James Rocket
Conspiracy theory FAQ, part 1
The purpose of this series is simply to provide the truth seeker with ready-made ammunition which he can use to fend off the lame a-priori dismissals, and force the opposition to actually look at the evidence that has been amassed. This includes the multiple warning of an impending terrorist attack (which were ignored by bush), the war games and live hijacking drill that obstructed the air defense, and the financial arrangement that took advantage of the chaos, especially the black eagle trust. Anyone who looks at the events of 911 with a half open mind will see that there are terrible flaws with the official story, and a huge number of anomalys that hint not of some garden variety terrorist plot, but a state crime against democracy. First up are two denials that are frequently bandied about on wikipedia.
Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.
Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make it so. People often label any theories that are contrary to the governments version of events as 'extraordinary', thus implying that the government and its associated media have a monopoly on what is considered reasonable. But claims can only be considered extraordinary if they have no historical precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to show that a theory can be confirmed (with ordinary scientific processes) is to point out a similar case that has happened before. For this, a simple look at the geopolitical affairs of the 1930s will suffice. In a period of just 8 years, the world saw 4 separate false flag attacks (!) used by authoritarian regimes to push their agendas: This includes the manchurian incident, the clash of wal wal, operation gleiwitz, and the shelling of mainila. These incidents are not at all disputed by historians (at least, not by historians who live outside of the implicated nations, where the temptation to white wash history is present): No one has difficulty believing that such crimes could be perpetrated by a mere historical artifact, which they have no personal connection to. The same is not true when ones own nation has been accused of authoring a terrorist attack in the present!
Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the
relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream
assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and
biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents
say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
This opinion piece feeds into the larger mind set that establishment
types have, with their belief that history is something which cannot be
shaped by conscious intent, via the persistent influence of the fog of
war or other such mystical phenomenon. They have a characteristic
ambivalence towards the notion that much of modern history has been the
result of elaborate policys put into place by powerful oligarchs,
something which would upset their fragile egos (and the illusions they
have about democracy). These academics condemn all such theorys and
hypothesis' with the pejorative label of conspiracism. Bruce
cumings elaborates on this belief system: "But if conspiracies exist,
they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from
time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside
the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy
theory.' History is moved by the broad forces and large structures of
human collectivities."
But power corrupts, and all power corrupts absolutely. The two go
inextricably hand in hand, and we may ask these men what barriers can
stop a dominant entity from utilising secrecy to implement its
policys: Answering this question without contradicting historical
records would be quite a feat. That is because any country which becomes
a superpower in its specific ficton will eventually wind up playing
host to a cast of authoritarian misfits, who use their influence and
wealth take control of the national agenda. Humans are social creatures,
and the desire to conform to the default viewpoint is a built in
feature. When information is distributed to a population in a top down
fashion, this makes the entire nation vulnerable to being misled by its
leadership caste (whose interests are divorced from those of the common
people). Coming out in detraction of the reigning cultures golden cow,
therefore, is a difficult and unrewarding task, one which got only more
complicated with the advent of nationalism during the industrial era.
Countless times have we seen men oppose various ideologies and
religions, only to be greeted with viscous persecution by the
establishment, whose tenets were later overturned and falsified decades
or centurys after the fact.
Supposing that we even have
Those who claim the WTCs were destroyed via a thermite demolition have ignored the fact that this substance can't inflict real damage to structural members.
Assertions like these seek to raise doubt about the validity of a collapse initiated by thermitic materials (which work much more silently than explosives) by claiming their ability to degrade steel is very limited. The fact that this notion is false in its entirety didn't seem to stop the 911 debunkers, who seized upon it with a vigour that is rarely seen outside of a funny farm. But explosive experts have known for decades that the thermite reaction IS capable of melting through steel members, especially when its spray of molten iron is harnessed via a directed funnel. The world was reintroduced to this reality in late 2010, when jonathan cole (a graduate from the university of connecticut) released a video documenting his experiments with thermite.
Cole, with a background in civil engineering, had confirmed the nature
of the work being carried out at the combustion institute since the
1960s. By using something he called 'a thermitic box cutter', cole was
able to slice through a steel I-beam with only 2 lbs of thermite. The
beam in question appeared to be a W 6 x 16, with a known weight of 16
pounds per linear foot. His results are consistent with the estimates
made by NIST, who asserted that 'approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would
be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel.' So with a large box
column weighing approximately 1500 pounds per linear foot, the amount of
thermite required to make the cut may be around 187 lbs. Note, this is
surprisingly close to the 153 lbs of tamped TNT needed to sever a large
box column.*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off?
Because the WTCs were going to demolished in front of a live television audience (which entailed huge risks for the perpetrators), their collapse would need to be brought about in a highly unconventional manner, so as to perpetuate the notion that impact + fires were responsible. This entailed removing most of the typical giveaways to a controlled demolition, such as the obvious, sequential explosions, collapse initiated from the bottom, a small rubble footprint, etc. This arrangement would have also had to proceed in total secrecy, with the explosive and pyrotechnic devices installed in a manner that would protect them from aircraft debris and fires (no small feat even for members of the military industrial complex!). Given these requirements, the best way to destroy the twin towers was to use a two stage demolition process.
The first stage would involve silently cutting all (or nearly all) of the 16 large and 31 small core columns on the floors impacted by the planes. This is a task to which thermitic box cutters are well suited towards. Arranged in banks of perhaps 10-12 per corner (and 47 per floor) of the building, they could be set off in a precision sequence via radio repeaters safely installed into reinforced crevices. And though thermite burns with a ferocious intensity that is capable of melting any thickness of steel, the noise they emit is entirely insignificant, at least compared to the 18.5 lbs of RDX -part of a 53 lbs shaped charge- that would be needed to sever a large core column. Ignited more than 900 feet above street level, there would have been little sign of the box cutters deadly presence, aside from the pool of molten steel flowing away from WTC 2 before its collapse (which may have been the result of a premature ignition from a thermite bank). With the core columns cut on multiple levels, the impact floors were suddenly robbed of their structural integrity, and would effectively cave in on themselves, setting the upper section of the towers into motion against everything beneath it.
Imagine a dump truck colliding with a sand
berm at 100 kmh, multiplied by 5 orders
of magnitude, and you will begin to have an
idea of how incredibly violent this event was.
The second stage would ensue shortly after the first, taking advantage
of a collapse that converted a tremendous amount of gravitational energy
into kinetic energy, resulting in an extremely destructive
interaction that pulverised concrete and crumpled steel members. Left to
its own devices, however, this piledriver effect would (probably) not
be able to produce a global collapse: Everything above the 92nd floor of
WTC 1 -and the 77th floor of WTC 2- would cease to exist, and many,
many floors beneath them would be gutted by falling debris. But the
lower foundations would remain fully intact, as would the core and
perimeter columns all the way up to the impact site. The buildings would
be preserved by immense networks of interconnected steel beams and
columns. Thus, in order to guarantee a total collapse, these resistance
points needed to be broken with explosive charges. Under the cover
provided by the noise and dust of the gravity collapse, the second stage
of demolition could proceed unnoticed to anyone more than a block away
from the site. With just a handful of explosive charges placed on all
the floors beneath the impact site (probably hidden inside elevator
shafts), the twin towers last structural redoubts would be methodically
smashed from the top down.How would they be able to plant enough thermite to perfectly raze these three mammoth buildings, without anyone taking notice beforehand?
The best way to proceed with such an operation is to conceal all suspicious equipment inside ordinary tool boxes, and to only bring them out when working in confined spaces (or in areas that have been closed off by security, to enable the crew to work in privacy). A single explosive charge should be attached to each column juncture, then covered beneath a solid protective casing. Assuming that this mount could be emplaced with just 2 man hours of labour, then rigging the four column junctures that typically reside on each floor would take a minimum of 8 man hours. If this was done all the way from the impact floors to street level, then that amounts to 368 charges for WTC 1 and 308 charges for WTC 2 (and 1352 man hours to install them in both towers). Therefore, even with a quadrupling of the required man hours -which is reasonable, given that most of a demolition crews time is spent with the actual wiring- this suggests that only 5400 man hours total are required to prepare the twin towers for destruction! Theoretically, eight individuals working 40 hour weeks could have the job completed in just over four months.
One of the web joists (not quite
the same as a column juncture)
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M
If the WTCs really were destroyed by a controlled demolition, most of the worlds architects and engineers would have come forward and raised hell with the authoritys!
This is obviously not the case. An in-depth examination of the scientific literature regarding the twin towers collapses reveals that virtually none of them are based on a close observation of the visual archives. They are abstract mathematical models which use random assumptions to come to conclusions about factor x or y. Such insular processes are effectively divorced from reality, and tell a truth seeker very little about what happened to these 110 story structures: Someone who does not understand the unique features of this collapse (or posses an affinity for regression analysis) will have NO ABILITY to determine whether or not CD played a role. Academic institutes of all shapes and sizes, ranging from NIST to AE911Truth, have been guilty of a systemic failure to observe the actual behaviour of the twin towers (and building 7) prior to and during their collapse. They perpetuate a false dichotomy of progressive collapse vs controlled demolition, failing to come to terms with the peripheral issues that could falsify their case.
They proceed with an obvious confirmation bias in mind, neglecting to consider that the truth may lie somewhere in between their pre-determined conclusions. AE911Truth is responsible for disseminating the false notion that steel framed buildings cannot experience a global collapse without the aid of explosives. NIST is responsible for grossly distorting the mechanical forces acting on the WTCs, and for failing to document the material flow that defined each destruction event. The basic standards of the scientific method have been discarded in favour of abstract models and poor observations, which in turn were regurgitated to the public in the form of sound bytes via the mass media. If there was ever a time when the 'experts' should have stepped in to straighten things out, this was it. Sadly, that is not what actually happened. On both sides, negligence fed by false confidence has snowballed into something that is now labelled as 'professional dialogue regarding the WTCs collapse', which has now been framed into an issue concerning only whether explosives were present or not!
If the attacks truly were orchestrated by the government, someone would have talked! Even if all of the conspirators had kept silent, there must have been dozens of people on the sidelines who knew, and they couldn't ALL have been assassinated!
That is correct. If anything, there may have been well in excess of a hundred people who knew sensitive details about the September 11th attacks, weeks or months before they actually took place. At a lower level, such as the feds 2000-2001 monitoring of terrorist activity, some CIA and FBI agents actually did catch wind of the plot, and tried to warn their superiors. The story of susan lindauer is one example among many. Debunkers may argue that this is only a niche example which doesn't invalidate their wider point. Again, they are correct. The evidence pointing towards MIHOP is generally more circumstantial than that which exists for LIHOP. No one has come forward to release information that directly expresses truly incriminating activitys in the months proceeding the 911 attacks (I.E, no rigging of the WTCs with bombs, no modifications of jumbo jets for remote control, etc). That is not entirely surprising. New counter-intelligence techniques devised in the 1960s have given the CIA and other agencys a strong ability to suppress whistle blowers, via trauma based operant conditioning. As soon as a potential leaker is identified, they will be subjected to extensive background checks, and placed under very intrusive surveillance in order to gain personal information from them. Many technologys are available to spying agencys nowadays, including laser microphones, phone tapping, computer bugging, etc.
All sources of communication are surveyed constantly by the highest technology available and a great deal of the results are recorded, auto-transcribed and processed by computer to show statistical associations (some of which goes to a live ear if close spying is underway). Once enough information has been assembled to create a 'criminal profile', the director in charge will make a decision as to the best approach needed to gain the whistle blowers compliance. This sometimes involves black-mail and bribery. More often, however, a campaign of terror is waged against the individual, where they are subjected to constant and unrelenting harassment, raising their stress level to an intolerable level that not only destroys their sense of security, but interferes with normal sleep and work related activities. Through weeks of gang stalking, the whistle blowers daily routine will be irreparably damaged, and their sanity will be stretched to the breaking point. Sometimes, the aim of this harassment campaign is to get the individual to release their information in a partial or disorderly manner, where it can be picked apart and discredited by cointelpro assets. Mostly, however, they are given a chance to end the torment by accepting a list of conditions which they must abide by, on the threat of instantaneous retaliation (in proportion to the severity of their infraction) if they do not.
How is it that a government which couldn't even plant WMDs in
iraq could stage something as massively complex as a false flag attack
on the WTCs and pentagon?
Determining the 'competence' of an organisation is easy. Simply look at the deeds the US has carried out in the last decade. Notice the difference between what they say, and what they actually do. When an institute persists in taking a course of action which does not fulfil its ostensible goals, we might reasonably posit that they show signs of incompetence, and an inability to self evaluate. However, when they do not stop pursuing that agenda even at massive losses to themselves, the question of incompetence is brushed aside by concerns about their state of mind. One possible answer is raised by albert einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." The other answer, however, is more sinister. As said by stefan molyneux: "If an organization seems to be continually failing to achieve its stated mission – but refuses to alter its actions – then clearly it is simply achieving another, unstated mission." With this one single insight, all of the odditys associated with the global war on terror (as well as the war on drugs, poverty, etc) can be reconciled. For every official proclamation a government agency may make regarding some ambitious new campaign, there will almost invariably be an unofficial motive that is not being disclosed to the public.
When taking into account all of its secret sponsors and policy decisions, the bush administration is seen for what it really is: A neoconservative platform that was successfully able to institute most of the goals outlined in the project for a new american century. Even so, the tendency to use mission statements to conceal more unwholesome goals is widely known among the worlds top intellectuals. With that being the case, you have to ask what benefit the bush administration would have gained from staging a false discovery of WMDs in iraqi territory? Few people with an IQ above 100 would take this development in stride. Indeed, some would see this news as a shocking confirmation of americas (long suspected) corruptness. So, would easing the consciences of the dumbed-down public alleviate the consequences of alienating the politically awake? Unlikely. And again, the purpose of the false WMD scare was not to provide an overriding justification for an intervention into iraq, or any other country (thats what they had 911 for): The point was only to get the neocons foot in the door. Afterwards, a continual presence in iraqs vast oil fields could be maintained through mission creep, and vigorous stigmatisation of those officials who wanted to 'cut and run.'
Even the president himself was not above participating in this transparent agenda, using his rank to pressure dissenters into submission. In summary, the key to explaining the iraq episode is the fact that people are much more willing to believe in an incompetent government, rather than one which is deliberately malevolent. But once you accept the premise that the bush administration is a highly effective, morally corrupt association, and that their actual goals in any endeavour are never what they publicly claim, it becomes clear that 'incompetence' is nothing more than a comforting charade which is used to cloak evil policys in. The men in office are able to get a surprising amount of mileage out of this little trick, since american citizens have a very high tolerance for political failure, although not with silly hot topic issues pertaining to sexual orientation, gender, religion, or race. Incompetence also lends itself to perpetuating the left-right slave paradigm, particularly when opposition partys gain browny points by pointing out the obvious, and saying how much better things would be if the current president was kicked out of office (to be swiftly replaced by their own candidate, of course...).
Determining the 'competence' of an organisation is easy. Simply look at the deeds the US has carried out in the last decade. Notice the difference between what they say, and what they actually do. When an institute persists in taking a course of action which does not fulfil its ostensible goals, we might reasonably posit that they show signs of incompetence, and an inability to self evaluate. However, when they do not stop pursuing that agenda even at massive losses to themselves, the question of incompetence is brushed aside by concerns about their state of mind. One possible answer is raised by albert einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." The other answer, however, is more sinister. As said by stefan molyneux: "If an organization seems to be continually failing to achieve its stated mission – but refuses to alter its actions – then clearly it is simply achieving another, unstated mission." With this one single insight, all of the odditys associated with the global war on terror (as well as the war on drugs, poverty, etc) can be reconciled. For every official proclamation a government agency may make regarding some ambitious new campaign, there will almost invariably be an unofficial motive that is not being disclosed to the public.
When taking into account all of its secret sponsors and policy decisions, the bush administration is seen for what it really is: A neoconservative platform that was successfully able to institute most of the goals outlined in the project for a new american century. Even so, the tendency to use mission statements to conceal more unwholesome goals is widely known among the worlds top intellectuals. With that being the case, you have to ask what benefit the bush administration would have gained from staging a false discovery of WMDs in iraqi territory? Few people with an IQ above 100 would take this development in stride. Indeed, some would see this news as a shocking confirmation of americas (long suspected) corruptness. So, would easing the consciences of the dumbed-down public alleviate the consequences of alienating the politically awake? Unlikely. And again, the purpose of the false WMD scare was not to provide an overriding justification for an intervention into iraq, or any other country (thats what they had 911 for): The point was only to get the neocons foot in the door. Afterwards, a continual presence in iraqs vast oil fields could be maintained through mission creep, and vigorous stigmatisation of those officials who wanted to 'cut and run.'
Even the president himself was not above participating in this transparent agenda, using his rank to pressure dissenters into submission. In summary, the key to explaining the iraq episode is the fact that people are much more willing to believe in an incompetent government, rather than one which is deliberately malevolent. But once you accept the premise that the bush administration is a highly effective, morally corrupt association, and that their actual goals in any endeavour are never what they publicly claim, it becomes clear that 'incompetence' is nothing more than a comforting charade which is used to cloak evil policys in. The men in office are able to get a surprising amount of mileage out of this little trick, since american citizens have a very high tolerance for political failure, although not with silly hot topic issues pertaining to sexual orientation, gender, religion, or race. Incompetence also lends itself to perpetuating the left-right slave paradigm, particularly when opposition partys gain browny points by pointing out the obvious, and saying how much better things would be if the current president was kicked out of office (to be swiftly replaced by their own candidate, of course...).