Failed Empire

Chronicling the collapse of a failed society

9/11 Conspiracies: If You Don’t Believe, You’re One of Them

Browsing through one of my new favorite blogs, BuelahMan’s Revolt, I came across an interesting piece on Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  BuelahMan suggested that WikiLeaks was nothing more than a tool of the ruling elite, used to create the appearance of dissension when in fact it was merely reinforcing the status quo:

Of course, I do not KNOW what Assange’s motivation is, but I can see that Israel and the American Empire is being protected and the actions are being justified. I can see that the mass of information is being filtered by the likes of the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, and the government of Israel (among other criminals, as well). I can see that what info is let, is being released slowly and with purpose of misdirection… NOT some info dump that allows the citizenry to scrutinize and filter as we see fit. No, we need the MSM and complicit governments to let us know what we “need to know”, when we need to know it.

Now, this is a unique perspective and honestly not one that I’ve given much thought to.  It could very well be accurate, but that discussion is for another post.  What really grabbed my attention was B’Man’s assertion that “911 is the nut-cuttin issue of our lives”:

It is really quite simple: it comes down to the nut-cuttin of 911. When you look at what Assange says about 911, I see a hack. Why? Because anyone, at this point, who denies 911 was a demolition is either wholly uninformed, a stupid and ignorant asshole or complicit in the murders of that day. That goes for ANYONE who denies a demolition or anyone who still blathers the “official story” (friend or foe). Chomsky is another asshole, but that is a different post because I suspect he is lying about (or hiding) the true feelings he has.

I do not consider myself a stupid, ignorant asshole, but I am not quite prepared to conclude that the collapse of the twin towers was due to  a controlled demolition.  I wouldn’t rule out the possibility, but there simply isn’t enough evidence to conclude, without any doubt, that this is in fact what happened.

What I will say about 9/11 is this:  There are many important questions about that day that remain unanswered, perhaps the most pertinent one being precisely what happened to Building 7.   Another important consideration has to do with the funding of the events of that day, which the 9/11 Commission deemed, for some unfathomable reason, irrelevant.  There seem to have been links between the alleged hijackers and the Pakistani intelligence agency, which coincidently had been receiving money from the United States government.

Clearly, there are many things that the government is hiding from us about that day, and clearly the official story is, to an unknown extent, a cover-up.  But the sheer girth of planning and mass deception that would have been necessary to facilitate a controlled demolition makes it a difficult conclusion to reach.

To me, it seems more plausible that the official story contains a minimal sketch of what actually transpired on that day.  The buildings likely were taken down as a result of two massive jet airliners smashing into them, but there was undoubtedly a certain level of government involvement in the planning of the atrocities.  That is, certain neo-conservative segments of the government (think Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheny and the PNAC) were greatly interested in the occurrence of “a new Pearl Harbor,” and they likely facilitated its coming by (a) funneling money into certain organizations and (b) turning a blind eye to the mounting evidence that an attack was imminent.

That said, the collapse of Building 7 does appear to have been a controlled demolition, because there really is no other explanation.  The official story of collapse by fire is, quite simply, impossible.

The problem with discussing alternative theories to the official 9/11 story is that such considerations are always dismissively dubbed as “conspiracy theories” and rejected out of hand.  Here I tend to sympathize with Chomsky’s opinion of conspiracy theories, as he discussed with respect to the JFK assassination.  He said, in effect, that although the official story was undoubtedly bogus, proving a conspiracy is virtually impossible and in the end is little more than a fruitless distraction.  Although both the JFK assassination and the events of 9/11 involved massive government cover-ups, we stand little chance of proving it to the masses, and if we devote our efforts to this impossible task we will be missing opportunities to facilitate progress in other, more readily accessible areas.


4 responses to “9/11 Conspiracies: If You Don’t Believe, You’re One of Them

  1. BuelahMan January 18, 2011 at 1:13 pm


    Thanks for the linking!

    Why, of course, there is ample evidence to show that these buildings were blown up (explosive evidence like nano-thermite with testimony of witnesses to explosions), Israeli Mossad agents caught as the buildings were hit admitting they were there to witness the event, with many making money off of fore knowledge (stock shorts, insurance purchase for mucho gains by Silversteen, the dissappearance of any of the $2T Rumsfeld announced was missing just the day before etc), and the cover up afterwards (physical evidence hauled out of country without crime scene attendance).

    The plain fact is that aircraft didn’t bring down a single building that day. It is an impossibility, as much as fire (which is the reason that NIST and the 911 Commission gives for 1 & 2)

    Seriously, just watch the footage available and it is obvious that explosives were used. This doesn’t take and engineer or architect figure out, but there are many of them that feel exactly the same way I do. Many pilots agree that it is impossible for the aircraft under the guidance of these particular men could never have hit those buildings.

    What I don’t understand in your post is this:

    That said, the collapse of Building 7 does appear to have been a controlled demolition, because there really is no other explanation. The official story of collapse by fire is, quite simply, impossible.

    Of course I agree. But when do you think they had time to set up the demo of WTC7, if the others were brought down by aircraft? Just a few hours to bring down a 47 story building perfectly symmetrically into its own footprint?

    There is foreknowledge of the events of that day. Therefore, there was planning beforehand. And don’t think it couldn’t be done. Please go to this post at my place and listen to the interview. The connections are there.

    • Andrew January 21, 2011 at 9:14 am

      Thanks for the comment, B’Man. I’m a bit swamped at the moment but I’ll be getting back to you with a meatier response within the next few days.

  2. Wester February 15, 2011 at 2:14 am

    I just got back from a gig teaching English in Seoul, Korea. Last Sept. 11, I was teaching a class where one of my students was one of the lead architects of the new Burj building in Dubai (yes, it was built by Koreans). Naturally our conversation meandered towards the events of 2001
    So I asked my architect student about the collapse of the towers …He said that the tops of structures that are not demolitioned will fall 1/2 way and then tilt to the side and crash out away from the building. Basically he said in a roundabout way that is was impossible that the builders were ~not~ demolitioned. He was a deeply conservative guy – not the kind disposed to odd theories and the like. I’m just saying…..

    • BuelahMan February 15, 2011 at 7:39 am

      Thanks, Wester. This is known as the Theory of Conservation of Momentum. It is Newton’s third law of motion. Whenever a force is applied on a body there will be an equal and opposite reaction (i this case you have a very small chunk at the top, falling down slightly to a very LARGE chunk still standing below it). Action and reaction forces result in change in velocities of both the bodies which in turn change the momenta of these bodies.

      But what we saw in these demolitions is exactly the opposite. All of the reactive force below is not to be seen. The only way for this to happen is for demolitions to take out that reactionary force.

      As this student said, it is impossible for it NOT to be a demolition.

      This has nothing to do with any liberal/conservative political ideology. It is physics, plain and simple.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: