Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

9/11 - I have converted to the dark side

rated by 0 users
This post has 95 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
liberty student replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 2:42 AM | Locked

CrazyCoot:
I don't think it's accurate to base your assumptions on conspiracies involving attacks on foreign soil with an inside job by the government.

Was Pearl Harbour foreign soil?  How many Americans were on the Lusitania?

Again, the US government with Northwoods has planned to attack its own citizens before.  Every heard of the Tuskeegee study  What about MKULTRA?

I'm not seeing any evidence that the government fears the people.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 445
Points 9,445
CrazyCoot replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 3:31 AM | Locked

Thing is that most people still believe that Pearl Harbor was committed without the US government's prior knowledge.   The Lusitania might have been secretly transporting munitions, but it was sunk by a German torpedo and that's what most people focus on.   Re: Tuskegee experiment and MKULTRA; there is a difference of degree between that and 9/11.   In the case of the Tuskegee experiment I believe that the government was willing to engage in such behavior because the victims were poor and black, and the case of MKULTRA they could run damage control by saying that they believed the measures were necessary in the fight against Communism.  In both instances there's a way for the government to minimize the negative impact such actions have on it through spin; neither is a moral way but they are ways.  Don't see any way for the government to spin 9/11.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 7:36 AM | Locked

Libertyandlife:

It's worse then that, since onefreeborn thinks the planes didn't even hit the towers,

To further clarify the depths of my own  particular insanity Stick out tongue , I am saying :

Most, if not all of the "live" coverage by TV on 09/11 was in fact computer generated imagery created with programs like "GoogleEarth " and similar. there was no [or very little] live TV coverage of the 911 events. 

 All images of planes striking/penetrating buildings were computer faked within the software used to generate the NYC images.

All images of towers subsequently collapsing onto themselves were computer generated fakes accomplished by the same software. [And yes, obviously the towers ain't thar no mo' and were somehow demolished in real time- we just did not see those actual events "live" on TV- only computer generated Hollywood style simulations.]

Close analysis of the archive footage of both the plane "strikes", and of the collapse sequences bears out all of my  assertions above , in my opinion.

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Not Ranked
Posts 49
Points 1,220
tfr000 replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 11:29 AM | Locked

corleonebrother:

Thanks for answering.  Would you mind giving me an idea of what arguments you have mind? 

1: The claim that  "It was the first time fire ever melted steel."

Ok, for starters, how about the WTC7 nonsense on which we started this whole thread? There are photos of the building showing one whole corner missing, near the base. There are others showing the fire growing in intensity. There are others showing debris from the collapsing towers hitting WTC7. There are reports form multiple fire chiefs that they expected it to collapse any moment... they could see bulges and gaping holes... so they started pulling their crews out. All fake, eh? Why do we need an esoteric explanation for this?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 419
Points 8,260
Capital Pumper replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 11:39 AM | Locked

tfr000:

corleonebrother:

Thanks for answering.  Would you mind giving me an idea of what arguments you have mind? 

1: The claim that  "It was the first time fire ever melted steel."

Why do we need an esoteric explanation for this?

Such is the nature of circumstantial evidence, which the truthers mainly rely on.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 527
Points 8,490
twistedbydsign99 replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 11:51 AM | Locked

tfr000:
Why do we need an esoteric explanation for this?

We don't. Building 7 was demolished, just like it looks like.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 12:05 PM | Locked

twistedbydsign99:

Building 7 was demolished, just like it looks like.

I say both "yes" and "no".

"Yes" the building was demolished, but "no" its not "just like it looks like" .

More than likely, what we saw on 911 was a no more than a computerized simulation of a Building 7' collapse- an impossibly perfect "Hollywoodized" special effect, nothing more, just as it was in the case of WTCs 1 and 2 .

All collapse simulations were designed for maximum visual effect [maximum damage, minimum time] on TV, and therefor maximum "Shock and Awe" for the TV viewer . The real demolitions would then proceed off camera by whatever means deemed most effective.[for all WTC complex buildings]

All in all an almost  perfect psy-op. Welcome to war-starting in the new millennium Big Smile

 

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 12:26 PM | Locked

liberty student:

That's a very good point Clayton.  We know that man acts purposefully, and it is hard to believe that the state acts without the purpose it usually brings about.

Marc Stevens makes a really good point about those people who argue that the state is incompetent.  If you're still paying taxes to them, then they are not incompetent.

Well, they are incompetent... at anything besides war. War is the health of the state, the state is war. The state is supremely competent at waging war, whether against foreigners or its own citizenry. The State's skill at warfare is unsurpassed. Since taxes are how the State funds its wars, as Mr. Stevens notes, the State is very competent at collecting taxes. Macchiavelli said it best, in the The Prince:

The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, through being martial, from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on.

The State must have no other aim or thought nor select anything else for its study than war. Wow.

Also, I find it odd when some libertarians try to play the state as incompetent card, when we know the incentives are for them to act recklessly and dangerously, not to make mistakes chasing noble purpose.

Yup.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 12:34 PM | Locked

liberty student:

CrazyCoot:
I don't think they're capable of hiding such a plot.

Why not?  They were capable of fabricating the Vietnam war, which we only found out about the Gulf of Tonkin iirc through a FOIA request that was looking for something else.

Two words: "Manhattan Project". This goes back to the earlier point about the State being supremely competent at war and supremely incompetent at everything else. Whenever the State pleads "incompetence" at defending itself, it is not credible. If they fail to defend the citizenry, "incompetence" may be a credible justification since the State does not exist to defend and aggrandize the public, only itself. However, the 9/11 attacks included the attack against the Pentagon itself and Flight 93 was likely destined for the White House (it seems the war machine may have functioned "properly" in the case of Flight 93, assuming it was, in fact, shot down).

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 28
Points 470
corleonebrother replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 3:51 PM | Locked

tfr000:

corleonebrother:

Thanks for answering.  Would you mind giving me an idea of what arguments you have mind? 

1: The claim that  "It was the first time fire ever melted steel."

Ok, for starters, how about the WTC7 nonsense on which we started this whole thread? There are photos of the building showing one whole corner missing, near the base. There are others showing the fire growing in intensity. There are others showing debris from the collapsing towers hitting WTC7. There are reports form multiple fire chiefs that they expected it to collapse any moment... they could see bulges and gaping holes... so they started pulling their crews out. All fake, eh? Why do we need an esoteric explanation for this?

Excellent.  Some more to add to the list.

  1. The claim that "It was the first time fire ever melted steel."
  2. The claim that "photos of WTC7 showing one whole corner missing, near the base... are fake"
  3. The claim that "photos of WTC7 showing the fires growing in intensity... are fake"
  4. The claim that "photos showing debris from the collapsing Twin Towers hitting WTC7... are fake"
  5. The claim that "reports from multiple fire chiefs that they expected WTC7 to collapse at any moment... are fake"

This is enough to make my point I think.  Of course all these claims are nonsense!  I would never make any of these claims; they are absurd.  Obviously the fires did not melt steel.  Obviously the photos of and the reports about WTC7 are not all fake.  You are completely right to dismiss these claims.

The most important way that the truth about 9/11 - and many other acts covertly carried out by governments - is concealed is by mixing true claims with absurd claims.  Understanding how misinformation works is the most important lesson to be learned from 9/11. 

 

The September 11, 2001 attack was not only bolder than previous attacks, it also likely involved the most careful planning of any psychological operation ever undertaken. We can see in its design and cover-up multiple layers of deception: should the outermost layer be exposed as fraudulent, the deeper layers will serve to continue to obscure the truth. Broadly speaking, there are three layers of cover-up:
  • The mainstream official story: This is the story as told by the mainstream media since the day of the attack.
  • The "limited hangouts": These are revelations that seem shocking to adherents to the official story, but fall far short of the whole truth. Examples are the many warnings of the attack that the administration should have acted on.
  • The "poison pills": These are extreme ideas that have either no basis in evidence or only an illusory one and serve to discredit evidence-based research about the core facts of the attack through guilt-by-association. Examples are the no-planes and pod-planes ideas popularized by propaganda such as In Plane Site, and racist ideas like "the Jews did it."

Remarkably, it appears that the vast majority of propaganda supporting all three layers of deception was produced, not by attack insiders, but by people exploited by the perpetrators using psychological engineering. The perpetrators are apparently highly expert at designing memes that effectively recruit people to unwittingly support such diversions from the true nature of the attack.

 

The claims I listed above that you rightly dismiss are all examples of poison pills. Pretty much everything that OneBornFree and his sources say is a poison pill.

Governments rest on public opinion.  Over the centuries, they have learned a thing or two about how humans think, and how information warfare works.  Disinformation agents infiltrate popular movements that are a threat to the government.  They make weak, false and absurd claims in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole.  Honest truth-seekers, who lack the intelligence, diligence or honesty to distinguish strong, well-supported and reasonable claims from weak, false and absurd claims, unwittingly spread this misinformation.  The media highlights the misinformation.  Most people are left with the impression that these claims are representative of the truth movement as a whole, and do not feel compelled to do their own research.

The misinformation is easily debunked by organizations like the BBC and Popular Mechanics, and by various "debunking 9/11"-type websites, so those who are curious, but not willing to spend more than a few hours researching, are left with the impression that anyone claiming 9/11 was an inside job is ignorant, foolish and stupid. 

Let me give you a brief history of the last few years of the 9/11 truth movement. 

In late 2005, BYU physics professor Steven Jones published his seminal research paper, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?".  Soon afterward, he co-founded the Scholars for 9/11 Truth with James Fetzer.  Fetzer is well-known for his view that the Zapruder film of the assassination of JFK is a fake.

The group was a failure, and it was increasingly becoming apparent, through 2006, precisely why.  James Fetzer controlled the activities of the group, along with its website, and chose to follow a "Big Tent" philosophy; he invited anyone into the group that had credentials and believed 9/11 was an inside job, no matter how absurd their pet theories were.  And, worse than this, he began highlighting only the most absurd claims - namely those of Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood - and attacking the theories of Steven Jones.  Steven Jones insisted on the scientific method, which includes dismissing hypotheses that have proven false, while Fetzer openly said that no claims, even the most absurd ones, should be dismissed.

Understandably, the group was ridiculed.  The bulk of the group of scholars rejected the Wood/Reynolds hypotheses, but Fetzer continued to feature their work heavily on the group's website, and lauded the ridiculous 'no planes' theory whenever he appeared in the mainstream media.  By the end of 2006, Jones announced his intention to part company with Fetzer and set up his own group, inviting scholars who value the scientific method to join him.  Almost all of them did.

The new group was called Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.  Membership soared now that the focus was back on the well-supported and reasonable theories, such as the thermite hypothesis for the destruction of the 3 WTC buildings.  The group's scholarly collection of articles is at The Journal of 9/11 Studies.  One new member of the group, Richard Gage, created Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  He tours the nation and the world with his presentation about how explosives brought the WTC towers came down, convincing more and more architects and engineers to join his group as he goes.  His presentation is available online.

The most comprehensive and reliable source for 9/11 research, in my opinion, is the pair of websites created by Jim Hoffman: 9/11 Research and 9/11 Review.  The latter site focuses on the mythology of 9/11, the cover-up, the context, and most importantly, the misinformation that has so successfully prevented the truth that 9/11 was an inside job from becoming common knowledge.  The former site is an extensive analysis of the evidence that supports that conclusion, and contains a large collection of reviews, essays and critiques of official reports, debunking attempts, and the effect of misinformation. 

9/11 Research is the place to start if you are willing to do some serious research.

Some of the best works available online that analyze the official reports include:

Any serious researcher should analyze carefully the "debunkers" websites:

These sources purport to debunk all alternative theories about 9/11.  I found them quite convincing at first, until I learned about misinformation, and before I read these responses to the debunkers, and critiques of faulty theories:

Another excellent research tool is the Complete 9/11 Timeline, which is made up entirely of mainstream media reports, without commentary.

If you're interested in getting into the details of the controlled demolition hypothesis, I recommend these works:

If you prefer videos - and there are lots out there - I recommend these three:

  • Loose Change: Final Cut (beware: earlier versions are riddled with misinformation), for a general overview of what the issues are.
  • 9/11 Mysteries, for a more in-depth look at the destruction of the 3 WTC towers.
  • 9/11: The Myth and The Reality, a lecture by David Ray Griffin, theologian, about how the official story of 9/11 functions as a myth which, when the evidence is checked, is found to have no basis in reality.

9/11 truth really is a fascinating and important subject.  No intelligent person - least of all those who understand the nature of government as a gang of theives writ large - should ignore the issue, or dismiss all "inside job" theories without serious examination.

 

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Fri, Jan 8 2010 5:10 PM | Locked

 

corleonebrother:

The claims I listed above that you rightly dismiss are all examples of poison pills. Pretty much everything that OneBornFree and his sources say is a poison pill.

I wondered how long it was going to take for you to come right out and say it - not too long I see Big Smile

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Not Ranked
Posts 49
Points 1,220
tfr000 replied on Sat, Jan 9 2010 11:43 AM | Locked

corleonebrother:

9/11 truth really is a fascinating and important subject.  No intelligent person - least of all those who understand the nature of government as a gang of theives writ large - should ignore the issue, or dismiss all "inside job" theories without serious examination.

The most fascinating thing about it is the endless attention some folks pay to it. If perhaps they spent half as much time thinking about and discssing the real enemies of liberty (go see the rest of the Mises site about that), we'd perhaps be a freer society now. I, for one, won't be spending a great deal of effort poring over tedious accounts of holographic airplanes not hitting buildings or whatever.

Not that there aren't some interesting things to discuss regarding the war on terror; for instance the recently leaked TSA manual listed the countries for which passport holders get an automatic pat-down. Saudi Arabia was not on the list, even though most of the 9/11 hijackers were from there. This seems rather mundane for the thermite crowd, though...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 347
Points 4,365
newson replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 3:31 AM | Locked

questions, questions...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 6:35 AM | Locked

I don’t know why I have this impression that only Americans now believe the terrorist attack version of 9-11. I myself was convinced before a year went by.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 45
Points 1,320
Lincoln replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 6:54 AM | Locked

tfr000:

Terrific... yet another bunch of looney Truthers, here on Mises.

Are you guys actually trying to talk someone out of believing what his friends saw with their own eyes?

Tell me about it!

I think the MIses crowd are moving closer-and-closer to the Zeitgeist movement!

In other words, people here actually postively desire and want the Bush administration to have been behind it ... that way, it would confirm everything they have ever said about governments and all that babble.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
liberty student replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 7:57 AM | Locked

Liam,  enough trolling.  You can't possibly speak for, or expect these threads to speak for everyone.

@newson, stop bumping old threads, I am locking and making all of them non-public when you do so.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 3 of 3 (96 items) < Previous 1 2 3 | RSS