It could just mean that the audit is going to be one giant fraud, kind of like the stress-tests. This would increase the reputation of the FED, and assure its existence. One reason why I completely oppose this bill.
If you have evidence, I’m listening. I have always had two major issues with the no plane theory:
-
If nothing hit the towers, how come no one in all of NYC caught “nothing” hitting the buildings? Obviously something hit the twin towers, and I suppose the theory is that they were missiles made to look like planes?
-
If so, where are the people who were supposed to have died in those plane crashes? We have flight numbers, so we must have several hundred dead people - who you’re saying didn’t really die? Or are you saying the flights were diverted and crashed (and cleaned up without a trace) somewhere else?
Seems a very very hard hole to dig out of, more a basic logical issue than a scientific one, but I’m all ears if there is good evidence.
Guys. Conspiracy theorists aren’t statists. I don’t know where you get this idea. Conspiracy theorists in fact want the government to stay out of our private lives. They may not be anarchists… they’re just clearly not statists. They see the government has been hijacked, and, they want a government, as was laid out by the founding fathers- that being a small one. They are minarchists. You should do some reading about their works on the internet and on different message boards- you will see they aren’t statists, not in the sort. You have your partisan conspiracy theorists but most conspiracy theorists aren’t partisan. They want the smallest government possible… but… they just don’t believe we can do without government. They just see it as a necessary evil.
Somewhat irrelevant, but Alex Jones is a nutcase. I refuse to be associated with him and others of his persuasion.
None!
They want legitimized use of violence. They are statists. Point out the gun in the room, they’ll be the first to drop it.
Most conspiracy theorists are against the use of violence. They see wars as nothing but exercises for special interests, or, Rockefeller and co, and, just NWO battle grounds.
Of course! Everbody who disagrees with you is state-employed! On a serious note, Popular Mechanics showed how the laws of physics necessitated the results of 9/11; but, Popular Mechanics is obvious a syncophants of the state a la Marx’s bias doctrine.
A few points:
-
Assuming rationality, truly crazy people doing things that get them put in prison for life or killed, just to get attention or to go down in history or to make a point should be incredibly rare. Even butchering sociopaths like BTK, Bundy, Unabomber, Charles Ng, etc. seek to avoid capture.
-
Most powerful people who die prematurely die at the hands of their powerful enemies. History is conclusive on this point. Conspiracy is the rule, not the exception.
-
The state instigates war with its neighboring states and terror in its citizenry and/or the citizenry of neighboring territories. The state is the foremost practitioner of terror.
-
We should never hesitate to suspect state involvement in any atrocity due to some sense that it would be “beyond” the state, since the state is simply a mafia with really good PR. The government are thugs.
-
Nevertheless, there is a tendency amongst people to exaggerate the powers of the state and the extent of conspiracies and this tendency actually plays into the hands of the state. Etienne de la Boetie says in The Politics of Obedience,
“The kings of the Assyrians and even after them those of the Medes showed themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in the minds of the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more than man, and thereby to encourage people to use their imagination for those things which they cannot judge by sight. Thus a great many nations who for a long time dwelt under the control of the Assyrians became accustomed, with all this mystery, to their own subjection, and submitted the more readily for not knowing what sort of master they had, or scarcely even if they had one, all of them fearing by report someone they had never seen. The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration, whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused, it seems to me, amusement and laughter. It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more.”
Every time I see a clip of David Icke, I think of this quote. Whether intentionally or not, the Ickes and Alex Joneses, by exaggerating the power of the elites and failing to apply critical thinking to the actions of the crooks in government, play into the “mystique” and amplify the power of the elite to intimidate through the fear of the unknown.
The Austrians are truly a breath of fresh air in this regard, at once refusing to give the state a carte blanche on the basis of utilitarianism or simple naivete, like all other schools of thought, and yet refusing to fall into the trap of exaggerating and enlarging the mystique of the state to its own benefit.
Clayton -
Good points on the mystique of the state, or alternatively of the mystique of powerful elite conspirators. That mystique is so thick and dank in conspiracy writings and videos that it’s almost palpable.
All good points. I myself, being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ (meaning yes, I do believe 9/11 was an inside job) am often frustrated with the solutions given by other so called ‘conspiracy theorists’.
Most of them ARE minarchists, lets make that quite clear, anyone who disputes this, simply doesnt know enough about the issue. However, they fall into the old minarchist trap…they see the evil in government, but only until their man gets in. Instead of being free, they would rather have a just master.
Over 700 certified engineers would dispute your point.
And I dont suppose you’ve read David Ray Griffin’s masterful works debunking Popular Mechanics?
Do you appreaciate Keynsians spouting their obviously false doctrines, while having only the barest knowledge of who Mises or Rothbard are? Im guissing not.
“On a serious note,Popular Mechanics” ?
Fer cryin out loud! If I wanted to patronize I’d say your naivete astounds me, Sir.
Instead , I suggest that:
[1] you reconsider the Rothbard quote from earlier in the thread : “Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of “conspiracy” analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning.”
[2] then you find out for yourself [I’m not going to tell you] exactly who owns “Popular Mechanics”.
[3] You then thoroughly research that Inc.s and its founder’s long, sordid historical record of activities and involvement in previous wars involving the US.
Along the way you might also discover said corporations current CEO and president has direct ties to both the Bush family [HW and GW] and to the CIA.
[4] on a similar note, that you also find out for yourself , assuming that you do not already know,[ and again, I’m not going to tell you], exactly who owns the major TV networks who broadcast the “live” [i.e on 17 second delay] footage on 9/11.
[5] you take another hard look at the Rothbard quote.
'Changed my mind- your naivete astounds me, Sir!
For now, I would suggest that you put aside/clear your mind of your initial stated reservations [1&2 above] and instead concentrate on simple laws of physics and common sense while reviewing an analysis of this 911 crash movie[ never shown live but shown on CNN and elsewhere later that same day].
If you do not start from that position [ i.e seriously considering the possibility or impossibility of the events supposedly depicted in that video and others similar from an unbiased, purely scientific standpoint], but instead start from your position of doubt /bias as expressed in your objections/questions 1&2 when reviewing any evidence I or anyone else might present for you, there can be no hope of reaching any conclusion other than the one implied/expressed in you pre-existing doubts.
P.S. Higher and Lower Standards of Proof For Evidentiary Review Methodologies
As far as I can see there are only two ways for reviewing evidence in the case of 911, or for any other.
[1] would be the neutral , unbiased “scientific” approach whereby all evidence [nothing excluded] is exhaustively reviewed before any conclusions are reached. Of the two possible methodologies, this requires a lower standard of proof for the governments case.
[2] The other, the “legal method” requires automatic pre-bias against absolutely anything the state and its sycophants says, and therefor automatically requires a much higher standard of proof for proving the state’s case.
As an inhabiter of these boards, I assume you know that such pre-bias against the states evidence was purposely written into the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights, so at least at one time in this countries history the idea of automatic pre-bias against the states version of truth was taken for granted .
As no systemic pre-bias is assumed in using the scientific method, obviously, method[1] requires a lower standard of proof than does [2] , but quite honestly, I am constantly amazed that anyone here even considers giving the state the benefit of the doubt in the case of 911 or for anything else.
However, the lower standard for truth that the unbiased scientific approach requires is sufficient in this particular case [i.e planes flying through buildings in one piece without even slowing down and with no parts falling off on the outside], seeing as it involves nothing more than the employment of common sense plus a basic working knowledge of Newtons 3rd law of motion.
The real bottom line? Nobody on these boards who claims to be a libertarian, an anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or whatever should be even remotely considering as truthful anything the state says is true about 911, or about anything else for that matter, as far as I can see. They “should” be automatically starting their 911 investigations with massive pre-bias against the state’s story, just as the Bill of Rights attempted to ensure.
All that is rather convincing that there was a controlled demolition, I agree, but I’m asking about the “no plane theory,” i.e. “it is scientifically provable that no planes hit [the buildings].” I know many people have a problem with analyzing evidence when they have pre-existing doubts, because they don’t have much patience with provisionally accepting premises that seem doubtful in order to think about further possibilities, to see if later puzzle pieces will fit together so as to make the initial premise seem more likely. I am patient and seek the truth, so I have and will provisionally accept premises when needed to evaluate nested claims. I think that’s a basic requirement for any logical person, and I too lament that most people seem to eschew that type of patient inquiry. I do provisionally accept the idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and that the planes were just for show, but even with that provisional acceptance the above two issues stand. That’s why I raised those specific questions.
I understand. I must go now. Please review and closely consider the physics of the plane crash video I linked to, and my P.S. concerning standards of truth vis a vis investigative methodologies.
Yeah, I already looked at it and have seen a whole lot of other stuff before, but none of that addresses the two issues above. No matter how perfect the media cover-up may have been, the two issues ought to have answers and that is what I’d like to hear.
All right, congratulations. The clues video was fascinating. I found your newbie post and watched the video you linked there - all 90 minutes of it. If I could verify that all the video footage they show is indeed the same video footage that was aired on the various news networks, I would lean toward believing that the planes were missiles or nonexistent (but would lean back toward planes if anyone I knew said they actually saw the planes). Some of the arguments were dubious, but a few were downright damning by showing obvious video editing - if the footage there is really the original footage.
However, the part about the plane passengers still makes zero sense. The video’s answer to this was entirely unsatisfactory, all the more so considering that this is a seemingly fatal hole in “no planes” notion.
So where are we now? If we assume, or can verify, that the video footage in “clues” is as originally aired on TV, then the case for malicious and coordinated media forgery is quite strong. However, the passenger issue is utterly irreconcilable on the face of it. I’m not asking questions just to be argumentative, I really am interested in your answers. I will evaluate them patiently, so please link or explain away the passenger objection.
[Note: I know I’m derailing and seemingly contradicting my own thread here, but I’d point out that if this “no planes” thing is true, State control is a lot more far along than we tend to think. If this is possible - not saying it is, but if - then there is value in analyzing this particular instance for the insight it gives into the dynamics and level of control the State now has, and how it wields that control. That’s sort of what I meant by the OP: focus not on the conspiracy, but on what the conspiracy (if true) can tell you about the nature of the State.]
OK, then it seems to me that you have 2 very clear , mutually exclusive choices .
Its an "either or " situation- you can choose to believe either :
[1] :that it is entirely possible/normal for plastic nosed, hollow, aluminum skinned planes weighing about 120 tons to fly into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece, without slowing down and without losing any parts [e.g. tail section, wings] etc. apon initial collision, and that it is therefor, at the same time, entirely impossible for witnesses to be faked or to give false testimony, or to be actors, and for plane flights, passenger lists etc. to be faked,
…or choice [2]:
that it is entirely possible for witnesses to be faked, or to be actors, and for plane flights, passenger lists etc. to be faked etc. etc., and that it is therefor, at the same time entirely impossible for plastic nosed, hollow, aluminum skinned planes weighing about 120 tons to fly into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece, without slowing down and without losing any parts [e.g. tail section, wings] etc. upon initial collision.
Like I said, these are mutually exclusive choices- what you choose to believe [so far choice 1 I would assume]is your responsibility, not mine. What you choose in this case will ultimately depend on what you, realistically or otherwise, consider to normal/possible in the real world, magic planes or fake witnesses and flight data etc. , and I cannot help you decide. As I said, its your choice- your responsibility.
Oh, looks like it was doctored. Or not? Would need to verify.