John Brown

[DHodges]

John Brown was perhaps the most controversial figure of the American Civil War.

John Brown was an Abolitionist. That is, he was strongly opposed to the institution of slavery as it existed in his day. He tried the tactic of "moral suasion,' of discussion and debate. Eventually however he was convinced that this was useless; that pro-slavery people could not be convinced of the evil of slavery, and that slavery could only be ended by force.

However, slavery was institutionalized and protected by the State.

He took up the sword. The pro-slavery side, he saw, was not above violence - slavery itself being a grave violence - and could only be countered by violence.

Although many whites opposed slavery, few were willing to take real action. John Brown risked his life, and the lives of his sons, to free slaves. This risk was very real, we know, because John Brown lost and was hanged. Several of his sons were also killed in the Harper's Ferry affair.

This is a very heavy burden to take up, and not many did so. And he faced difficult questions along the way - in battling evil and violence, how much violence is justified?

Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments--I submit; so let it be done!

It is said that John Brown was insane from 1890 to 1970. (John Brown died in 1859.) During that time period, his actions were seen as those of a madman or a terrorist, that no reasonable person would commit treason and other violence and risk his life for the freedom of other people.

Especially - perhaps it should not be said,, but was clearly understood at the time - when those people were not white.

Times change and views change. John Brown was instrumental in starting the Civil War, and ultimately, instrumental in ending slavery, and changing the nature of race relations. Now he is seen as a martyr, at least by some.

It is a challenge. Who has the courage and the strength of their convictions to stand up, as John Brown stood up, to take up arms, to fight for what they know is right? To fight what they know is evil in the world?


Saturday, May 9, (John Brown’s birthday) I was at the farm in North Elba, New York, where John Brown's body is buried. There were talks and presentations honoring John Brown and his contribution to what America is today. (I was part of a presentation on the life of Mary Brown, John Brown’s wife.)

One of the speakers at this event was a philosopher. He talked of John Brown in a different way than I might have thought of him. He grouped John Brown with Malcolm X, Socrates and Jesus; quite an interesting group to speak of in the same breath.

But John Brown was a deeply religious man, a man of God. I might add Kierkegaard to that interesting little group, as John Brown told the so-called Christians of his day that they knew nothing of Christ and made a mockery of Christianity.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Who has the courage and the strength of their convictions to stand up, as John Brown stood up, to take up arms, to fight for what they know is right? To fight what they know is evil in the world?

Dunno, Hodges, would it justify crashing a plane into the economic or political nerve center of what one perceives as "evil in the world"? Perhaps only when that evil is seen as grown too powerful, too overwhelming, when all other tactics of debate and political campaigning turn out to be useless, when desperation grows, when the evil uses violence on a grand and high-tech scale?

Anyway, it could easily be argued that by being instrumental in starting up the bloodiest conflict in US history, Brown's violence only begot more violence. It's not clear if that War actually solved the issue of slavery in a manner that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. What is clear is that it strengthened a unified, federal government, the same federalism so many are backpedaling from now it's grown to its full bloom.

To me it seems in cases like this that the people, the masses themselves were out on a war. John Brown would then have pioneered the blood lust, the primal anxiety leading up to the bigger conflict. The given reasons I seriously suspect. Violence always demands a cause and the cause of the black man offered itself and from what I understood many black abolitionists didn't think Brown was doing any good for their cause. It would be like Bin Laden taking up the cause of the Palestinians or Somalians and two centuries later having them thanking him for the eventual liberation and development after bloody conflicts that came after him.

Perhaps this is just the way things are: one becomes a hero because of how one kills and dies combined with the particular color of the banner under which it all happens. By all standards the world has lost its heroes and it's very uncomfortable with the ones it does have but fears.

[Carl G]

Dunno, Hodges, would it justify crashing a plane into the economic or political nerve center of what one perceives as "evil in the world"?

Right, or ordering the U.S. military to bomb a country or two back into the stone age. Private citizen or U.S. president, the issue is the same, isn't it; is one person justified in bringing on a bloodbath for and of the many?

By the way, the extra-national masters of the high tech black operatives who carried out the false flag incident to which you refer probably weren't thinking of the American Public as evil per se. The agenda seems to have been sheep-dogging the populace into a new, tighter pen.

Wait, you probably believe it was some flight-school flunkie Arabs with box cutters, directed from an Afghan cave.

[DHodges]

Dunno, Hodges, would it justify crashing a plane into the economic or political nerve center of what one perceives as "evil in the world"?

The question here is, would you have the courage and strength to do that, if that is what it would take to free millions of people in bonds? Can you imagine conditions where that would be not only justified, but heroic?

Perhaps only when that evil is seen as grown too powerful, too overwhelming, when all other tactics of debate and political campaigning turn out to be useless, when desperation grows, when the evil uses violence on a grand and high-tech scale?

Certainly John Brown and his actions are controversial, and some think of him as a terrorist.
In the movie Santa Fe Trail, he was certainly portrayed as a terrorist and a madman. (In fact he looks a good deal like Bin Laden in that film.)

What is clear is that it strengthened a unified, federal government, the same federalism so many are backpedaling from now it's grown to its full bloom.

Well, I agree with that. The Civil War destroyed the states rights as they existed at that time, and the size and nature of the federal government is now a big problem.

The given reasons I seriously suspect. Violence always demands a cause and the cause of the black man offered itself and from what I understood many black abolitionists didn't think Brown was doing any good for their cause.

I can not speak for black abolitionists as a group, but I think it is clear that WEB DuBois approved of John Brown. If others did not approve of John Brown, I submit, they were mistaken.

By all standards the world has lost its heroes and it's very uncomfortable with the ones it does have but fears.

The world of the Last Man is no place for heroes.

[brokenhead]

I'll throw in my two cents here.

If every man were the last man type, we would not need heroes. I agree with Diebert that heroes often attempt to attain their own personal goals at the expense of others, if that's what his contention is.

But there is more of a difference between the planners of 9/11 and Oklahoma City one one hand and John Brown on the other than there is any similarity.

For instance: the ends for which the means were used. In Brown's case, he was clearly instrumental in the abolition of slavery, which is clearly a contemptible institution. What exactly was achieved at OC or the WTC?

Did Timothy McVeigh have a clear-cut political agenda which he tried for years to bring about in a peaceful manner? It appears John Brown did try nonviolent means first. It also appears that while a personal crusade for Brown, it wasn't entirely private, i.e. emotional, as it was for McVeigh.

Likewise, Diebert, your characterization on the motivation behind 9/11 is vague and meaningless. State clearly the injustices the WTC bombings were a) meant to solve, and b) did solve.

I am of the view that John Brown was a catalyst, that sentiment regarding slavery was already polarized to an extent and that abolition would have occurred eventually without him. But having said that, as Hodges points out, Brown was a controversial figure. How controversial has McVeigh or Bin Laden been? So Diebert: do you seriously think people will gather a century and a half from now to commemorate the positive effects of the Oklahoma City massacre or 9/11?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

By the way, the extra-national masters of the high tech black operatives who carried out the false flag incident to which you refer probably weren't thinking of the American Public as evil per se. The agenda seems to have been sheep-dogging the populace into a new, tighter pen.

Wait, you probably believe it was some flight-school flunkie Arabs with box cutters, directed from an Afghan cave.

It's certainly easier to believe there was a false-flag operation going on or even a genuine terrorist act facilitated, mostly hands-off by people with the power to facilitate those things than it is to believe direction out of an Afghan cave.

But lets look at the psychological issues here: is it only a technical consideration, that there would be organizational issues that would make the "cave scenario" less likely? My suspicion after following and engaging into discussions over this quite some time now, is that there exists a huge psychological block to accept the vulnerability of our society in the face of the will and intention of a few.

Did you ever consider Carl, what it would mean if a few people somewhere could decide, for whatever reason, to plot against the system and its occupants, and succeed in bringing it down or cause the amount of death and destruction, even beyond their own expectations? And yet, history teaches us again and again this lesson: that individuals, alone or in small groups, in the right position and possessing enough drive, wits and conviction can change the face of the earth. They can create myths that grow into whole believe systems and move millions. They can initiate wars that when unleashed change the course of history. And lots of it is based on pure chance, will, circumstance.

Perhaps all this represents a fear, that Mother cannot protect us, not even itself. That Mother can even be malfunctioning to the degree that it only needs a relative small push to fall over? Terror is nothing but fear itself and the weakness and deception it keeps creating and inviting.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dunno, Hodges, would it justify crashing a plane into the economic or political nerve center of what one perceives as "evil in the world"?

The question here is, would you have the courage and strength to do that, if that is what it would take to free millions of people in bonds? Can you imagine conditions where that would be not only justified, but heroic?

It's a question of faith, because one has to believe enough in the prospect of freeing millions of people as a result of ones actions. Not hindered by any factual or reasonable calculation. Uncertainty here would deflate most of the determination needed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Likewise, Diebert, your characterization on the motivation behind 9/11 is vague and meaningless. State clearly the injustices the WTC bombings were a) meant to solve, and b) did solve.

Did you live in a cave the last decade or are you just willfully uninformed about Al Qaeda's detailed statements about their goals and the organization's political past ranging back decades to political oppression (including long prison sentences, torture and executions) of the Muslim Brotherhood and from the near totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia.

do you seriously think people will gather a century and a half from now to commemorate the positive effects of the Oklahoma City massacre or 9/11?

That's exactly how insanely history can be and often has been written. Especially since you cannot know how morality will evolve over the ages. One might label things differently and see certain things now mostly ignored as the 'greater' evil. Of course: impossible to see the future is...

[Carl G]

By the way, the extra-national masters of the high tech black operatives who carried out the false flag incident to which you refer probably weren't thinking of the American Public as evil per se. The agenda seems to have been sheep-dogging the populace into a new, tighter pen.

Wait, you probably believe it was some flight-school flunkie Arabs with box cutters, directed from an Afghan cave.

It's certainly easier to believe there was a false-flag operation going on or even a genuine terrorist act facilitated, mostly hands-off by people with the power to facilitate those things than it is to believe direction out of an Afghan cave.

Yes, it is easier, due to the evidence.

But lets look at the psychological issues here: is it only a technical consideration, that there would be organizational issues that would make the "cave scenario" less likely?

Yes. Technically I think it would be quite difficult to orchestrate the controlled demolition of three major buildings in Manhattan from a cave in Afghanistan. Ditto to affect the stand down of NORAD response teams on that date.

My suspicion after following and engaging into discussions over this quite some time now, is that there exists a huge psychological block to accept the vulnerability of our society in the face of the will and intention of a few.

No argument there. That is one reason people cannot believe that a few people within their own government could carry out such a thing.

Did you ever consider Carl, what it would mean if a few people somewhere could decide, for whatever reason, to plot against the system and its occupants, and succeed in bringing it down or cause the amount of death and destruction, even beyond their own expectations?

Yes, and that is what has happened throughout recorded history. It is the history of the few over the many, and yes, I'm sure some of the outcomes have been beyond their forecasts.

And yet, history teaches us again and again this lesson: that individuals, alone or in small groups, in the right position and possessing enough drive, wits and conviction can change the face of the earth. They can create myths that grow into whole believe systems and move millions. They can initiate wars that when unleashed change the course of history.

Indeed, indeed. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and their backers, just to name some recent ones.

And lots of it is based on pure chance, will, circumstance.

Some of it, sure. But a lot is based on planning, some of it quite long-range.

Perhaps all this represents a fear, that Mother cannot protect us, not even itself. That Mother can even be malfunctioning to the degree that it only needs a relative small push to fall over? Terror is nothing but fear itself and the weakness and deception it keeps creating and inviting.

Yes, the gullible sheep continue to go along, out of fear (and complacency).

[brokenhead]

brokenhead wrote:
Likewise, Diebert, your characterization on the motivation behind 9/11 is vague and meaningless. State clearly the injustices the WTC bombings were a) meant to solve, and b) did solve.

Did you live in a cave the last decade or are you just willfully uninformed about Al Qaeda's detailed statements about their goals and the organization's political past ranging back decades to political oppression (including long prison sentences, torture and executions) of the Muslim Brotherhood and from the near totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia.

My cave is a lot closer to ground zero than yours, Diebert, and certainly no deeper.

I was not asking for Al Qaeda's position on world affairs, I was asking for yours, pertaining to 9/11 specifically.

And let's pretend all Americans live in a cave, as you often seem to imply. How precisely did 9/11 ease the burdens of the poor, besieged Muslim Brotherhood?

I notice you are not addressing the legitimacy of the means McVeigh used to bring his political concerns into prominence.

Try to rein in your antiamerican sentiments and think rationally about what we are discussing. We are discussing the political ends of violent actions. Why have you not thrown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is it because the ends of employing the atomic bomb justified the taking of innocent lives?

You seem to discount the fact that Bin Laden never took any flying lessons. Al Qaeda's activities are terrorist in nature, marked by cowardice; many military activities are just the same. John Brown's activities were not military, and he was willing to die for his cause. This is not the same as being willing to dupe other young men into believing Allah shares your private political agenda.

Again, Brown's activities were controversial, and I am not personally defending them. But unlike you, I can see there is a clear difference between his and other political actions, even violent ones. Sometimes the means are justified by the ends, or can you not see that?

[Shahrazad]

broken,

John Brown's activities were not military, and he was willing to die for his cause.

So was Mohammad Atta, and fifteen or so others.

This is not the same as being willing to dupe other young men into believing Allah shares your private political agenda.

The Muslims teach others what they themselves believe. The huge difference in kind you are trying to make does not exist. At the very least, your argument has failed to convince me.

[brokenhead]

broken,

John Brown's activities were not military, and he was willing to die for his cause.

So was Mohammad Atta, and fifteen or so others.

This is not the same as being willing to dupe other young men into believing Allah shares your private political agenda.

The Muslims teach others what they themselves believe. The huge difference in kind you are trying to make does not exist. At the very least, your argument has failed to convince me.

I should hasten to add that the willingness to die for a cause does not make it any more just, or any less for that matter.

Shah, you are dancing around the issue. Neither you nor Diebert are rushing to defend Timothy McVeigh. If you cannot tell the difference in kind between the actions of John Brown and those of Atta and his co-conspirators, then you cannot tell the difference in kind between Attah's actions and McVeigh's. That being the case, then logically it should be impossible for you to tell the difference in kind between Harper's Ferry and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Are you seriously saying it is really all the same to you?

I general, I am opposed to violence except as a direct response to violence. As I stated above, I think abolition would have come about in the US without John Brown.

I am not sure what you mean by saying the Muslims teach others what they believe. I have heard many Muslims condemn 9/11 and similar acts of mass execution.

Only on the level that violence is violence do I agree with you, Shah, that there is not difference in kind between acts of terrorism. As soon as you descend from that ideal plane into the affairs of men, the differences jump out at you.

Not all causes can be just. Likewise, it cannot be said that all causes are equally unjust. If you are of the conviction that violence is never justified as a means, all I can say is I wish there were more of you in the world.

I will go out on a limb here and state that British- and US-backed Saudi hegemony in the Arab world is by any measure a lesser evil than the slave trade.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Technically I think it would be quite difficult to orchestrate the controlled demolition of three major buildings in Manhattan from a cave in Afghanistan. Ditto to affect the stand down of NORAD response teams on that date.

Just as it's difficult to believe for many that the buildings and NORAD might have been not as tough and vigilant as we like to believe. People wouldn't leave their house anymore if they would realize how vulnerable and untested, "un-stress-tested" in terms of extreme circumstance much of our technology and organization is. It can only be tested by repeated experience. The chaos after the collapse in terms of media reporting and government research is even more proof how unprepared we were as audience, media or government, how ill equipped to handle this type of event.

Think "Titanic". There's really nothing new here in my opinion. And "controlled demolition", I dunno Carl, personally I limit myself to the idea that their was some intelligence operation involved in terms of infiltration and shadowing that we haven't heard about yet (like the earlier WTC bombing plot). It would explain at least how many times intelligence inquiries into the movements of the hijackers was sidelined. And most engineers and demolition experts seem to dismiss the controlled demolition theory and they have good arguments and 'demolished' many stemming from the pro-control camp quite convincingly.

My suspicion after following and engaging into discussions over this quite some time now, is that there exists a huge psychological block to accept the vulnerability of our society in the face of the will and intention of a few.

No argument there. That is one reason people cannot believe that a few people within their own government could carry out such a thing.

But even those who do believe seem to still need those few to be able to pull all kinds of strings, to have some form of executive power and networking to make it happen. So "government conspiracy" is born in direct competition with "global Al Qaeda network" which must be funded by a state like Iraq.

To me it's all the same drive, a refusal that a 'rag tag' but street wise group could have actually prepared and executed this with nothing but ideological links to distant groups.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My cave is a lot closer to ground zero than yours, Diebert, and certainly no deeper.

Blah, yet I'm surprisingly closer to Philly than you might think!

How precisely did 9/11 ease the burdens of the poor, besieged Muslim Brotherhood?

The people involved turned their backs from normal political processes long ago. They quite accurately assessed that the repressive governments they opposed could only resist their revolutionary people movement because of foreign intervention and intelligence. It's from a cold tactical perspective completely understandable to target the 'supply lines' when facing an opponent directly wouldn't give one much of a chance.

After 9/11 the balances of power in the Middle East have begun shifting and not in favor of Western influence. It's no secret the type of aftermath was largely foreseen or at least hoped for by Bin Laden & Co.

I notice you are not addressing the legitimacy of the means McVeigh used to bring his political concerns into prominence.

Beware, the idea of "legitimacy" hasn't yet entered the discussion. Somehow you want to make it about "defending" this or that. But McVeigh (with the story taken on face value) is not different here, in the sense that he was so angry about perceived "injustices" in the world that it became a release for his increasingly violent nature; it might have relieved, excused him of any guilt or conscience. In that sense there's indeed no substantial difference to the underlying mechanisms of homegrown terrorism.

Al Qaeda's activities are terrorist in nature, marked by cowardice; many military activities are just the same. John Brown's activities were not military, and he was willing to die for his cause. This is not the same as being willing to dupe other young men into believing Allah shares your private political agenda.

You're not making sense. A wrong action, morally or legally, doesn't make it an act of cowardice.

Sometimes the means are justified by the ends, or can you not see that?

But what if Bin Laden would be telling me that?

[Carl G]

Carl G wrote:

Technically I think it would be quite difficult to orchestrate the controlled demolition of three major buildings in Manhattan from a cave in Afghanistan. Ditto to affect the stand down of NORAD response teams on that date.

Just as it's difficult to believe for many that the buildings and NORAD might have been not as tough and vigilant as we like to believe. People wouldn't leave their house anymore if they would realize how vulnerable and untested, "un-stress-tested" in terms of extreme circumstance much of our technology and organization is. It can only be tested by repeated experience. The chaos after the collapse in terms of media reporting and government research is even more proof how unprepared we were as audience, media or government, how ill equipped to handle this type of event.

Think "Titanic". There's really nothing new here in my opinion. And "controlled demolition", I dunno Carl, personally I limit myself to the idea that their was some intelligence operation involved in terms of infiltration and shadowing that we haven't heard about yet (like the earlier WTC bombing plot). It would explain at least how many times intelligence inquiries into the movements of the hijackers was sidelined. And most engineers and demolition experts seem to dismiss the controlled demolition theory and they have good arguments and 'demolished' many stemming from the pro-control camp quite convincingly.

Ah, I see you have not really studied the matter.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ah, I see you have not really studied the matter.

You mean you don't agree and your emotional need for your precious theories to hold water is forcing you to be so mindlessly dismissive? At least I supplied some argumentation and I think I know your theories quite well but I'm trying to get you outside the box of the 'usual': those "all-powerful networks" that can plot and mold the bigger events at will, being it AQ or Cheney UnLtd. Couldn't it be an attempt to fill up the vacant "God Slot"?

Really, the truth might be way more mundane, more messy, more haphazard and as such more unattractive to deal with.

By the way, we both wrote here before on the topic here and here and here. Not much changed eh?

[Carl G]

Ah, I see you have not really studied the matter.

You mean you don't agree and your emotional need for your precious theories to hold water is forcing you to be so mindlessly dismissive? At least I supplied some argumentation and I think I know your theories quite well but I'm trying to get you outside the box of the 'usual': those "all-powerful networks" that can plot and mold the bigger events at will, being it AQ or Cheney UnLtd. Couldn't it be an attempt to fill up the vacant "God Slot"?

You are flopping about like a fish out of water.

Really, the truth might be way more mundane, more messy, more haphazard and as such more unattractive to deal with.

The evidence of the case says otherwise.

Are you really putting forth the hypothesis that the twin towers and building seven were so shoddily built that they totally collapsed into rubble, at nearly free-fall speed, under the circumstances, when no other buildings of the type have done so before or since? If so, and in any case, why was the debris carted away without any forensic investigation?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You are flopping about like a fish out of water.

Exactly! Are you so scared of the prospect?

The evidence of the case says otherwise.

You know shit about the evidence, test me, give me your best two :)

Are you really putting forth the hypothesis that the twin towers and building seven were so shoddily built that they totally collapsed into rubble, at nearly free-fall speed, under the circumstances, when no other buildings of the type have done so before or since?

They were not shoddily built, just not built for this kind of collision and fire. It never occurred to designers and it never happened before like this. Do you know of any cases of large high-speed fuel-containers hitting modern skyscrapers of this type? I thought so...

If so, and in any case, why was the debris carted away without any forensic investigation?

What kind of forensics did you have in mind? Have you actually seen the pile? It took nine months to go through it searching for anything at all (at Fresh Kills Landfill). How many years would it take to do it in some formal forensic manner? How many parts of the hundreds of thousands tons of metal would you like to have examined to find the few hundred of sabotaged bits? What if there are 100,000 pieces of each one ton (probably there's a higher number). If it would take one hour to do a forensic investigation of a piece of metal, using ten different teams: 10,000 hours divided by 24 is more than a year non-stop 7 days a week of checks. It would probably be more like 5-10 years. In other words: completely waste of time unless a priori one could assume something crucial could be learned which obviously couldn't be assumed.

Anyway, they still analyzed 236 pieces of the steel. For 80% of the conspiracy around controlled demolition the NIST provides responses, summarized in their FAQ.

So which point exactly and specifically you have still reasonable doubts about? Does perhaps the scale and the mess of the situation confuse you? Aren't you looking for reason, order and "correct procedure" where there quite naturally cannot be that much?

[Carl G]

You are flopping about like a fish out of water.

Exactly! Are you so scared of the prospect?

Shivering in my boots. Wtf?

The evidence of the case says otherwise.

You know shit about the evidence, test me, give me your best two :)

I just did give you three, the fact that the three buildings (only two of which were struck by aircraft) totally collapsed, that they collapsed into rubble, and that they fell at nearly free-fall speed.

Are you really putting forth the hypothesis that the twin towers and building seven were so shoddily built that they totally collapsed into rubble, at nearly free-fall speed, under the circumstances, when no other buildings of the type have done so before or since?

They were not shoddily built, just not built for this kind of collision and fire. It never occurred to designers

Yes they were and yes they did. The buildings were definitely and specifically designed to take the impact of a large aircraft.

and it never happened before like this. Do you know of any cases of large high-speed fuel-containers hitting modern skyscrapers of this type? I thought so...

What about the Empire State Bldg ?

Then there's the 4-engine army transport plane that flew into a ten story building in Iran, which seems proportional in scale.

If so, and in any case, why was the debris carted away without any forensic investigation?

What kind of forensics did you have in mind? Have you actually seen the pile? It took nine months to go through it searching for anything at all (at Fresh Kills Landfill).

Sherlock, you don't examine the evidence after it's been carted off! Loss of context, mate.

How many years would it take to do it in some formal forensic manner? How many parts of the hundreds of thousands tons of metal would you like to have examined to find the few hundred of sabotaged bits? What if there are 100,000 pieces of each one ton (probably there's a higher number).

Interesting speculation, which if true would definitely point to controlled demolition. One of the sure signs of controlled demo is the pulverization of the steel which occurred, as well as the clouds of fine dust that spread out from the collapse.

If it would take one hour to do a forensic investigation of a piece of metal, using ten different teams: 10,000 hours divided by 24 is more than a year non-stop 7 days a week of checks. It would probably be more like 5-10 years. In other words: completely waste of time unless a priori one could assume something crucial could be learned which obviously couldn't be assumed.

This is fish-flopping talk and you can have it.

Anyway, they still analyzed 236 pieces of the steel. For 80% of the conspiracy around controlled demolition the NIST provides responses, summarized in their FAQ.

Well they didn't do a very good job, did they? What do you expect when the perpetrators control the investigation. Why do you think the collapse of building seven was not even mentioned in the official commission report? Hint, because there was no fucking way to explain it.

So which point exactly and specifically you have still reasonable doubts about?

The entire operation has none of the earmarks of a hayseed foreign operation and all of the marks of a high tech inside job. The way the buildings collapsed, the put-options on the airline stocks ahead of time, the stand-down of NORAD, the shoot-down of the Pennsylvania flight, the lack of evidence of a jetliner going into the Pentagon, the impossibility of the flight school flunkie Hanjour to steer the plane on the given trajectory, and the reaction of the president and secret service on the morning of 9/11 are but the most obvious gross inconsistencies in the official story of what happened. There are probably 50 serious points of contention with the official version of events.

Does perhaps the scale and the mess of the situation confuse you? Aren't you looking for reason, order and "correct procedure" where there quite naturally cannot be that much?

Yeah, that's it.

*rolls eyes*

Might be time to ease up on that fine Amsterdam weed, bro.

[Shahrazad]

broken,

I will go out on a limb here and state that British- and US-backed Saudi hegemony in the Arab world is by any measure a lesser evil than the slave trade.

US imperialism is the problem, and no, I do not believe it to be a lesser evil than the slave trade. The difference is the scale at which these evils are applied: while slavery is applied to an individual, imperialism is applied to a whole nation. And don't try to b.s. me that the US as a slave master is benevolent; you can't, because I have first-hand experience, while you don't.

It is clear to me now wherein lies your problem: you cannot see nothing wrong with imperialism. Of course, if it were aimed at you, you'd have a different perspective.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You are flopping about like a fish out of water.

Exactly! Are you so scared of the prospect?

Shivering in my boots. Wtf?

I meant leaving your own waters, slow boat.

the fact that the three buildings (only two of which were struck by aircraft) totally collapsed, that they collapsed into rubble, and that they fell at nearly free-fall speed.

At what kind of speed would you have preferred them falling? Did you actually do the maths? At least I tried and I can tell you, when the supporting structure fails the rest of the building could as well be cartbox paper in comparison with the mass of the top coming down.

The third building (7) is interesting as it points to the common theory that structural damages played hardly a role into either collapse apart from dislodging on a large scale fire-proofing and disabling sprinkler systems (the collapse of #1 & #2 disabled the water supply for #7 internal or external, wow those conspirators thought of everything!).

And yes, it showed a potential problem for many similar buildings worldwide and I can assure you they adjusted some things in case they'd have similar fires. There's just no example in history where a fire hit a tall building on such scale without water supply, without men available to put fires out, controlling it to some extent.

Yes they were and yes they did. The buildings were definitely and specifically designed to take the impact of a large aircraft.

And they did take the impact. Most people got out after the impact. It clearly wasn't designed to withstand the uncontrolled fires over a whole set of floors, all instantaneously and without sprinklers. Better fire-proofing of the load carrying structure combined with new ways to supply emergency water might improve these shortcomings. Over the last few years many buildings have been upgraded for this reason as there's more than one way such firestorm could start.

What about the Empire State Bldg ?

Smaller and way slower plane, way less damage and the fire could be put out within the hour! Possibly the water supply still worked or at least the fire was reachable? Perhaps I should have been more precise with "high speed" and "large".

Then there's the 4-engine army transport plane that flew into a ten story building in Iran, which seems proportional in scale.

Yeah same thing happened not far from here with a 747 in '92. You do know the difference between an apartment complex and a sky scraper? Or are you reaching perhaps?

Sherlock, you don't examine the evidence after it's been carted off! Loss of context, mate.

Yeah, it's easy to investigate a messy pile of 100,000 tons of steel! Have you actually seen the pile, imagined it at least? Not to mention the pile contains lots of other things to investigate, including body parts, personal belongings, valuables, state secrets, and so on. No, we'll let it all sit there in a pile for some years so Carl can chase his theory!

One of the sure signs of controlled demo is the pulverization of the steel which occurred, as well as the clouds of fine dust that spread out from the collapse.

Dust and pulverization is easily explained by the kinetic energy and all other materials involved. Also much metal has been slow-burning (fast-oxidation) for months afterward before it could be carried off.

If it would take one hour to do a forensic investigation of a piece of metal, using ten different teams: 10,000 hours divided by 24 is more than a year non-stop 7 days a week of checks. It would probably be more like 5-10 years. In other words: completely waste of time unless a priori one could assume something crucial could be learned which obviously couldn't be assumed.

This is fish-flopping talk and you can have it.

You can't handle the truth or at least the scale of the event and its aftermath. That's why many need some or another story to be able to place it. I do understand as I've been exploring these possibilities too and I'm not even American!

Why do you think the collapse of building seven was not even mentioned in the official commission report? Hint, because there was no fucking way to explain it.

It was explained in later reports because it was more of a mystery at first glance. But not that much mystery: it had better fire proofing and took a few hours longer to get to the same situation. But the total chaos and disruption of water and men supply doomed the building, it could not be saved, not that day. Alone it would never have fallen as there would have been time to put the uncontrolled fires out or at least cool down some of the structure.

The way the buildings collapsed, the put-options on the airline stocks ahead of time, the stand-down of NORAD, the shoot-down of the Pennsylvania flight, the lack of evidence of a jetliner going into the Pentagon, the impossibility of the flight school flunkie Hanjour to steer the plane on the given trajectory, and the reaction of the president and secret service on the morning of 9/11 are but the most obvious gross inconsistencies in the official story of what happened. There are probably 50 serious points of contention with the official version of events.

Until you start examining more critically them one by one, then most of them evaporate like a thin plane smashing into a solid building. Some of it remains interesting though, like the NORAD thing. I should look that up what the current positions on it are. If I can make you take NORAD of the list, would that change anything for you? Otherwise I'll not bother.

Does perhaps the scale and the mess of the situation confuse you? Aren't you looking for reason, order and "correct procedure" where there quite naturally cannot be that much?

Yeah, that's it.

Perhaps in a few years you'll look back and thank me :) (for the weed)

[DHodges]

US imperialism is the problem, and no, I do not believe it to be a lesser evil than the slave trade. The difference is the scale at which these evils are applied: while slavery is applied to an individual, imperialism is applied to a whole nation. And don't try to b.s. me that the US as a slave master is benevolent; you can't, because I have first-hand experience, while you don't.

It is clear to me now wherein lies your problem: you cannot see nothing wrong with imperialism. Of course, if it were aimed at you, you'd have a different perspective.

To tie this back to the "Police State" thread, a proper democracy with free people should never be fighting wars of aggression against other nations. Imperialism is part of what goes along with the centralization of power - it doesn't matter if it is called socialism or fascism. Too much power in the hands of a few is just not a good thing. They will always try to expand that power, internally and externally. It can never "whither away."

[Shahrazad]

DHodges, but empires do fall, don't they?

[Carl G]

the fact that the three buildings (only two of which were struck by aircraft) totally collapsed, that they collapsed into rubble, and that they fell at nearly free-fall speed.

At what kind of speed would you have preferred them falling? Did you actually do the maths? At least I tried and I can tell you, when the supporting structure fails the rest of the building could as well be cartbox paper in comparison with the mass of the top coming down.

There is a little thing called resistance, little of which was shown in the 3 buildings in question. That's what happens in controlled demolition when lower supports are pre-blown by explosives.

Let me ask you this, if the floors pancaked down (without resistance from the floors below, mind you), why did not the central core remain standing. What caused those massive steel columns to disintegrate (not merely fail, even) all the way down? And why was there no stack of 100 pancakes at the bottom (but rather just a few stories high of rubble)?

The third building (7) is interesting as it points to the common theory that structural damages played hardly a role into either collapse apart from dislodging on a large scale fire-proofing and disabling sprinkler systems (the collapse of #1 & #2 disabled the water supply for #7 internal or external, wow those conspirators thought of everything!).

Building 7 had minor fires on parts of several floors. Steel buildings have burned as infernos without collapsing. And again, if you look at the footage, the building fell in a few seconds neatly into its own footprint -- imploded (another sign of controlled demolition).

And yes, it showed a potential problem for many similar buildings worldwide and I can assure you they adjusted some things in case they'd have similar fires. There's just no example in history where a fire hit a tall building on such scale without water supply, without men available to put fires out, controlling it to some extent.

There are recordings of firemen on the 79th floor of one of the towers, just before the collapse, stating that the fire was under control. Clearly from the footage showing the exterior of the buildings, the fires were smokey low temperature affairs. Most of the jet fuel ignited outside the buildings in the initial fireballs.

Yes they were and yes they did. The buildings were definitely and specifically designed to take the impact of a large aircraft.

And they did take the impact. Most people got out after the impact. It clearly wasn't designed to withstand the uncontrolled fires over a whole set of floors, all instantaneously and without sprinklers. Better fire-proofing of the load carrying structure combined with new ways to supply emergency water might improve these shortcomings. Over the last few years many buildings have been upgraded for this reason as there's more than one way such firestorm could start.

Again, there clearly was no firestorm.

One of the sure signs of controlled demo is the pulverization of the steel which occurred, as well as the clouds of fine dust that spread out from the collapse.

Dust and pulverization is easily explained by the kinetic energy and all other materials involved. Also much metal has been slow-burning (fast-oxidation) for months afterward before it could be carried off.

Yes, I've wondered why in areas of the sub-basement there was molten steel found months after a paper fire caused a skyscraper to free-fall collapse. And why was thermite (thermate?) detected in the ruins? Isn't that a component of weapons or cutting charges? Also, why does footage of the collapse show what seems to be cutting charges going off in a series in the floors below the collapse? And why are there multiple reports of a series of explosions on lower floors preceding the collapse?

You can't handle the truth or at least the scale of the event and its aftermath. That's why many need some or another story to be able to place it. I do understand as I've been exploring these possibilities too and I'm not even American!

I don't need any such thing. I have been going over the evidence, as level-headedly as I can discern it without actually being there, ever since day one. I wish you would get off your goofy theory that I'm clinging to fantasies out of religious/emotional need.

Why do you think the collapse of building seven was not even mentioned in the official commission report? Hint, because there was no fucking way to explain it.

It was explained in later reports because it was more of a mystery at first glance. But not that much mystery: it had better fire proofing and took a few hours longer to get to the same situation. But the total chaos and disruption of water and men supply doomed the building, it could not be saved, not that day. Alone it would never have fallen as there would have been time to put the uncontrolled fires out or at least cool down some of the structure.

The collapse of building seven has never been officially explained. Not plausibly. There were minor fires and then it collapsed neatly into its own footprint in a few seconds. And you imagine about fireproofing of the steel?

The way the buildings collapsed, the put-options on the airline stocks ahead of time, the stand-down of NORAD, the shoot-down of the Pennsylvania flight, the lack of evidence of a jetliner going into the Pentagon, the impossibility of the flight school flunkie Hanjour to steer the plane on the given trajectory, and the reaction of the president and secret service on the morning of 9/11 are but the most obvious gross inconsistencies in the official story of what happened. There are probably 50 serious points of contention with the official version of events.

Until you start examining more critically them one by one, then most of them evaporate like a thin plane smashing into a solid building.

I have examined them critically one by one, and none of them have evaporated. None of the 50. Its been 8 years and none have evaporated.

Some of it remains interesting though, like the NORAD thing. I should look that up what the current positions on it are.

The current official positions? Give me a break. Fact is that NORAD has been very quick (before and since 9/11) about scrambling jets to any flight irregularity anywhere in U.S. airspace. And what about the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. Doesn't the Pentagon have its own system for protecting itself and inner Washington, reputed to be the most protected airspace in the world?

If I can make you take NORAD of the list, would that change anything for you? Otherwise I'll not bother.

The only way NORAD would have ignored 4 errant commercial jets in one day is by official order to stand down. Otherwise the procedure is automatic. What other explanation would possibly fit?

It does appear, though, that the 4th flight was eventually shot down the one over Shanksville, PA, although this has not been admitted and it is unclear exactly by whom.

[DHodges]

DHodges, but empires do fall, don't they?

Empires fall, but I don't know of one that shrank of its own free will, not because it was forced to. Do you?