills has revealed that she is a red-head. Then use the name of her director taken from this news story, which correlates to another description that secrecykills made of her activities. If you put her first name and her director’s name in a google search, you will end up at a cia.gov about an “Agency Seal Medal” ceremony. Then take her full name and do a Google images search, and voila you have a red-head.
2500 licensed structural engineers do not believe in UFOs, Three Little Pigs, Santa Claus, etc.. Are they all kooks?
The last time I saw George Carlin, he was not funny, just angry.
Yours,
Tom
@Milhouse
“I don’t know enough about them to say, but communist rule is always illegitimate. It is by definition theft and slavery.”
Indeed, ignorant and clueless but still grandstand posturing. Opinions like these are often seen in USA Americans with no experience with real living Marxists/Communists/Socialists and have no clue how elected Lefties function in democratic countries. As usual, ignorance only bolsters confidence.
To inform, the last (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva) and current (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/02/world/la-fg-brazil-president-20110102) presidents of Brazil are Marxists. They lead governments full of Marxists, socialists, communists, whatever.
So they must be illegitimate, according to you.
@Milhouse
“The subsequent Soviet regimes were still slavers and murderers, just not on quite as wholesale and enthusiastic a level. ”
The likes of Erich Honecker (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Erich_Honecker) are undoubtedly evil, but only the completely clueless compare them to Stalin or Hitler. And their citizens did in no way experience the same horrors that the slaves in the Southern States of the USA lived through before the Abolition. Btw, all the “slave labor camps” during the Soviet time were continuations of the Czarist times. The same in China during the 19th and 20th centuries. The communists simply conserved the institutions they found.
I did a little digging on the “Frances” that I previously described, and it gets very interesting. Husband was classmate of Bush, was involved in several screw ups on the terrorists, and screwed up Katrina too, refused to testify, etc..
@Tom DeGisi:
Carlin, he was not funny, just angry.
Cognitive dissonance.
Any milhistory buffs care to speculate on whether Stalin’s purge of officers degraded the USSR’s ability to fight Hitler?
On the other hand, I’ve heard that lifespan in Russia has dropped a lot after the end of the Soviet Union. The Communists may have been doing something useful.
@Nancy Lebovitz
Lifespan was already falling in Russia since the 1980s (or earlier). The problem seems to be excessive alcohol consumption and smoking. Attempts to reduce drinking have failed spectacularly.
# Winter Says:
> Attempts to reduce drinking have failed spectacularly.
I have worked with various Russians, and asked about their experience during the collapse of communism. I had always assumed that Gorbachev would be widely loved for his attempts at Glastnost and Peristroika, which where probably one of the proximate causes of the downfall. But not so at all. He is apparently widely reviled, not as the last Communist leader, but as the man who tried to take away their vodka.
However, I suppose if I lived in a land where your morning started with brushing snow of your Trabant in the middle of July, I’d perhaps hold vodka in rather higher esteem too.
“However, I suppose if I lived in a land where your morning started with brushing snow of your Trabant in the middle of July, I’d perhaps hold vodka in rather higher esteem too.”
Actually, in the Soviet Union, you would have to brush the snow off of your Volga. The Trabant was East German.
Of course, nothing ever changes. My father was a Russian immigrant. His family brought him here when he was a small child. One of his early memories was how the peasants would drive their horse-drawn wagons to the Czarist government store, where they would buy a bottle of vodka. They would then down the entire bottle and collapse into the wagon. The horse would take them home.
They want to invent cars that drive themselves…hey, the Russians invented it first!
Tom, I probed a bit and it seems Carlin is a cynic on social hysteria, thinks we are owned, and he views the human condition as entertainment. Carlin says he has a flicker flame of idealism. Not that his opinion matters, just to differentiate hate from cynicism. I suppose I am more optimistic than Carlin, even though I share some of his observations.
I forgot I had published an explanation on my theory that we lost the original constitution and became subjects of the federal corporation. I accept that many people view this as insane or kooky, and there are others who agree with me.
Oh my, that kooky Armstrong:
Glastnost and Peristroika were attempts to save the Soviet Union from collapse. The cause of the Soviet collapse was the taking of too much money out of the economy and spending it on defense. (If this sounds eerily familiar, it should.)
@Morgan Greywolf
“The cause of the Soviet collapse was the taking of too much money out of the economy and spending it on defense.”
Actually, a biger problem was that the output of the Soviet industry had less value than the raw materials going into their production. That is, the USSR would have earned more if they had sold the raw materials and bought the produce from abroad.
However, this is not very different from the situation now. At the moment, Russia only earns money from raw materials (mainly natural gas and oil). There is zero incentive to build a competitive industry.
Morgan Greywolf Says:
> Glastnost and Peristroika were attempts to save the Soviet Union from collapse.
Firstly, I didn’t claim they were the sole cause, I said they were one of the proximate causes. And I certainly didn’t mean to imply that they were designed to bring about the end that they did. However, I don’t think your assessment is correct, though it is certainly a beloved interpretation of the Regan conservatives. There were many causes, and there is no doubt that the soviet economy was in a lot of trouble, no doubt in part due to the demands of the defense industry. But in truth it was glastnost and peristroika in particular that allowed the rise of nationalism within the republics, and it was the attempted coup d’etat, which is to say the attempt to do away with glastnost and peristroika that made the republics realize that they were going to have to sprint for independence.
And from what I can tell, Gorbachev’s attempts to improve the economy by controlling the vodka was also a major cause of the resentment against the national government too, and may have been about as important as anything else. But I don’t know that for sure.
I’m not an expert on Russian history, but that is my reading of the history books.
Remorse at the 10 year anniversary, I’m listening to a mortal scream and watching the jumpers. Pondering if it would have been possible to wedge oneself outside the windows and between vertical beams of the outer lattice and shimmy down. I concluded from this and this, that the gap between lattice beams was only 22″, and the distance from the outside of the window to the outer edge of the each beam was only 9.5″. Thus can’t think of a body orientation what would have provided the necessary skin friction and articulation to prevent a free-fall. The beams were 18″ wide, so perhaps one could have stripped naked and tried to hug the beam and use skin friction to control rate of slide, but one would eventually slide outward, unless they could constantly re-position towards the windows without accelerating the descent. Thus I conclude that without a parachute, oxygen mask (to enable hunting around for escape inside) or a very long rope, there was no option. Can any MacGyver or Houdini think of a way out? Shooting a rope into the windows from a helicopter with a harpoon?
Shelby,
According to the TV I watched, there was a route they could have walked, but no one knew what it was at the time.
Yours,
Tom
I always thought the jumpers jumped because it beat being crushed or burned alive.
Any milhistory buffs care to speculate on whether Stalin’s purge of officers degraded the USSR’s ability to fight Hitler?
I don’t think it’s considered speculation. They dismissed or arrested almost 50K officers (and commissars) in 1937. So by the time the war kicked off the Soviet Army had a whole lot of inexperienced senior officers.
That cost them big time. Fortunately for them they got the crap beat out of them (relatively speaking) by Finland during the Winter War in 1940 before their main event in 1941. That helped them quite a bit in discovering just how badly they sucked and they had an opportunity to season some commanders in actual combat.
If it weren’t for that, I think Barbarrosa might have succeeded with capturing Moscow before Hitler could divert that effort. That MIGHT have ended Soviet opposition. Maybe not, we’ll never know.
9/11 changed America and I will never forgive those responsible for how it affected my country and me personally. How it made me feel then and how it makes me feel today. I am not a victim; I was fortunate not to have lost anyone that day – except for a little bit of myself.