Ten years later

Written By: - Date published: 7:17 am, September 12th, 2011 - 156 comments
Categories: International, us politics, war - Tags:

Ten years after the September 11th 2001 attacks, the world is sitting in a fragile state. International media are awash with stories of a possible ‘car bomb’ attack on American soil, with sources citing intelligence of three possible terrorists entering the country. It’s very hard to know how much hype is in these reports, and it usually pays to watch American media with a wary eye. Yet it seems that this threat is credible enough to alert the public to it.

There are some significant issues on the international relations horizon as well, the most significant being the impending Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations. Israel has begun preparing for the consequences of such action, including giving arms and training to Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

Turkey has expelled the Israeli ambassador and has said it will cut military ties with Israel after a report into the deadly flotilla raid last year. The U.N. report said Israel’s use of force was “excessive and unreasonable”. It seems likely that the only way this issue will be solved will come at the price of an Israeli apology, something very unlikely.

Within Israel itself there have been protests over the economy, where at least 250,000 people took to the streets to demand the Government address the increasing cost of living, among other things. There must be a lot of pressure on the Israeli Government at the moment, and with the first Iranian nuclear power plant going online there will no doubt be growing concerns over their supposed weapons program. The latest U.N. report into the Iranian nuclear program appears to suggest that Tehran is attempting to blur reality to outsiders when it comes to weapons development, playing a sometimes dangerous game.

Tensions are rising on many issues around the world, not merely the ones mentioned above. It is hard to know where all these events will lead and it would be unwise to speculate as to possible consequences. Yet one thing we should remember is that even in our corner of the world, we can be affected.  We should make sure we’re informed of what’s going on, as voting citizens in a democratic country we have that right.

Rijab

———————————————————————————-

It’s amazing to reflect on how much has changed in the past ten years, and in the opposite direction from what we might have expected. In 2001, the US was the ‘hyperpower’ – unchallenged on the world stage. The wars in Afghanistan and, more, Iraq, were the first real exercises of that hyperpower. The world waited to see how much its military power had advanced since its last major outing in 1991, in which it had shown the ability to literally decimate one of the world’s largest armed forces and barely break a sweat.

Those of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq didn’t believe Saddam had a right to power but feared the human cost. I doubt many of us, however, foresaw that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would still be ongoing ten years after 9/11, that they would have cost $4 trillion (a third of the US’s debt) and anything from 250,000 to a million lives. It looked like the hyperpower might embark on a series of wars sweeping aside the dictatorships in Syria, Iran, possibly even Saudi Arabia and attempting to replace them with democracies in its own image.

Instead, it became bogged-down and bankrupted itself. The world’s greatest military had the power to defeat any other conventional military in the field but has been fought to a draw by rag-tag insurgent forces. American power is now a joke, fodder for its own late-night comedians (hell, even that Ke$ha video has an inverted US flag in the background).

The disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan have broken America’s ability and will to project its power via military means, and left it so indebted that it can’t use money instead. Meanwhile, China’s soft power rises unchecked in the Pacific, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America. China has increased its economic output by 150% since 2001, the US by 7%.

Once the hyperpower, now financially broken, fiscally downgraded, militarily strained, its self-belief shattered, politically divided at home, and unfeared and unloved abroad. And the outlook only worse.

Who would have thought 19 men and some box-cutters could lead us here?

– Eddie

156 comments on “Ten years later ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    12 September 2011 at 8:06 am

    “It is hard to know where all these events will lead and it would be unwise to speculate as to possible consequences.”

    Why? Is this a suggestion that we should close our eyes, batton down the hatches and cower in a fugue of conservatism? Surely intelligent speculation based on past and current events can aid in the formation of effective strategies to counter what might be unravelling? The claim that “the world is sitting in a fragile state”, if true in terms of the world of prevailing power, surely signals that it’s time to lay plans and act…to propose and lay the groundwork, if possible, for a different direction….a brief window of opportunity to act in a time of relative flux and uncertainty before everything congeals again.

    As for “19 men and some box-cutters (…) lead(ing) us here?” as though some mystical force of fate rippled out in the shockwaves of some collapsing buildings, it’s just not how the world works.

    Enactment of very deliberate policy by political leaders led us here. And if we don’t put a stop to all the fear mongering and war mongering, our political leaders will have us in worse places than here over the coming years.

    So it might be wise to speculate a little and decide whether a bit of resitance and a bit of the offering of alternative propositions…serious, fundamental alternatives…. could be worth the effort in the face of our likely futures given present trajectories.

    • Rijab 1.1
      12 September 2011 at 9:04 am

      You’re right Bill, there is definitely room for intelligent debate on these issues. I regret the quoted statement yet I believe at the time of writing I had in my mine the whole 10 year anniversary threat and thought it not so wise to get caught up in speculating in that context.

      Interestingly, hours after writing my post we’ve witnessed an escalation of hostilities between the people of Egypt and Israel. Pro-democracy protesters stormed the Israeli embassy in Cairo as retaliation for earlier reports that Israel shot dead multiple Egyptian border guards. This is extremely alarming, Israel has very few friends in the region and if they lose Egypt they’ll find themselves between a rock and a hard place. That being said, if the military regime loses power in Egypt (which will happen sooner or later), a power vacuum will exist and it seems the Muslim Brotherhood will rise. This will no doubt end any remaining friendship between Israel and Egypt.

      On the other side is Syria and Assad, who holds important geopolitical power in the region. Russia is becoming more and more vocal of the dangers in allowing Assad’s regime to fall and they have valid reason to. Who knows what will happen there, and we can only hope that the bloodshed stops and reform is implemented, but Syria is not Tunisia nor Libya, and there might be profound consequences with the loss of a stabilizing force like Assad.

      Back at home, I’m worried about the experience of those in Government to make the tough calls when it counts on these issues. Key is a blabbering idiot when it comes to playing on the international arena (his comments regarding Norway with President Obama being a great example), and I would worry that he will too easily be pushed into whatever smarter players want from us.

      • Bill 1.1.1
        12 September 2011 at 9:52 am

        If, ten years or so back, we had set to building sustainable movements, then our political leaders wouldn’t be operating in the same ‘free ride’ environment they are operating in at the moment.

        But we failed to generate any measures that would hold them to account, or that they would have to consider before embarking on their stupid adventures or before offering support to the stupid adventures of others.

        So now we’re in a situation not unlike the unleashing of neo-liberal reforms where things came down so thick and fast that by the time a response had been generated to one issue, it was already gone and the next was upon us.

        Do we now have any options beyond either sitting back as horrified spectators to what is unfolding or simply giving the entire edifice of power the ‘long finger and walking away? Is there any possible action besides starting anew and from a difficult place; robbing the current power structure of their base (us and our continuing involvement with ‘this way’ of life) and building a future outside the bounds of traditional social democratic political structures?

        Genuine question.

        • AAMC 1.1.1.1
          12 September 2011 at 10:01 am

          Yes please!

          Genuine answer.

        • Rijab 1.1.1.2
          12 September 2011 at 11:30 am

          Do we have any option beyond sitting back?

          We do, but not with the current corporate media and consumerism mentality that drives our society and economy. Above all else the major issue for our country is the currently high level of global political apathy. It’s to be expected; we’re isolated, we’re not doing too badly yet, and the idea that wars on the other side of the world and the global economy have direct consequences on our lives has yet to sink in for most people.

          I’ll bet a few dollars that over the next three years of a National Government we’ll see levels of apathy drop away rapidly and more of lower and middle income New Zealand start to ask questions and demand answers, probably by taking to the streets.

          Social Democracy has been through some massive ideological shifts over the last century, there’s nothing to stop it changing again. In my view a base structure with social democratic ideals is the way forward, if only because it is an ideology that allows for adaptation, and I think there’s a willingness of social democrats to find a balance moving forward. I’d say there’ll be a shift toward the green movement. We’ll never find a truly sustainably answer when power is held in so few hands, but we can try to keep those hands in some stiff democratic shackles.

          I would recommend looking at The Policy Network’s ‘Social Progress in the 21st Century’ series of articles to get some idea of the academic arguments for social democracy moving forward into the 21st century.
          http://www.policy-network.net/publications/4027/Social-progress-in-the-21st-Century

  2. Joe Bloggs 2
    12 September 2011 at 9:00 am

    .
    There’s always some ideologue who can point to the policies of Tony Blair, or George Bush, or the Spanish government, or the Israelis, for the root cause of the slaughter of thousands of civilians.

    Some would even have us believe that the collapse of the twin towers was deliberately engineered by the US government.

    Somehow responsibility never lies with the perpetrators.

    • Rijab 2.1
      12 September 2011 at 9:11 am

      I believe all examples you have cited have caused the slaughter of (at least) thousands of civilians.

      Some do say the collapse was engineered, not me personally, but it’s good that some people are willing to reject official lines and look into matters in depth from an independent perspective. The thousands who died on that day and the hundreds of thousands since deserve that.

      As for the last comment, well you look like a fool, troll.

    • aerobubble 2.2
      12 September 2011 at 9:20 am

      I thought the anti-Americian lobby believed America was the perpetrator? I mean
      if you owned a large building that would cost a billion to demolish and you just
      happened to be speaking to the head of a international syndicate of criminals…

      Why do people believe those type of things, maybe because some also believe
      terrorism that does not have state sanction is impossible since states will
      work together to end it immediately less it look like a reason for war.

      The unintended consequences of America going off the edge into far right
      extreme policies only limited by the constitution (and even then), was that
      the middle east woke up to the fact that America was never going to come
      and help them out, they had tried religious extremism and that only leads
      to Iranian type dictators, so as a choice it was either a militrary junta or
      a religious fanatic ruler. But neither was palateable. So what happened/
      Did the religious fanatics, the moderates and the militrarists all come onboard?
      Did peak oil fueling the food spikes coupled with America extremism in the
      Whitehouse and Congress finally force Arabs to work together and not be
      divided by religion or greed for power that denies their people food.

      Did America fail 3,000 people in NY 10 years ago, should Bush be ashamed
      it happened on his watch, hell yeah.

      Its was an own goal like the auckland public tranport snarl up, where
      the government does not ‘do’ public service, public transport, and so
      when the shit hits the fan everyone starts pointing fingers at them rightly.
      So will Key now go off into a rage, about how NZ was let down, the
      dots were not crossed, and how the war on the public must be beefed up
      even more.

      • Blue 2.2.1
        13 September 2011 at 10:13 am

        “Its was an own goal like the auckland public tranport snarl up” What? Are you honestly comparing the death of 3000 people ‘perpetrated’ by a bunch of spoiled rich (rather gullible) kids from Saudi to being held late on a train going to a rugby game? You are truly a moron. Those who did these deeds are responsible, they chose to kill, they chose to die doing it (the act of cowards). To suggest the innocents killed were somehow culpable for the crime of being a US Citizen is appalling. It brings home to me why most of you live in the far left 1%, i.e. 99% of people think you’re full of shit.

    • freedom 2.3
      12 September 2011 at 10:12 am

      http://torontohearings.org/
      four days of evidential testimony just concluded,
      it will be a few weeks before the report is out but fair warning . . .
      deniers everywhere better find a new hobby

      • travellerev 2.3.1
        12 September 2011 at 10:23 am

        And awesome it was too. My blog has absolutely exploded the last couple of weeks and judging by the two links ( here over 6000 of which over 3300 reads in September alone and here over 2180 and over 1000 this month alone too ) read most and the total lack of trolling remarks it was a keen audience ready to educate themselves.

      • The Voice of Reason 2.3.2
        12 September 2011 at 10:45 am

        Er, what’s a denier in this context, freedom? That’s a strange use of the word, isn’t it?
         
        I get climate change denier and the even sadder Obama’s birth certificate denier, but surely the truthers deny the ‘official’ position, so shouldn’t they be the 9/11 deniers? Especially given that there is nothing yet for those who believe the ‘official story’ to deny? Shouldn’t the vast majority of the world’s population actually be derided by the truthers as ‘believers’, particularly when you point out yourself that there is not yet any evidence to the contrary and we all have to wait for the Toronto report to come out for the names to be named.
         
        I, for one, am simply gagging to know who perpetrated the greatest hoax  of all time and I’m soooo looking forward to report which will finally expose the conspirators. I have my $500 ready to donate to the Standard when the glorious day comes!
         
         
         
         

        • freedom 2.3.2.1
          12 September 2011 at 12:20 pm

          I don’t know how your brain works but TVOR, you are a rare beast.
          For example you are the only person i have ever heard of who has a problem figuring out the meaning of
          ‘a denier’. in the context of 9/11.

          They deny the Truth,

          Wow it was so complicated. Thankyou for wasting my time but you can relax awhile you don’t have to think up a bunch of rehashed arguments to defend the lies and propoganda . The Report will take some time to develop and yeah when the report comes out you may well have to start putting aside that donation. Was it a conviction or every conviction you are paying the bounty on? Though i doubt any court decision is going to meet whatever criteria qualifies as guilt in your universe.

          You have some choices, which is always a good thing. You can be an adult, wait, revisit the facts as you understand them to be, looking at the chaos of a globe is turmoil. You can examine the Report objectively when it is released. You can ridicule something you do not understand. You can distract and bait people because you are terrified of the implications contained within the question.

          The choice is yours and yours alone. It may well be one of the most significant choices that you ever make. One of the choices made by an attendee at the hearings was a single donation of $50,000US. This came from a well known internationally acclaimed Film maker. It is not my place to name the person, that will be published soon enough. What is important is to consider the strength of the evidence that drove the decision.

          • The Voice of Reason 2.3.2.1.1
            12 September 2011 at 2:33 pm

            My brain works fine, thanks, Freedom, which is why I asked the question. Just so I’m clear, do all truthers refer to the rest of the world as deniers, or is it just you? It does seem illogical to use the term to refer to people who accept the orthodox understanding. It is truthers who deny that understanding, so it logically follows that is they that are the deniers.
             
            It just seems to me that it is a misuse of the word..
             
            You have my word that I will pay up on the conditions I spelt out earlier. But I remain sure I’ll never have to pay up, because there is no conspiracy, other than the one that we all know about already that involved the hijackers.
             
             

    • Morrissey 2.4
      12 September 2011 at 10:43 am

      Joe Bloggs is just a bit confused….

      There’s always some ideologue who can point to the policies of Tony Blair, or George Bush, or the Spanish government, or the Israelis, for the root cause of the slaughter of thousands of civilians.

      So these attacks just came out of the blue, did they? Ex nihilo. They had nothing to do with anything. It was just 19 evil men acting out of an insane hatred for freedom. Nothing to do with American/British/Israeli crimes. You need to get real, my friend.

      Acknowledging that these crimes were provoked by the actions of governments does not make one an “ideologue”. Even the United States president admitted publicly that the actions and policies of the United States were at least partially responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

      Some would even have us believe that the collapse of the twin towers was deliberately engineered by the US government.

      You’re trying to conflate legitimate criticism of government policies with wacky conspiracy theories. Are you trying to be clever?

      Somehow responsibility never lies with the perpetrators.

      That’s not what what Eddie suggested.

    • mik e 2.5
      12 September 2011 at 4:04 pm

      So why do the perpetrators target the US then JB .

  3. AAMC 3
    12 September 2011 at 9:15 am

    “There’s always some ideologue who can point to the policies of Tony Blair, or George Bush, or the Spanish government, or the Israelis, for the root cause of the slaughter of” hundreds of thousands of thousands of civilians, the displacement of millions, the starvation of half a million Iraqi babies, ongoing death at the hands of depleted uranium, the presence of Imperial military bases in 150 countries, special forces and drones active in 120 countries ( http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175426/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_uncovering_the_military%27s_secret_military/ ).

    And the net result, Financial collapse, Imperial decline and the loss of the freedom central to the Western Ideal.

    Somehow responsibility never lies with the perpetrators.

    • aerobubble 3.1
      12 September 2011 at 9:36 am

      I can’t help wonder if we weren’t powered down because of all the debt on the books
      how much faster politicially i would be to quickly adapt to climate, energy, aging, etc…

  4. Oligarkey 4
    12 September 2011 at 9:25 am

    Agree with Bill hear. It’s the incessant and deliberate fear mongering among the US political and media elite that is driving the trajectory of international relations re the “terrorist threat”.

    Here’s the reason for the fear-mongering http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XIeb879SY

    Barrack Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who is the subject of the above video.

  5. One Anonymous Bloke 5
    12 September 2011 at 9:26 am

    “Enactment of very deliberate policy by political leaders led us here.”

    According to some measures “here” is an improvement:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=full

    As for relative US and Chinese power, if America is crippled by its debt (which is debatable – they still have huge resources at their disposal for one thing), China is crippled by its internal conflict, horrendous levels of pollution, corruption and so on. Both are beset by worsening climatic conditions, which probably pose a greater threat to their security (and yours and mine) than any external political considerations. Things are going to get rough; we will be measured by our resilience, not our wealth.

    Not exactly grounds for optimism.

  6. queenstfarmer 6
    12 September 2011 at 9:33 am

    American power is now a joke, fodder for its own late-night comedians

    A thoughtful post, but marred by the above plainly wrong assertion (the power bit, not the comedy).

    The Chinese dragon may be rising, and the US may be declining, but for now the US is still the world’s only superpower. It has been militarily strained, and economically hammered since 2001, but is still head and shoulders above every other country on earth in both military, diplomatic and economic power.

    • AAMC 6.1
      12 September 2011 at 9:44 am

      They may just be clinging on QSF, but Bidens pr campaign in Beijing recently, Obama’s trip to India (they were there tali between legs, not as overlords), Russia and China calling for a move away from USD as global currency, the whole emerging BRICSS power block, there are many – very real – reasons to believe we now live in a multi-polar world with one bully slightly more powerful, for the moment.

      An interesting article from last year,
      http://www.juancole.com/2010/07/jahanpour-iran-turkey-and-israel-new-global-realities.html#more-7932

    • Afewknowthetruth 6.2
      12 September 2011 at 11:09 am

      QSF

      It might be a good idea to abandon the 1970s and get into the present century.

      The US economy is imploding at breakneck speed because it is founded on fabrications, lies and fake money.

      And no one has taken American diplomacy or its military capability seriously since the Russians booted the American-backed madman of Georgia out of the northern portion of the country and drove home across the border with all his ‘hardware’.

      What did America do in response to this challenge to their ‘power’ -send a trade delegation to NZ with some Chinese-made flags?

      Yes, the US is still capable of bombing and droning civilians in nations that don’t have an air force. Other than that it’s close to kaput.

      • AAMC 6.2.1
        12 September 2011 at 11:24 am

        I think the most telling tale of US might – or lack thereof – is that they have spent 10 years fighting a small religious faction in the 5th poorest country in the world, and yet last month suffered the most casualties since the beginning of the war and civilian deaths have increased 106% since the US troop surge in June 2009.

        http://afghanistan101.blogspot.com/2011/07/quarterly-report-afghanistan-ngo-safety.html

        God help them if Perry of Bachman take the Presidency and they take on Iran, it will cement their decline.

        At least the Brits knew when it was time to dissolve the Empire, in order to save the country, will the Americans be as wise?

        http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175427/best_of_tomdispatch%3A_chalmers_johnson%2C_dismantling_the_empire/

        • freedom 6.2.1.1
          12 September 2011 at 1:03 pm

          don’t forget the ‘pharmaceutical materials’ drive

          “Opium production in Afghanistan has thrived since the U.S. invasion and overthrow of the Taliban government in 2001. According to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) data, there was more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past five growing seasons (2004–2008), than in any one year during the Taliban five-year rule (1996–2001).”

      • queenstfarmer 6.2.2
        12 September 2011 at 12:02 pm

        I don’t disagree that the US is facing serious challenges (perhaps putting it mildly, though the extent is debateable), or with what AAMC is saying, and relatively is going backwards, but like the author you go to far with the comment that no-one takes US diplomacy or miliatary capability seriously.

        If things go really really badly for the next 20 years, there may be some credibility in that in 20+ years time, but for now it’s just plain wrong.

        • bbfloyd 6.2.2.1
          12 September 2011 at 2:05 pm

          wishful thinking at best queeny….there’s no more room for any more straws on that camel’s back… it could land anytime soon…. time to get real…… if you can….

        • AAMC 6.2.2.2
          12 September 2011 at 4:58 pm

          And such a pity, because the revolutionary foundations of the “American” ideal and thei constitution are admirable, and preferable to Chinese totalitarianism.

          It’s just a pity their narcissisim, Imperialism and religion hbe squandered their position and the values they stood for.

          • queenstfarmer 6.2.2.2.1
            12 September 2011 at 5:48 pm

            I would add excessive public spending very high on that list (though in part that’s an effect of imperialism).

            • AAMC 6.2.2.2.1.1
              12 September 2011 at 5:56 pm

              Inwould have added corporate welfare to Lockheed Martin and tax cuts before public spending.

            • mik e 6.2.2.2.1.2
              12 September 2011 at 9:41 pm

              Most public spending has been on their military its one of their many corporate welfare schemes.They used to be the biggest exporter of armament but they are sliding down the list just like every other area of their economy and Key is following their lead.

              • queenstfarmer …
                12 September 2011 at 9:56 pm

                Most public spending has been on their military

                That’s right (at a federal level). The US spends far more on defence (oops, defense) and has better technology, resources and training than any other country, which is why it is plainly incorrect to say that US military power is a joke, regardless of your political views of the country.

                BTW the US is spending more on its military under Obama than it ever did under Bush, or any other US president.

                • AAMC …
                  13 September 2011 at 9:01 am

                  I doubt anyone here would claim Obama to be a dove, he’s increased all of their war efforts, most notably their covert wars via drone. It’s called the Imperial presidency, arguably the Pentagon and not the White House controls the levers in the US.

                  But I’ll say it again, 10 years, the worlds 5th poorest country, the most dead in a month in the History of the war, 77 US soldiers injured in one day after a suicide attack. They may have the might, but short of wheeling out those nukes, it still will never succeed against an insurgency.

                  I suggest you read this post from Juan Cole yesterday QSF…

                  http://www.juancole.com/2011/09/77-us-troops-wounded-in-truck-bombing-of-base-in-wardak-top-reasons-us-should-get-out-of-afghanistan.html

                • mik e …
                  13 September 2011 at 12:37 pm

                  The US is borrowing money off china to fight its wars that can’t last much longer especially as the republican controlled house is doing the budget which means cuts cuts and more cuts no tax increases to pay for debt means The us is going down the gurgler at an increased pace.

    • mik e 6.3
      12 September 2011 at 4:11 pm

      Don’t forget debt power.The US its out of money run by right wing nut jobs who have brought it to its knee’s and those same types are doing it to us as well and that includes you QSF and your psycho political warfare occasional fence siting but general put downs of the left .It must be a day off rugby because I would have thought you would be enjoying some corporate hospitality courtesy of the major banks National policy I believe.

    • Vicky32 6.4
      13 September 2011 at 5:14 pm

      It has been militarily strained, and economically hammered since 2001

      By its own choice!

  7. prism 7
    12 September 2011 at 9:34 am

    Ten years on and we are still hearing about the World Centre attack as if it was yesterday. How long will this go on – this memorial for the United States of America, where it happened? Many bad things happen in the world which need to be remembered and some of them have been caused by the USA.

    Bush on the radio 10 years ago – We will go forward in freedom for all that is good and just in the world, or similar. For heaven’s sake this is the country that has imprisoned, tortured and parcelled off people to rendition and that’s just a start. Then there is the point of the war sites being useful proving grounds for new USA weapons such as drones driven from distant safe sites, and if entirely innocent, helpless, unconnected people get killed, made sick by depleted uranium, well they can’t sue – it’s war. And the justification – look what happened to us in the USA, we are going to retaliate with an iron fist as a lesson to other would-be destructive, unprincipled, violent people! We will show how a ‘principled’ violent people can react.

    It is a USA thing – but the results of the World Centre destruction, deaths, injuries and trauma have caused world wide lessening of the freedom and goodness that Bush espouses. And the hypocrisy of a nation whose leading companies and citizens make money out of starting wars, for espoused righteous reasons is sickening.

    Young people rose up against the Vietnam war, but the recent USA wars are presented as defence of the homeland which has been attacked. Which is true. But the reaction has been for the USA to descend from its aspiration of nobility, and to create a huge government deficit which has been siphoned off to the credit columns of the private companies conducting the war business, and depreciated the country monetarily, morally, vitally until it is almost bankrupt of anything admirable.

    It is time for the USA to start making up that deficit, in perhaps getting a big Peace Corps going providing useful aid to needy countries at the people level, because it is at the people level that these attackers draw their strength, so water provision, medical, some low level of credit for local entrepreneurs, providing seed that isn’t terminator-treated would be a start.

    • Vicky32 7.1
      13 September 2011 at 5:57 pm

      Ten years on and we are still hearing about the World Centre attack as if it was yesterday. How long will this go on – this memorial for the United States of America, where it happened?

      Unfortunately, it’s useful!

  8. Carol 8
    12 September 2011 at 9:36 am

    And, in spite of the evident world fragility, Stuff is headlining that Key says the world has become safer since 9/11:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5606826/9-11-world-a-safer-place-10-years-on-Key

    Prime Minister John Key says 10 years on from September 11 and the international military response to it, he “would like to think” the world is a safer place.

    Well, actually… not an emphatic endorsement of increased safety… but then Key lives in a bubble surrounded by minders. And then wee Johnny prevaricates:

    “Even when it comes to something like preparing for the Rugby World Cup, we have to be very vigilant there could be a risk of global terrorism, even though we have no known or prescribed threat, we still have to take that seriously.

    “Probably in 1987 when we hosted the Cup it was very different.”

    New Zealand still faced a low risk of terror attack despite its involvement with the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, Key said.

    “Every one around the world faces a risk but it’s fair to say we are also a much lower risk environment than a lot of other parts of the world. But it’s always possible.”

    So which is it Johnny? Is the world now safer or not?

  9. Brett Dale 9
    12 September 2011 at 9:38 am

    Thoughts and Wishes to the people of the USA today.

    • Morrissey 9.2
      12 September 2011 at 10:51 am

      Brett Dale is at it again: “Thoughts and Wishes to the people of the USA today.”

      Enough already. I don’t believe you care about the people of the USA at all. As someone else pointed out yesterday, your bumptiousness is nothing more than passive-aggressive trouble-making. You’re just trying to provoke a reaction—like you do with your tiresome anti-football rants.

      How about sparing a thought for these people? The people of the USA could stop this if they had the guts to confront their politicians ….

    • The Voice of Reason 9.3
      12 September 2011 at 10:54 am

      I’m told that people from nearly 100 countries were killed in the attacks, Brett, including at least one kiwi. How about a thought for all of those killed, not just the yanks?

    • travellerev 9.4
      12 September 2011 at 10:57 am

      Yes Brett, and to the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia too.

      And so too to the future distressed people of Syria, Iran and while we are at it why not commemorate the many future generations of Americans, Afghani, Pakistani, Libyans, Yemenites, and Somalians who are going to grow up never knowing if their children are going to be born “normal” as the result of the tons of DU used in the “911 wars”.

      And lest we forget the soldiers of all the other countries which bought the lies of the US government such as the NZ soldiers who died in their godforsaken illegal wars of aggression, conquest and vengeance!

    • Draco T Bastard 9.5
      12 September 2011 at 1:34 pm

      Personally, I have more thoughts for the millions of people the USA has killed in cold blood.

  10. One Anonymous Bloke 10
    12 September 2011 at 9:46 am

    The world is most certainly not a safer place whatever that mendacious wretch the Prime Minister thinks, I’m sure he can find an academic to give an opposing view of course – they’re just like lawyers you know.
    Certainly, as the article I linked to above says, “the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years”, but the environmental threat has escalated and will continue to do so.

  11. joe90 11
    12 September 2011 at 9:58 am

    The Atlantic’s collection of retrospective articles: 9-11 Ten Years Later.

    • prism 11.1
      12 September 2011 at 10:49 am

      Thanks joe90 – A rich resource of thoughtful stuff.

      • Morrissey 11.1.1
        12 September 2011 at 11:04 am

        A rich resource of thoughtful stuff.

        You are joking, surely? Or more likely, you have not actually bothered to read one of these “thoughtful” articles.

        Or do you agree with the “Keynote” article by Jeffrey Goldberg, which is nothing more than a wandery rant on a par with something you’d hear from the likes of Leighton Smith every morning?

        There are a lot of thoughtful and insightful writers in the United States. None of them works for The Atlantic.

  12. travellerev 12
    12 September 2011 at 10:07 am

    Who would have thought 19 men and some box-cutters could lead us here?

    Just sit still and think about this remark for a minute. Just let it sink in!

    • McFlock 12.1
      12 September 2011 at 5:29 pm

      And yet it’s so much more plausible than any of the variants of “cruise missile attack” or “controlled demolition prepared over weeks, with nobody noticing and with planes as a distraction” or “collapsed faster than the speed of light” theories.

  13. randal 13
    12 September 2011 at 10:09 am

    Philosophers amd cognitive scientists stilll argue about which human faculties are innate but the propensity to fight and wage war definitely looks like it fills the bill. I take the historical view and that is this territory the middle east has been at war for as long as there have been humans roaming the earth and prepared to take from others if they are stronger. No amount of words will change that. Oil is a greasy business and the present occupiers of these lands were to use Marx’s phrase, “called into existence”. Not from the soil but the oil. Besides it makes good television.

    • AAMC 13.1
      12 September 2011 at 11:52 am

      It seems all of the children of Abraham are equally bloodthirsty. And unfortunately seem relatively intent on bringing about their Armageddon myth.

  14. freedom 14
    12 September 2011 at 10:18 am

    With the passionate words from the broken father of a victim, an event concluded today that will forever alter the landscape of 9/11. The international gathering aligned ten years of research and investigation into four days of expert testimony and cross examination on the events of 9/11. The Toronto hearings delivered data of such volume and gravitas that it strongly suggests the official Story is not only flawed, it is entirely fabricated.

    When the Toronto Hearings Panel Report is released and the plans discussed at the hearings are undertaken, the World will finally get an opportunity to understand the Truth about the events of September 11 2001. Perhaps then we can begin to acknowledge the destructive errors instigated in the hours, the months and the years of confusion that we have witnessed since the attack.
    http://torontohearings.org/

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1
      12 September 2011 at 12:54 pm

      Clue: the Toronto Hearings are irrelevant except inasmuch as they bolster the tired paranoid right-wing narrative, that government is evil and science is bunk.

      • freedom 14.1.1
        12 September 2011 at 1:07 pm

        They were all about science, but believe what you will if it helps you hide.
        http://torontohearings.org/

        and again this super-bizarro idea that 9/11 Truth is in any way a partisan issue
        this is about right and wrong, not who gives the best handjobs behind the benches

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1.1
          12 September 2011 at 1:34 pm

          I didn’t say it was a partisan issue – I said it bolsters a right wing narrative.
          As for the hearings being about science, in science, we start from a null hypothesis – the “hearings” do the opposite.

          • freedom 14.1.1.1.1
            13 September 2011 at 1:40 pm

            Is that like NIST initially stating the collapse of WTC7 had an extremely low probability of collapse due to fire. Then there was a probem as any other causes failed to eventuate as a possibility. (outside of the obvious controlled demolition theory, on which they had an explicitly stated position to reject calls to investigate for the prescence of any explosive material)

            This left them in the quandry of explaning the symmetrical collapse of a 47 story steel frame building. So despite already stating that Fire could not have caused the collapse they had to return to the flame. This led them to create a surreal computer model that shows a previously unknown unseen and unproven physical event in a steel framed tower – Thermal Expansion.

            Another interesting point is the computer model stops a few seconds into the collapse event, leaving a large portion of reality with no data to verify what occured. The WTC7 computer model also fails to explain 2.6 seconds of free fall that NIST admits occured. NIST have released selected details of their findings. They flatly refuse to release the computer model, the data they used to build it and steadfastly refuse to show what happened from the moment of initial collapse to the pile of rubble in WTC7’s footprint. So the report is not available for peer review in any way shape or form and its entire premise is an event that has no relationship to any recorded event in the history of steel framed buildings.

            Hence The NIST 9/11 work, on your criteria, completely fails as science , that’s a shame.

            All Hail Thermal Expansion !!!

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1.1.1.1
              13 September 2011 at 1:49 pm

              You refute your own argument. First you quote NIST as saying the fire-induced collapse was “low probability” then you contradict yourself and claim they said fire “could not have caused the collapse”. Make your mind up. Which is it?
              Thermal expansion was first demonstrated to me and the rest of my high school physics class at the age of 15. The teacher heated a bar, secured at one end and restrained by a mild steel bolt at the other. The expansion of the bar snapped the bolt. You were saying?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                13 September 2011 at 2:12 pm

                As for computer models: “All models are wrong, some models are useful.”
                Since NIST does not own the copyright on the modelling software, it would be illegal for them to “release” it. They do own the rights to their fire dynamics simulation software, and this is available for download here:
                http://fire.nist.gov/fds/
                However, they are not the only organisation to have modelled the WTC building collapses:
                http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
                http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
                http://www.exponent.com//wtc.html
                 

                • freedom …
                  13 September 2011 at 6:11 pm

                  The first reference i made to fire was regarding the statement from NIST that fires in Oil Storage Tanks caused the collapse, this NIST found had a low probability.
                  They discrded their first fire theory.

                  The second reference is the establishment of Thermal Expansion as the cause of structural failure based around the fire-induced failure of Column 79

                  it is theis fanciful concept when modelled that is not only incomplete but an abject lie due to the lack of verifiable science in its experimental integrity and manipulation of its findings

                  ok?

                  You are obviously confused about what 9/11Truth is about.

                  It is not the job of the Truth movement to prove what did happen!
                  We are simply and correctly showing that the Official Story is a deeply flawed, [effectively fabricated ] document and that due to the Global repercussions of this horrendous crime, the events of September 11 2001 require a complete and open investigation.

                  I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have viewed and considered some of the new evidence that was presented at the Toronto Hearings. There are four days of testimony to digest so perhaps you are still processing. Or is the formal presentation of ten years of 9/11 research an inconvenient irrelevancy in your dogma.

                  If the irregularities at Shanksville, and WTC 1,2 & 7 have not yet proven to you a new Investigation is warranted then i assure you, that when you see and read the brand new Testimonial evidence that was presented on the Pentagon, your mind will demand answers. If it does not i would seriously recommend you volunteer as a subject for medical study because at that point you surely must be clinically braindead.

                  • The Voice of Reason …
                    13 September 2011 at 6:49 pm

                     “The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.”
                     
                    Michael Shermer, (writing in Scientific American).

                    • freedom …
                      13 September 2011 at 7:02 pm

                      does it fit? why yes, yes it does. Which is why the phrase conspiracry theory is applied so liberally to those who dispute the findings of the 9/11 commission.

                      And it breaks our fragile little hearts everytime we are called it *sob* we lie awake at night *sniff* writhing in distress that somewhere, out in the deep blackness, *bawl* new and terrifying insinuations are beng plotted against our ideas

                    • McFlock …
                      13 September 2011 at 7:20 pm

                      Yeah, I’m sure progressively being ostracised and regarded as nuts is a badge of honour that builds group cohesion against the outside “other”, like cults doing streetcorner bible-thumping.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 September 2011 at 7:26 pm

                      This statement applies equally well to the global vandalism expressed by AGW denial.
                      Truthers to the left of me Truthers to the right of me. Into the valley of stupidity rode the primates.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 September 2011 at 7:30 pm

                      what times these are, what customs! 
                        

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    13 September 2011 at 7:17 pm

                    The first reference i made to fire was regarding the statement from NIST that fires in Oil Storage Tanks caused the collapse, this NIST found had a low probability.
                    They discrded their first fire theory.

                    No, they did not discard it; “low probability” (or even “extremely low probability”) is not same as “impossible”, in fact it has a quite specific statistical meaning, which for one thing explains why it took them a long time to examine it (the hypothesis) more thoroughly.

                    We are simply and correctly showing that the Official Story is a deeply flawed, [effectively fabricated ]

                    No, “deeply flawed” does not mean “fabricated”. It means there are uncertainties that may or may not be significant. 
                    Further reading:
                    http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html
                     
                     
                     
                     

  15. Afewknowthetruth 15
    12 September 2011 at 10:26 am

    A useful starting point for any discussion of 9/11 would be to point out that concrete and steel buildings do not collapse at free-fall speed in their own footprints as a consequence of short-lived, low temperture fires. Indeed, there is much evidence that concrete and steel buildings do not collapse as a consequence of long-lived, high temperature fires (as have occured elsewhere in the world). Nor do titanium alloy engines ‘evaporate’, as the official narrative would have us believe in the case of the Pentagon ‘attack’ and the Shanksville incident.

    By the way, aviation fuel burns in air at around 300oC, nowhere near the temperature needed to soften steel, let alone melt it.

    9/11 was clearly an inside job, carried out to make a profit on the demolition of buildings that had asbestos ‘problems’ -it would been horrendously expensive to remove the asbestos (which had been identified as a health hazard).

    The invasion of Iraq had been planned years ahead of 9/11: The ‘oilmen’ knew the US was in deep trouble, having peaked in oil extraction in 1970 and increasing;ly depemndent on imported oil from places the US was not warmly received. Bush just needed a pretext to invade and take over, thereby ensuring the house-of-cards economy based on gobbling up overseas resources at a profit could persist a little longer. (By the way, the only reason the western alliance was so successful so quickly against Iraqi forces was because the Americans and British used [illegal] ‘tank-busting’ depleted uranium weapons which the Iraqis did not have.)

    And the invasion of Afghanistan was on the cards because the Taliban had blocked a proposed Unical oil pipeline and had severely reduced the growing of poppies, which impacted badly on CIA drug running operations.

    The list of inconsistencies and lies connected with the official narrative of 9/11 runs into dozens, which is why Bush had to put one of his cronies in chrage of the 9/11 commission and have testimony that refuted the official narrative deleted.

    The whole thing would be a huge joke if it were not that so much death and destruction has resulted from the 9/11 scam.

    Having perpetrated one of the crimes of the century, the Bush administration had to keep up the pretence by refusing to release video footage which clearly demonstrated what actually happened on 9/11. but there is still enough material around to demonstrate teh extent the world has been lied to. In particulalr, one need only look at the puffs of white smoke emering from below the demolition zones that were due to thermite charges (thermite does generate the temperature , 2,500oC, required to cut through steel.

    What I find fascinating is the refusal of so many people to accept the truth. For some strange reason the idea that governments would lie to them seems abhorent, whereas I regard governments lying as perfectly normal: they are, after all, looking after the interests of global corporations and the elites, and really could not care less what happens to ordinary people as long as they do not discover the truth and revolt.

    .

    • marty mars 15.1
      12 September 2011 at 12:15 pm

      is that the end game?

      “discover the truth and revolt.”

      I live in Golden Bay and I have listened to multiple layers of multiple ideas of how the official story is wrong and how the truth must come out because once it does, people will wake up, look around and take back their lives. Will the people revolt? Based on what you have been posting afew, it is all a bit late for that, what with the acidification of the oceans, global warming and the upcoming abrupt cutoff from the oil teat. Does it matter if the people revolt? I suppose sliding into the abyss with a smile on your face because you know the truth may be worth something (that was not a personal comment against you – I just liked the words). Can the truth make people revolt? If you timetravelled back and showed them the meetings, the planting of the bombs, the shots to the back of the head – they still wouldn’t believe it – if you showed them how their lives and their families lives had been restricted and constrained by the machinations – they still wouldn’t believe it. The revolt will come as our comfortable lives disintergrate – so that is why I focus my energy on building resilient communities and self esteem, equality and fairness. Whatever happens these are the values that will help people but that is just what I think and I value the fact that everyone thinks differently, and people prioritise issues based on their insights.

      I enjoy your posts and focus.

      • freedom 15.1.1
        13 September 2011 at 2:21 pm

        I do not think anyone can be sure what will eventuate when the weight of valid belief tips the scales.
        There are many who think the destruction of the Official Story will immediately change the world. Others suggest the natural growth of protest action will systematically lead to a bloody and violent revolt. Some prefer to imagine the rational and protracted legal battle which at this time is between parties unable to be identified. There are those who trust that this process will result in a new and open system of government and the collapse of the American Empire. Some wrongly think nothing will change. The Truth to come is somewhere in the middle of this quagmire, no longer sucking air through a straw as it climbs purposefully out of the pit.

        Too many people have far too much to lose to allow Truth a free ride out of the pit. There will be bloodshed and this has already happened numerous times. What they cannot understand is the strength of balanced righteousness can overcome all perils, all poisons and all problems. Some discuss Truth as a quasi religion and in many ways it is. The strength of those who earnestly believe in Truth lasts beyond batons and barriers. It will guide the lost and heal the wounded. It will be more powerful and unpredictable than any religion. Where Truth differs is that Religion requires faith, Truth on the other hand demanded proof. That is what will break open the system’s lies and poison the web that they have dutifully erected for their masters. The evidence exists that all the peoples of the World were lied to day after day, for year after year. If and when it comes out that (some) Governments knew this? Well That is a detail that when it is finally accepted, will change everything.

        9/11 is not an event that occured in isolation. All around us, the web of the world attatches itself to anything it can utilise for strength. The prey it gathers does not really care how it got trapped, the prey just wish they weren’t. Where are we headed is perhaps more important than how we get there. It is again an individual’s choice and their own responsibility as to the journey they will take when complex and troubling events transpire over the next few years. As long as Peace is paramount and respect for one another is held at the fore, then there is no reason the future we share in has to be as dark as today.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.2
      12 September 2011 at 12:17 pm

      Oh please. Why do you suppose that various engineering and building code changes have been implemented? Is it because the buildings were sound but were deliberately brought down by forces for which there is no evidence whatsoever, or because they had unanticipated weaknesses in their designs that led to collapse after extraordinary events?
      Either thousands of engineers are lying and are all part of the gigantic conspiracy for which there is no evidence, or they know what they’re talking about. My money’s on them knowing what they’re talking about.

      • freedom 15.2.1
        12 September 2011 at 12:32 pm

        you really have no clue about any of this do you?

        It is like the bots are bringing out an Anniversary Special : Ten Years of 9/11 Trolling

        The whole passage is straight out of late 2003. It reeks of the era of indignation ‘from engineers’ supporting minor code variations, like changing the frequency of fire alarm checks and other paradigm shifting safety measures.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 15.2.1.1
          12 September 2011 at 12:48 pm

          Evidence. Not anecdotes or advocacy. Got any?
          The reason you heard it in 2003 was that it made sense then too.

          • freedom 15.2.1.1.1
            12 September 2011 at 1:12 pm

            no, i heard about it in2003 because they had to drag out some building related safety messages that would distract people from the well organised lack of progress shown by the 9/11 Official Commission. They also didn’t want people thinking too hard about the increasing number of recruiters that were being employed to talk to highschool kids they were planning to send to Iraq

            • One Anonymous Bloke 15.2.1.1.1.1
              12 September 2011 at 1:44 pm

              Occam’s Razor’s a wonderful tool,
              When explaining it works as a rule,
              Take time for a pause
              ‘fore you multiply cause
              Because who wants to look like a fool?
               

      • Draco T Bastard 15.2.2
        12 September 2011 at 1:44 pm

        Either thousands of engineers are lying and are all part of the gigantic conspiracy for which there is no evidence, or they know what they’re talking about.

        Thousands? Really? You sure about that? Because, IIRC, there wasn’t a single engineer on the official 9/11 panel. There are thousands on the other side though.

    • mik e 15.3
      12 September 2011 at 4:37 pm

      I’m a builder and think that conspiracy theories Don,t give the left a lot of credibility.The type of construction that was used in the twin towers was open to fire damage and was ruled out of being used in New York in the 1950s but was never put into law when the construction was in its formative years time delays would have meant that a suitable structure would not have been able to be built in time for occupancy dates.Exoskeleton buildings are more dangerous in fires then add kit set klip in flooring thew risk goes up more then the asbestos coating on the clip on flooring has to be maintained regularly and wasn’t{corruption cost cutting} allowing low temperature fires to weaken the steel clip in flooring given the weight they have to hold up. The results were catastrophic . The New York fire dept fought tooth and nail to try and stop this building being built. They lost huge numbers of fire fighters in this catastrophe.The twin towers should never have been built. But greedy property developers could only make a profit by having acres of wide open office space.A sound building would have been uneconomic.Real people died in this catastrophe Don’t belittle their loss with a fantasy conspiracy theory . The amount of filming from different angles and different people and organizations makes your theory just that.

      • r0b 15.3.1
        12 September 2011 at 4:49 pm

        Please do not assume that everyone on the left is a fan of these conspiracy theories!

      • prism 15.3.2
        12 September 2011 at 5:37 pm

        mik e Interesting explanation.

      • travellerev 15.3.3
        12 September 2011 at 6:13 pm

        For a builder you are either pretty stupid or not very well informed either way with your lack of construction knowledge it’s not likely I’ll let you near my house for construction purposes.

        The two buildings had very solid inner cores. They had both an inner core and an exoskeleton and were build to withstand the impact of a plane the size of a Boeing 757 with full fuel load. And they did. They were still standing for more than an hour after impact when they suddenly exploded into a pyroclastic flow into near free fall speed. Thats like a cartoon character falling of a cliff after walking over it and hanging above it for a few seconds for comic effect.

        Here is a video about the building of the twin towers. There was a fire house in the towers and for several times there had been fires much hotter and more expansive than on 9/11.

        In fact here is a tape of a fire fighter at the scene of one of the plane impacts telling his colleagues that they could fight the fire with two engines.
         

        • McFlock 15.3.3.1
          12 September 2011 at 6:59 pm

          You really expect people to take you seriously when you rest on very particular interpretations of nuanced data – e.g. pixellated footage, failure modelling – yet you confuse a 757 with the 707 in your 1993 article link?
           
          Interesting that Skilling said the biggest issue was the post-crash fire caused by aviation fuel. Or do just agree with this particular structural engineer for this part of your argument, but disagree with him about the structural effects of aviation-fuel fire temperatures on structural steel? 

           
          And the article is not quite clear – did Skilling’s model assume the fire protection on the trusses was well inspected, maintained and was not blown off by having 300,000 pounds of debris hit it at several hundred miles per hours?

          • travellerev 15.3.3.1.1
            12 September 2011 at 7:37 pm

            Dear McFlock,

            The person whom I am responding to took it upon himself not to mention the entire inner core which in the animation of the National Geographic special on 911 left standing in said animation and for which there was never given an adequate explanation as to why that happened in the animation but not in reality when for the most part it cam down with the same speed as the rest of the building and you are asking me about plane numbers?

            If the 707 was smaller than the 757 it is only marginal and the same Skilling said that the buildings would remain standing if multiple of these planes hit the buildings. He never said that it would be without damage but collapse the would not. Skilling died in the attack by the way.

            Fire would have been a major issue as it was but as the buildings stood for more than an hour and no building before or after has ever collapsed due to fire collapse would not have been an issue.

            Slight sagging on the affected floors perhaps but explosive demolition of the entire building in free falls speed not.

            Pixellated or not the video of Emma Cintron clearly shows a woman holding on the the steel in the hole made by the plane from the “exoskeleton” without getting so much as an hair scorched. So neither the impact of the planes nor the fire seemed to have been of too much influence on the buildings and as I said above with link the fire fighters did not think for one moment not even when they arrived on the impacted floors the buildings were going to collapse as the result of the planes or their fuel.

            And as for you taking me serious? You share half a braincell with the moron above trying to convince everybody here that he’s a builder who knows about the twin towers so no, I don’t give a flying fuck whether you take me serious or not the people who link through to me because of these silly arguments do and those are the ones who count.

            • McFlock 15.3.3.1.1.1
              12 September 2011 at 10:21 pm

              767s flew into the towers. The difference in mass could be as much as a third, not to mention the modeled collision speed. I know you don’t give a damn about persuading people prepared to look at the issue with a grain of honest skepticism, but saying a pixellated video “clearly” shows anything is just dumb.

              You love using words like “pyroclastic flow” or “explosive demolition”, but that is simply using leading language to predetermine the “conclusion” you’ve already made. That is the trick of a propagandist, not someone looking to present “truth”.

              Maybe you’re right – but it will be by luck rather than actually evaluating the information in front of you. And as far as I’ve seen, the simplest and most likely explanation is pretty much in line with the “19 hijackers got lucky by changing the game” scenario. How that fitted into (and was skewed by) the neocon agenda is another matter.

              • travellerev …
                13 September 2011 at 8:41 am

                For those of you who are genuinly interested rather then intend on maintaining their blinkers in tact here are some figures which show that McFlock has no clue what he is talking about and maybe they help you to make up your own mind instead of forcing your to run with the pack:
                Accoding to this PDF called: Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1, the total weight of steel alone per building was appr. 79.050 Short tons. This does not include trusses outside the core, steel deck, concrete reinforcements or grillages. 
                The PDF is a comprehensive analysis and I’m sure even the tonnage per floor can be deducted from it but since the plane did not damage even the integrity of floors it hit as testified to by the fact that the buildings remained intact for more than an hour after the event I don’t think this is relevant for this little expose. The calculations are there for those interested though.
                The max fully loaded weights of a 707 is 336,000 lb (I assume it is lb but it could be metric pounds) which is 168 Short Tons as calculated with this converter
                The max fully loaded weights of a 767 is 396,000 lb (I assume it is lb but it could be metric pounds) which is 195.5 Short Tons a difference of 29.5 Short tons.
                The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
                The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

                The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

                The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.
                The difference in weight is compensated by the speed difference while the outcome of either is no match for even the tonnage of steel in the inner core Mike E did not even know was there in the first place.
                As far as McFlocks accusation of demagoguery here is what  I wrote on Pyroclasticity in a previous post and with beams weighing the same as afore mentioned Boeings flying out like they weigh nothing I challenge anybody not to call the Explosive collapse not explosive. 

                 

                • McFlock …
                  13 September 2011 at 1:10 pm

                  Case in point: your comparison of a 767 and 707.

                  Wikipedia it. Of the three main variants of 707, the max takeoff weights range from 222,000lb to 333,000lb. The 767 variants range from 315,000lb to 450,000lb. So you take the narrow window of MTOW equivalence, assume that both the actual jets and the modelling applied a standard level cruise speed (ie.e as opposed to one modelling standard speed or even slower speed in poor visibility conditions, the other maybe flaring out of a shallow dive at high throttle), and thereby claim validity for your conclusion that “it’s impossible”.

                  In which case “they” also needed to sync the plane impacts with initial charges that destroyed both emergency stairwells contained at opposite corners of the inner core, as well as the lifts – i.e. why so many people were trapped on the upper floors of one of the towers. Because otherwise one might assume that the sustained structural support came from the rigid skin of the buildings rather than the damaged core, that were then stressed by floor trusses sagging in the heat of the fire, leading to a cascading fault in the skin which caused a near-verticle collapse of the entire structure.

                  Fantasist.

                  • travellerev …
                    13 September 2011 at 3:49 pm

                    450 000 lb, lbs = 225 short ton. Total of Steel in the core alone: 79.050!
                    79.050-225=78.825 short ton left to destroy. What the fuck are you on about?
                    No matter how big the plane. here is the biggest Boeing I could find 1.235.000 still only 617.5 short tons.
                    79.050-617.5=78.432,5 short tons left
                    Which means that even if it destroyed weight for weight steel from the building it still would not destroy a single floor of the fucking buildings and the heat of even that plane fully loaded would not have enough energy to bring the building down in free fall fucking speed!

                    You can ant-fuck the figures all you like but even if the plane had been twice as big it would not have caused the building to collapse!

                    Moron!

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      13 September 2011 at 4:11 pm

                      And yet that’s exactly what happened. Twice, even.
                       
                      So who’s the moron? Is it everybody else on the planet or just sweary, abusive you and a few rightwing fruitcakes? My money’s quite literally on it being the latter. Yep, the $500 offer is still live and no doubt still will be safely in my pocket after the Toronto report has killed a few trees for no good purpose.
                       
                      Evidence, Ev. Where is the evidence?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 September 2011 at 4:40 pm

                      Moron yourself: the bulk of the debris was not caused immediately by the plane. The building had an initial failure (caused by aircraft damage and fire) and pure momentum caused by gravity did the rest. The buildings pulverised themselves – and took out neighbouring structures. 

                      This wasn’t a Tyson:Holyfield fight, where the planes had to directly bludgeon every piece of concrete and steel. They only had to cause enough damage to a localised area to cause a structural failure, and gravity did the rest. 
                        
                      But you don’t need to understand any of that, you have teh interwebz and an unfilled lithium prescription, so you know exactly what happened.

                    • MrSmith …
                      13 September 2011 at 4:48 pm

                      ‘This is for Voice of reason, McFlock and the rest of us deniers.’

                      ‘Its all a conspiracy, so they only want the truth not the proof.’

                      “In the paranoid mind, the Illuminati succeeded in their goals, and have now infiltrated every government and every aspect of society. They are responsible for every evil and every unjust act that ever occurs anywhere; the fact that absolutely no evidence of their existence can be found only serves to make them stronger and more frightening. They are the demon in the closet, and will probably never disappear from the paranoid fantasy world of right-wing conspiracy theorists. “


                    • McFlock …
                      13 September 2011 at 5:00 pm

                      “the fact that absolutely no evidence of their existence can be found only serves to make them stronger and more frightening.”

                      Lol – it actually reminds of a story from The Power of Nightmares about the first time Rumsfeld was sec. defense: apparently his minions wolfowitz etc had put forward the concept of a supersecret soviet stealth sub fleet. When the CIA said “we have no indication of that”, the neocon response was “see? THAT’S how secret it is!”

                       
                      Needless to say, there was no secret stealth sub fleet.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 September 2011 at 7:54 pm

                      Falls over shoelace;
                      Moron is as moron does,
                      Faceplant is pending.
                       
                       

                    • Armchair Critic …
                      13 September 2011 at 9:55 pm

                      …even if the plane had been twice as big it would not have caused the building to collapse.
                      The impact of the planes didn’t directly cause the buildings to collapse.
                      …even if it destroyed weight for weight steel from the building…
                      Mass is only created and destroyed in nuclear reactions.
                      Something removed structural strength from the buildings to such an extent that a total collapse occurred. Removing structural strength requires quite a fair bit of energy.
                      NIST’s hypothesis is that the energy to remove the structural strength was supplied from a combination of sources – the initial impact of the plane, which destroyed some strutcural members and removed fire-proofing from others, the fuel in the planes, and the combustibles within the buildings.
                      The 9/11 Truth movement’s hypothesis is the energy was provided by an experimental explosive compound. And all the rest was to entertain the gullible masses.
                      I’m still favouring the NIST hypothesis, on the grounds that it is the least flawed of the range of hypotheses presented.

          • mik e 15.3.3.1.2
            12 September 2011 at 8:55 pm

            Don’t forget the wind speed at that height it would act like a Bunsen burner increasing the heat.More than just fuel on steel. the solid inner core was not up to the job it wasn’t a designed up to new york fire dept standards this was a house of cards literally.It was a kitset tower.Speed of construction was more important than the quality of construction. Typical laissez fair business approach.This building was built off site and assembled on site, each floor was clipped into place then concrete poured on top the inner core being of the same nature as th exoskeleton able to hold the flooring panels in place and the lift shaft but not providing extra strength to the building.All sky scrapers built since it was erected have not used this method again .

      • Tangled up in blue 15.3.4
        13 September 2011 at 10:42 am

        Yep. Anyone who believes these baseless conspiracy theories are either naive or choosing to ignore the mountains of evidence refuting their ridiculous fantasies.

  16. Alan 16
    12 September 2011 at 11:01 am

    Travellerev, and others. One point about the controlled demolition theory has always bothered me. If the buildings were brought down with explosives, what were the guys in the planes thinking? Didn’t they know that it wasn’t necessary for them to die?

    That’d take a helluva lot of collusion between the US government and Al Queda etc.

    • Afewknowthetruth 16.1
      12 September 2011 at 11:22 am

      Which guys in planes were those?

      One credible eye witness said it was not a passenger airliner that he saw fly into one of the towers but was a military plane painted to look like an airliner.

      Guided weapons were being perfected in WWII, and remote control of aircraft was pretty much perfected in the 1950s. By the 1980s the technology to adjust the speed and direction of space probes hundreds of millions of kilometres away had been perfected.

      ‘Al Queda’ is an invention of the Americans. It simply means ‘the base’ and applies to any group of people disaffected by western hegemony and war crimes etc.

      Don’t forget that the bin Laden family were given safe passage out of the US AFTER 9/11.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1
        12 September 2011 at 12:17 pm

        “One credible eye-witness” lol LOL LOL the first thing they teach fledgling criminal lawyers is that an eye witness is the least reliable source in the courtroom – and with good reason, as any magician can demonstrate.
         
         

        • freedom 16.1.1.1
          12 September 2011 at 1:14 pm

          which is why, OAB, the truth movement uses science and expert testimony,

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.1.1
            12 September 2011 at 2:08 pm

            Science? Don’t make me laugh. As I noted about, science starts from a null hypothesis – the truthers do the opposite.
            But I’m happy to look at any specific evidence you can bring to the contrary. One of the other problems with truthers is that you all have your own pet truth – none of you can quite agree on the details, so perhaps you should start by clarifying your particular personal fairytale.

            Was it a cruise missile? Or a remote control jet? If so, how were all the passengers who didn’t come home to their loved ones disposed of? Can office fire temperatures degrade the load bearing capacity of structural steel?
             

            • freedom 16.1.1.1.1.1
              12 September 2011 at 7:31 pm

              Very soon there will be a formal document that unites the evidence against the Official Story.
              You will then be free to debate from an informed position, rather than the unstable house of cards you currently occupy.

              I respectfully suggest you visit the Toronto Hearings site to familiarize yourself with the validity of the project, whilst there, you may choose to learn how scientifically false the Official Story was in its methodology, its experiments and its findings.

              A formal broadcast quality recording process with multile cameras was used to film the Hearings in association with Press for Truth. The footage will be edited for a DVD, with reference files, which will be released along with the full Toronto Hearings Report.

              http://torontohearings.org/

              Full length unedited videos of the Four day Hearings are available to view and download here. Be aware they are lessser quality than the DVD will contain. Audio quality is not descriptive of the DVD to be released later. Unfortunately the spectacular and crowd-pleasing pyrotechnics of Jon Cole fell victim to the vagaries of stream recording and is unavailable at this time. The recording for the DVD was not affected. The videos on file here were taken with a single camera used for the web feed during each session. The videos include audio of the breaks for most sessions, which makes for interesting fly on the wall opportunities.

              All videos are being uploaded to numerous YouTube channels and many other sites.

              Now if you will excuse me, as I have been up for the better part of five days, i must sleep. That deep and satisfying sleep that only arrives with the knowledge that our future is not written.

              • freedom …
                12 September 2011 at 7:41 pm

                My apologies, the above link to the videos seems busted

                videos to view and download can be found here:
                http://www.ustream.tv/channel/thetorontohearings

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                12 September 2011 at 10:36 pm

                So you haven’t actually got a skerrik of evidence you can point me to after ten years, but all will be revealed by the Toronto hearings? How did you form your opinion if you can’t even do that one simple thing?
                Do you actually think I hadn’t already read the Toronto hearings material?
                “Objectives of the Hearings:
                (1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
                (2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
                (3) To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.
                (4) To engage the attention of the public, the international community and the media through witness testimony as well as through media events broadcasted via the Internet during the four day event.”
                Bias much? Has it ever occurred to you that they don’t need “hearings” – if there’s compelling evidence a link will suffice. *crickets*

                • freedom …
                  13 September 2011 at 9:28 am

                  “Bias much? Has it ever occurred to you that they don’t need “hearings” – if there’s compelling evidence a link will suffice. *crickets*”
                  (do you make disingenuous statements often?
                  many enjoy them here, good snack food 😉 )

                  An example of the sinkhole dialogue you were attempting to goad me into:
                  If I supply links to film and video of the actual construction of the WTC 1&2, which clearly show 47 box columns make up the inner core, people still argue that they simply did not exist or were only there for elevator installation ?? Even blueprints of the Towers construction do not sway some from this isiotic belief that the floors were ‘clipped’ onto the outer skin. Even when the footage clearly shows welded and riveted joints between floors and walls and CORE COLUMNS. That concept is so shamelessly ridiculous i would be embarrassed to have it on record. The pointless activities of this type of dialogue and the many like it that we have all witnessed have already shown you are not ready, able or willing to actually discuss the issue rationally.

                  After ten years there is ample evidence. The volume and the disorganised nature of it all is what prompted the Hearings. Despite your rather silly statement above, the Toronto Hearings are merely collating the most relevant and the most crucial evidence into a single work but more importantly they create a FORMAL BODY OF REFERENCE MATERIAL.

                  That is the part that has never happened and also the part that is scaring the fecal matter out of the squirting sphincters of so many. That is what they are doing right now. Taking years of conversations like the ones above and rightly saying ‘no more! This lie stops now!’

                  look at it this way You are a tourist. You stop at a picturesque spot…
                  ‘Hey, look at this large body of water that separates me from the land masses i know are over in that direction because i can see them! A map you have from many years ago has the area marked as a Lake. The Guide, who works for the local council would not ageree with you as the glossy new Government Map shows something alltogether different. The Guide does admit that one week they said it was a wide river, another time they said it was a non-receding collection of flood waters.

                  You get more suspicious when he shows you a detailed report claiming tidal forces forced the aquifer to raise above ground level and it never subsided. You remind the Guide this body of water is six hundred miles inland, and that this event has never happened to any other aquifer, anywhere. He waves a pile of Official documents at you and begins to turn crimson, you leave.

                  You decide to circumnavigate the body of water and armed with camera and GPS you set off. In a few days you return. ‘It’s a Lake! ‘ you declare to the Guide. You show the Guide your carefully plotted points, photos, GPS data and the rough map you drew up to illustrate it all. The Guide hands you a fine for Illegal Topographical recording of Government land. You hire a helicopter and offer to fly the Guide over the Lake. The Guide refuses and asks that you refrain from disrupting the peaceful environment with the noise of the helicopter. You know it’s a Lake so carry on with your journey. As you leave the Guide’s office you notice a recent arrival. It is a large Tour Bus and on the side you see some words that forge a little smile into your tired face,
                  Independant Quantity Surveyors National Tour 2011

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    13 September 2011 at 10:13 am

                    “Welded and rivetted”, “box columns”. At last – actual verifiable claims! Pity you had to pad them out with a load of irrelevant advocacy, and witlessly insult my ability to argue rationally, when all I have asked for is the evidence you find so convincing.

                    Your focus on building construction implies that you believe the buildings were brought down by more than the impact(s) and subsequent fire(s) – the ‘controlled demolition’ scenario.

                    However, controlled demolition would leave a signature in the seismic record. No such signature exists.
                    Unlike you, I can happily cite my source for this information:
                    http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/QM/911-seismograph-2.jpg

                    “This lie stops now!”
                    Which ones? Eric Lawyer’s lies, or Thierry Meyssan’s?

                    • travellerev …
                      13 September 2011 at 10:38 am

                      ROFL Popular mechanics. ROFL

                      Here is a 6 minute part of an Italian doco (unless NZ all countries in Europe, Russia, China and Japan to name a few have analysed the events on TV) The building goes Boom at the base before it comes down and apparently the fire fighters did know in advance even though a building had never ever before come down in free fall speed and never has after the collapse of this building.

                      Here is the new Film of Architects and engineers (And physicists, metallurgists, scientists, fire-fighters to name a few) for 911 truth.

                      I’m sure that blokey boy here won’t want to watch it because he has no problem reasoning but I prefer to do my reasoning with as much info as I can get, don’t you?

                    • travellerev …
                      13 September 2011 at 10:45 am

                      And this is the perfectly sane reasoning of Blokey boy in all of five minutes:

                    • freedom …
                      13 September 2011 at 11:00 am

                      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857
                      OAB, watch this short documentary on the towers’ construction then ask yourself how did the tens of thousands of rivets and welds all fail in perfect sequence to allow symmetrical collapse of two towers into their footprints?

                      Perhaps if all the steel had not been loaded onto trucks, taken to the Hudson and shipped to China for recycling BEFORE it was part of ANY investigation whatsoever, we would not be having this discussion.

                      Perhaps if Controlled Demolition, who were on site the day after the event would be allowed to explain WHEN they organised the coordination of the heavy equipment, the hundreds of Trucks, and the fleets of barges that removed material 24/7 from the murder scene beofre it was investigated, then we would not be having this discussion.

                      Perhaps if the FBI, The NYPD or even a boy scout was allowed to follow US Law and declare a crime scene at a place where three thousand people died, then we would not be having this discussion.

                      Perhaps if an Investigation had been established immediately, not 400+ days later, and if that same investigation had folowed basic Legal protocol when interviewing witnesses or collecting evidence then …

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.1
        13 September 2011 at 11:30 am

        Travellerev: yes, Popular Mechanics. Although the seismographic data comes from Uni of. Columbia. 
        I note you don’t address a single one of their arguments.
        I don’t rate commercial tv videos personally – engineering arguments are best constructed in mathematical terms if they are are to stand up to scrutiny., and once again, if you have any actual evidence of this nature please provide citations.
        I am familiar with the truther architects et al, but their lack of a coherent theory – different groups having different versions – seriously undermines their credibility, to say the least.
        The truther movement is the epitome of pseudo-science: “determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn’t fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.”
        As I said before, this feeds the false narrative: distrust of expertise, distrust of government, the politicisation of science, all of which provides material support to the political right. Own goal much?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.1.1
          13 September 2011 at 11:55 am

          Freedom, why are wasting your time with infinite variations on the argument from personal incredulity, when all you have to do is link to some actual engineering calculations – easy to present as html. If NIST can manage it why can’t the truthers? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
          And if you don’t understand the engineering calcs in question, the basis for your incredulity is what exactly?

        • travellerev 16.2.1.2
          13 September 2011 at 12:03 pm

          Blokey,
          I linked to an article which gives plenty links to articles which people can link too. Here is another excellent link to a video of David Ray Griffin debunking Popular Mechanics.
          Actually it is the false science offered by the official narrative and the suppression of what Architects and Engineers have to say about the collapses that causes the real damage.

          If it is all the same to you I’m going to stop this conversation for a while because the hundreds of people who are visiting my blog at the moment are enough for now. My blog is growing and people are reading what it has to offer. I want to thank you for your inanity because it gave me so much space to give people links and sources they would otherwise not have had but I’m tired and want to rest awhile before I start again

    • freedom 16.3
      12 September 2011 at 12:35 pm

      Alan, Since c.1963 technology has existed to fly every single Commercial or /Military aircraft by remote

      • Alan 16.3.1
        12 September 2011 at 12:59 pm

        Point taken – thank you.

        • McFlock 16.3.1.1
          12 September 2011 at 5:42 pm

          So the relatives of the supposed passengers are all liers?

          And I guess the link to The Power of Nightmares shows the joys of differing perspective – I watched the full series and saw essentially a nutbar feedback loop between “cosmic warriors” (to use Reza Aslan’s wonderful description). Kind’ve like 9/11 youtube clips, but over a longer term.

          • freedom 16.3.1.1.1
            13 September 2011 at 11:05 am

            McFlock It is the families who are the strongest motivators of the Truth movement. It is the families who are calling for an Investigation. It is the families who have not had 70% of their questions answered. It is the families that are suffering by being exposed to the lies, the propogada and the evergrowing bloodlust that swarms across the Middle East in their name.

            • The Voice of Reason 16.3.1.1.1.1
              13 September 2011 at 11:49 am

              Yet, oddly, no sign of the families calling for that enquiry at the ceremonies yesterday. In fact no mention of the 9/11 fantasy at all, perhaps because it’s so fucken offensive to the families?

              • freedom …
                13 September 2011 at 12:02 pm

                Seriously vtor? You think the promotion of the Official Story would include any detractors?
                Obviously not every family who lost someone is standing up with questions but a huge majority are. The security wall around ground Zero was approximately three blocks from ground Zero. You will notice there was no 9/11 Truth activists on scene either. More concerning is that many many First Responders were also kept away. There were restrictions on Firemen and Policeman from attending memorial services across the country. Perhaps because hundreds of them are dying and also because recent autopsies have shown ‘high energetic particles’ and ‘carbon nanotubes’ in their lung tissue ( this will be released officially in the Toronto Hearings Report)

                Even little ol New Zealand had a part to play in this offensive and indefensible call to ban Firefighters from the 9/11 memorials
                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1109/S00143/firefighters-banned-from-remembering-the-fallen.htm

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  13 September 2011 at 12:21 pm

                  Oh, I don’t doubt that there will be some who will grab onto any bit of nonsense in lieu of grasping reality. 3000 victims, 3000 families. Say 15000 immediate family members, 30-45000 friends, distant rellies, etc. Bound to be some loose units amongst that lot.
                   
                  Add into that all the first responders and their families and friends and there may be hundreds of folk who choose to embrace the fantasy. The US has a well entrenched blame culture with many lawyers willing to pursue even the loopiest of cases, so I can certainly see something of an industry developing around 9/11.
                   
                  But whether the tiny minority embrace the madness out of grief, avarice or other reasons, they can’t change the facts of what happened on the day.

                  • travellerev …
                    13 September 2011 at 12:40 pm

                    Your dismissal of those who want a new and independent investigation is disgusting and shows how ignorant and callous you are.

                    For those of you who want to learn about the family members who want a new and independent investigation here is an excellent Doco: Press for truth. For those of you who want to donate to the family members so they can get justice here is a site.
                    And this is why you did not hear loud angry voices on 911 you ignorant selfish bastard. You absolutely disgust me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 September 2011 at 12:51 pm

                      Losing your temper and abusing people does nothing to bolster your credibility.

                    • travellerev …
                      13 September 2011 at 1:00 pm

                      Being disgusted by some ones behaviour is not the same as losing your temper, blokey.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      13 September 2011 at 1:28 pm

                      “And this is why you did not hear loud angry voices on 911 you ignorant selfish bastard.”
                       
                      Actually, all that link does is prove my point that a small minority of the victim’s families will clutch at any straw, no matter how obviously stupid the idea is. A few dozen deluded people out of the tens of thousands directly affected is no surprise at all, as I said above.
                       
                      And One Anonymous Bloke is right. Just because you have no evidence, no clues, no mandate and no idea doesn’t mean you should be rude. All I have ever asked for is evidence and ten years and one day after the event, there is none. If you can’t handle the truth, don’t ask for it.

                    • travellerev …
                      13 September 2011 at 1:36 pm

                      Wow, you are amazing!!! Have a nice afternoon. I’m going to make some ginger tea even though there is no proof of course ginger actually exists!!!

                  • freedom …
                    13 September 2011 at 2:30 pm

                    ten years of evidence collated into four days of hearings
                    and i bet you have not spent four minutes watching any of it
                    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/thetorontohearings

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 September 2011 at 2:48 pm

                      Why do you need talking heads to spin the evidence? Show us the evidence then shut up so we can read it already, we’ve been waiting for ten years and two days. I’ve grown a beard (and shaved it off again) in the time it’s taken you lot to get your act together and you still won’t release your data.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  13 September 2011 at 1:35 pm

                  Carbon nanotubes “…have many potential applications in electronics, computer, and aerospace industries…[AND]…can develop spontaneously over flames and high temperatures in the presence of carbon and a metal catalyst…”
                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854726/
                  Jeez, you think any of those things might have been present?
                  The article goes on to say:
                  “The finding of carbon nanotubes in four of seven WTC patients…cannot be construed as evidence for WTC exposure. Likewise, their absence should not be used as evidence of lack of exposure.”
                  NZ firefighters who were on duty were not allowed to go to memorial services. Those off-duty were. Doesn’t sound like a ban to me. You sure do have some sweet-smelling truthiness.

  17. travellerev 17
    12 September 2011 at 11:32 am

    ROFL, All you need to know about 911!!!

  18. hellonearthis 18
    12 September 2011 at 11:40 am

    The USA has a road toll of over 40,000 a year, why don’t they declare war on that.

  19. Draco T Bastard 19
    12 September 2011 at 1:29 pm

    September 11, 2001 was the beginning of the end of the political paradigm that had grown up around the US Empire (Hopefully we’ll get to call it the Last Empire but unfortunately China seems to be trying to go down the same path). It’s a political paradigm that the politicians, especially those on the political-right, are trying hard to hold on to but it’s a paradigm that could only exist in a world where resources were abundant which is no longer true of our world.

    Resources are stretched due to over-population and the massive waste caused by the capitalist free-market. As resources become scarcer from Peak Oil on and the ability of the Super-Powers to project military dominance subsides local resources will revert back to local control (you can’t have foreign ownership if the foreign owner can’t protect that ownership through military force). Unfortunately, the transition back to local societies and a more natural ecosystem is going to be fraught with wars and famine. The next few decades is not going to be a pleasant time.

    • aerobubble 19.1
      12 September 2011 at 2:20 pm

      So what is happening in the middle east, at the extremities of the empire, is a
      return to localism. Like the Ancient Roman Empire, which had looted its empire and
      then didn’t have the money or motivation to keep the empire going? to pay for
      all the army to fight the now angry regions.

      • Bill 19.1.1
        12 September 2011 at 2:37 pm

        “Like the Ancient Roman Empire, which had looted its empire and then didn’t have the money or motivation to keep the empire going..”

        I thought it was a lack of gold that set them off invading and conquering in the first place.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1
          12 September 2011 at 2:47 pm

          Whereas the US is well-resourced, and has a simple solution to its deficit problem (raise taxes). Its other problems – corruption, the Republican Party, etc are not so simple.

          • Draco T Bastard 19.1.1.1.1
            12 September 2011 at 4:08 pm

            Whereas the US is well-resourced…

            The US has resources but it’s rapidly running out of the Prime Resource otherwise known as oil.

            …corruption, the Republican Party, etc are not so simple.

            Corruption seems to be inherent within any hierarchical system and seems to be the prime cause of those society’s collapse. Capitalism is a hierarchical system – the capitalists are at the top living off of everyone else’s work and restricting access to the available resources*.

            * Access does need to be restricted but only to limit use of those resources to what is renewable. Everyone should have an equal say in how those resources are used. Capitalism shifts the control of the resources to private individuals that always find that they’re better off the faster those resources are used up.

          • Afewknowthetruth 19.1.1.1.2
            12 September 2011 at 6:06 pm

            In my experience the less people know about a topic the more inclined they are to argue.

        • Draco T Bastard 19.1.1.2
          12 September 2011 at 4:39 pm

          I thought it was a lack of gold that set them off invading and conquering in the first place.

          IMO, societies start out at parity (stable state) and then something happens (Farming usually) which causes the society to grow in population. The population grows but the amount of work needed to maintain the society declines (productivity increase) leaving a few people idle. Some of these people then take over administration of the society (A larger, more complex society requires administration). This leads to the first round of corruption as the administrators now paint themselves as more necessary to the society than the rest of the populace and start to shift the bulk of the communities resources to themselves.

          The population is continuing to grow. This growth (which is usually exponential) causes the society to require more land so as to feed the population (Rome required wheat as tribute from Egypt) as well as to do something with the excess population which is not a part of the Administrative Group. In other words, the Administrators start to look to lands occupied by other people and developing military forces which leads to wars of conquest. The wars will also get rid of some of the excess population.

          This allows, for a time, some semblance of stability. The society is bringing further lands in to its circle of influence and the excess population is both engaged and being eliminated. After awhile though, it collapses.

          First of all, farming is unsustainable. In the case of Rome indications are that fertile lands had become infertile and the harvest was declining resulting in famine. Money is also becoming a problem especially if a precious metal is used as the standard. Either so much is being printed resulting in huge inflation or, in the case of precious metals as the monetary standard, there just isn’t enough to go around especially with the Administrative Group syphoning off as much as they can. Unemployment is also running rampant as the wealth is syphoned off meaning that the society can no longer pay to maintain the legions and so the excess population is increasing and poverty along with it which eventually leads to riots.

          Societies last as long as they can maintain everybody within them in a reasonable living standard. Unfortunately, they all go for the growth paradigm (usually to enrich the Administrative Group (Dictators, Aristocrats, Capitalists)) which eventually must result in the collapse of that society.

          • McFlock 19.1.1.2.1
            12 September 2011 at 5:57 pm

            Pretty much, and I suppose one could also argue to a certain extent that the limit of empire was the Roman equivalent of Peak Oil – the easy wealth from slaves, booty and extended territory became to expensive to acquire and hold.
             
            They did manage to stave off “peak empire” in the republican days by granting citizenship to the Italian conquests, but I’m not really sure why that didn’t happen to the same extent in the wider territories – probably a mixture of the imperial mindset, totalitarian mindset and just plain logistics – the border of the empire became too big to protect, no matter how good your roads.
             

            • Afewknowthetruth 19.1.1.2.1.1
              12 September 2011 at 6:20 pm

              MF

              Apparently in the later stages of collapse high-ranking officials prefered to travel by ship between outposts because the roads had become too dangerous.

              We see a similar phenomenon in that high-ranking officials fly between Washington (DC) and say Kabul, but dare not venture into the hinterland for fear of never getting home again alive

              DTC. I largely agree. What we are witnessing in NZ is the ‘Easter Island sydrome, whereby the elites pour a massive portion of the last of rapdily declining resources into ‘statue building’ …… sports arenas, art galleries, roads that will never be used, extensions to airports etc. This creates the impression all is well as the system rapidly heads towards the implosion point.

              • Bill …
                12 September 2011 at 6:31 pm

                Seems this lot are more into arenas and business districts and other ostentatious buildings rather than mere idols as on Easter Island [with credit to FZ] “as temples in which to praise (their) god. Coz he can really take care of business, see!”

            • mik e 19.1.1.2.1.2
              12 September 2011 at 9:51 pm

              Laziness and arrogance plus when people become better off they don’t want to go off and fight plus the ruling classes taxed the worker heavily to fight wars sound familiar.

  20. Drakula 20
    12 September 2011 at 8:51 pm

    When the twin towers fell George Bush like his father before him said something of the effect ‘that our boys will be out of Iraq in a year’. Remember? Yeh Right!!!!

    Those old enough to have lived through the Vietnam war would realize that such a claim is absolute bullshit!! Me and a few of my friends did.

    Like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is a war of attrition, the slow wearing down of the enemy by maens of infiltration, and insurgency.

    Oh yes the US forces can strike a lethal blitzkrieg and flatten everything in seconds flat, and hail that as a victory but that has always proven to be a hollow victory.

    In countries like Libya that could be where the insurgent war of attrition is only begining.

    The day America minds its own business, dis-connects from Israel will be a day it will no longer fear Islamist terrorism.

    Looking at the Turkish- Israeli standoff and the siege of the Israeli embassy in Cairo it seems that Israel has very few friends. With the refusal to apologize to the Turks they have lost two powerfull allies.

    But having no friends shouldn’t worry Israel, after all being God chosen people, we could let God protect them!!!

    It would be a lot easier on the US and British taxpayer!!!!!!

  21. The Voice of Reason 21
    13 September 2011 at 10:15 pm

    Dunno if this has been linked to elsewhere, but it’s damn good. Alexander Cockburn on the dismal failure of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    • freedom 21.1
      14 September 2011 at 9:31 am

      A highly entertaining read. Cleverly takes some of the more bizarre claims in the Official Story and attributes them to the ‘conspiracists’ who challenge the Official Story. This is a classic and widely used form of obfuscation and misdirecrtion that many Government agencies and Corporate interests have practised for decades if not millenia. A layman would call it lying.

      Paragraph two is an obvious example of this corrupt action. When discussing the collapse of WTC 1&2
      the author says … “No, shout the conspiracists, they “pancaked”” ummm, how do i put this delicately?

      THE PANCAKE THEORY IS THE OFFICIAL STORY !!

      You know, the Pancake theory is the one they actually want people to believe in but popular common sense has shown a growing dissatisfaction with the very concept so it is now being attributed to the truthers. Frakkin amazing strategy!

      There is plenty more in that article to pull apart but basically if they lead with such a clanger,
      why should i or anyone else with at least three functioning brain cells bother ?
      I will leave it there and when the report arrives, we will no doubt do all of this again!

  22. One Anonymous Bloke 22
    14 September 2011 at 9:45 am

    Freedom, your unerring ability to see what you want to see is called “confirmation bias”. Here is the full text you just quote-mined:

    “No, shout the conspiracists, they “pancaked” because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges in the preceding days inserting the explosives in the relevant floors of three vast buildings, (moving day after day among the unsuspecting office workers), then on 9/11 activating the detonators. It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom–party to mass murder–have held their tongues ever since.”

    It has a rather different meaning than the one you ascribe to it when you read it in full. Honest much?

    Oh, and if the “pancake theory” can be so easily be undermined, why don’t you link to the engineering calculations that do so, instead of continuing with your vapid, tiresome advocacy?

    • freedom 22.1
      14 September 2011 at 10:48 am

      My history of commentary on this subject stands and the term itself is what is relevant.
      No Truther ever uses ‘pancaked’ except when discussing the term as it is used in the Official Story.

      Your exercise in attempting to attribute selective comprehension to my use of the quote is facile and i have no wish to protract this minutae of distraction that you obsess over. I implore you to go and watch the Toronto Hearings. In the [near] future there is a document to come that will show whether the collated evidence of ten year’s research warrants a new investigation.

      As i said yesterday and a thousand other days before, it is not the job of Truthers to prove what happened. It is our task to expose an environment where there is an undeniable justification for the establishment of a new and open Investigation into the events of September 11 2001 so that families of 3000 murdered people find peace. Perhaps that peace will help to explain over a million civilian deaths that have been carried out in the name of 9/11. Sorry to dissapoint, We do not do this for our ego.