I should note that I have questioned the government’s position and have maturely considered the position and theories of the truthers as well. The government’s explanation is at best incomplete. Most of the truthers theories have either been sufficiently rebuted or are simply incoherent. I don’t think we will ever know the complete truth. The government’s explanation is the closest to the truth, but I think certain things have been omitted.
Yes, a scientific analysis is certainly akin to alien abduction and big foot. Your analogy has enlightened me.
Let me make this even more clear. If a man claims 2+2=5 do you consider his position?
Wrong!
Praxeology tells us the Federal Reserve System would not have been created if no one stood to benefit. The official explanation is that the Federal Reserve System was created to benefit “the economy.” But in reality it was the Rockefellers and Morgans who caused the System to come into existance and its they who stood to benefit.
And your assertion that the Chairman of the Fed is a clueless administrator without any connections to banking interests is historically false.
Check out Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed for a complete history of that vile institution.
You did not need to clarify. I understand your position. You think that Jones has no credibility and his analysis is completely unsupported. I don’t. So let’s agree to disagree.
On page 405 of David Rockefeller’s memoirs, he wrote, “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best intrests of the United States, charecterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and am proud of it.”
We should remember that Hitler burned down the Riechstag to gain more power, and even the History channel admits that FDR new about Pearl Harbor days in advance and even ordered the fighter planes put nose to nose and the ammunition taken out. I do not want to believe that the government had anything to do with it, but the case for that is much stronger (in my opinion) than the case against. So I am “one of those” Austrians as well.
9/11. Where to start?
Al Qaeda is a myth, there is no international organization headed by Bin Laden. During the 90s the Department of Justice wanted to target Bin Laden with anti organized crime laws that allow them to prosecute the head of an organization for crimes committed by the organization, even if that person can not be linked to the crimes. And since no organization existed, they created one. Bin Laden funds various terrorists groups, but he does not lead any. Present day Iraq is the realization of the US policy of labeling any anti-American Muslim militant as Al Qaeda.
So there is no way that Bin Laden is the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. You think the DoJ and DoD don’t know that?
People like Edward seem to believe the only people who have a stake in the American Empire are in the Bush Administration. But the Bush administration has relatively little to gain itself. The Bush administration’s existence does not depend on American intervention in the Middle East, but other administrations do. The Saudis and the Israeli governments are both subsidiaries of the American Government( its hard to call either a puppet government of the Americans as both seem to influence American policy more than they are influenced by the Americans)
And a long with the American Empire comes Dollar hegemony, which no doubt many interests would seek to maintain. That all these interests have strong connections with this, and most, administrations shouldn’t be lost on anyone.
Then we get to the facts of the events.
- Some of the hijackers were identified by passports that were claimed to have survived the crash and landed safely in the street, and some of the passports turned out to belong to persons still alive.
- A “drill” in which a airplane collides with a building was planned for the same day as the terrorist attack.
- Israelis were arrested in NY but later released. They worked for a moving company that was probably a Mossad front.
- The BBC reported building number 7 as collapsed while it was still standing.
- That building 7 collapsed at all.
- All the essential elements of the official story were introduced in the media on the first day.
Yet you can’t muster any curiosity about the event? You’d rather talk about blowback?
There would be no blowback if we weren’t there in the first place, and we are there because people stand to gain from it. Your argument is reactionary. You should be approaching this from a praxeological view point by asking, who gains?
Interesting discussion so far. I have one question though. There seems to be a lot of focus by the believers on the destruction of World Trade Center 7. This event can be construed as the “smoking gun” in 9/11 conspiracy evidence. My question is: why would the government even bother blowing this building up? It has been pointed out that it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to wire a building for demolition while people are working in it, and without being noticed. Bringing down the twin towers makes sense because they are international icons of American power. I had never even heard of WTC7 until all this conspiracy speculation started up. What is the political gain of sacrificing this building? I do not think anyone on 9/11 said, “Oh my God! Not World Trade Center 7! Salomon Smith Barney had offices there! I hope we turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. LETS ROLL!” This destruction of this building would be pointless and might expose the conspiracy. Also, please do not say, “that is not how that building would fall by itself in real life” because you have never seen a massive sky scraper fall by itself in real life.
After asking these questions and seemingly assuming that I would answer positively to them, you go ahead and pose as if you’re the beacon of logical thought and berate me for things I did not say. I only stated that “I think that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition.” Did I mention anything about the U.S. Federal Government? I think not.
More assumptions and now more naivete. How logical and praxeological of you.
You can save your ad hominems for someone else. Be thankful that I responded to this post as I will not be responding to any more of yours in the future.
It’s always nice to see another open mind in this forum. Thank you.
That is your choice. I am not much for maxims. I prefer axioms.
Let me also take the time out to state that I have not said that the U.S. Federal Government conspired to committ 9/11.
[Y] NICE POST! [Y]
Cheers! [B]
This is the point I was earlier trying to make as well. I do not think it far fetched to conclude that we are not being told the whole story. Who else is involved is a question that may never be answered. When one looks at all of the evidence it is impracticable to conclude that the “official” version is all there is to it. While I do not believe the federal government or the state was a party to the conspiracy, the federal government certainly did a poor job of protecting us and followed that up with a fallible explanation for the ordeal.
I was close enough to the collapse to see it and hear it and be covered with a light coating of dust that made me itchy.
It wasn’t a demolition. I have had the great fun of seeing buildings brought down by controlled demolitions, like the Con Ed tanks in NYC (the red and white checkered tanks that were viewable in the funeral scene in the Godfather) and this was not one.
I have gotten used to being accused of being so traumatised that I now suffer from confusion or (luckily more rarely) being accused of being a government agent by the “inside job” crowd but I don’t hold it against them. This is understandable intellectual “blowback” considering all the deception, destruction and death that governments have dealt to us over the years.
But I believe that 9/11 was directly caused by hijackers with boxcutters and maybe pepper spray and that the impact and fire caused the collapse. 7 WTC held alot of fuel for running computers and lights during an emergency…I’d guess that had something to with its collapse but I did not see it myself.
The finding of the passports of the hijackers was dodgy and I think someone made it up (no one has seen them yet…or am I wrong about that?). The dancing Israelis is dodgy too. Perhaps they knew about it.
And you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Now let me also take the time out to state that I have not said that the U.S. Federal Government did not conspire to committ 9/11.
This was the same argument NIST gave with regard to the building collapse. (paraphrasing poorly here) Since the towers did not come down in classic controlled demolition fashion, they assume that the building could not have been brought down using explosives.
Assuming (since you haven’t actually said it) that you believe the governement did conspire to carry out 9/11, do you mean that it was actually government involvement, or do you mean that government officials were involved? I would not doubt the latter at all. The former would seem to suggest that the operation had the approval of representatives of the people (i.e., folks like Ron Paul). Do you see the distinction I’m making?
Here’s more conspiracy…
Morgan O. Reynolds, Ph.D., currently is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas
As an aside, I find Edward’s ‘praxeological’ axiom namely “that Bush and co. are not evil enough to kill their own subjects’” rather baffling…Of course, I don’t know if they did it or not, but to rule out the possibility a-priori is…not…logical.
When WTC 2 collapsed it “tilted”. I was not at an angle to see it hit Deutchebank but that is what it hit. I suppose if I believed in the government detonation theory I would say that since Government can’t do anything right, that explains why it didn’t look like an controlled demolition. But that would not explain why a blundering Government could do so well up to that point.
If the Government did do it I wish they would apply the same quality control that they used in blowing up the WTC towers to the DMV and the Post Office.
I think that both theories have significant holes in them. For example, the government theory doesn’t care to explain how building 7 collapsed when it wasn’t attacked, or how news organizations reported the building’s collapse preeminently, or how debris from United 93 was scattered miles from its crash site. On the other hand, the truthers’ theory doesn’t explain how a government conspiracy would be able to take place without any leaks in the plan, or how the planes would be hijacked in the first place (I find the idea of remotely-controlled fighter jets to be too insane to be seriously considered).