Help with 9/11

[sebbiel]

Hi everyone. It's my first post here, in JREF forum. I'm from Poland and I can understand evertyhing written in English, but it's difficult to me to write in this language, so please forgive me my mistakes.

I am a debunker, fighting with CT believers in polish forums. Actually, I'm discussing with my adversaries in a special "debate". I am defeding "official" theory about Al-Qaeda hijackers etc., and my opponents are defending their conspiracy theory. One of them is an ordinary CT believer, he believe in "too small hole in Pentagon" etc., so it's easy to prove his stupidity (sorry, I couldn't find a more suitable and diplomatic word in English for this). But second of my adversaries is clever, and do not argue about things we can easily debunk. Instead he is claimimg that it is Al Qaeda who atacked USA, but it has been made with silent aproval from US governement. He is using Pearl Harbor as a proof of this (yes, he is not listening about USS Enterprise heading to Pearl Harbor). But there is one thing I cannot easily debunk. He said, that Dick Cheney, Halliburton and others, like Condoleeza Rice, let Al Qaeda attack US to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq to make money (Halliburton and this meals and "houses" for US Army etc.). He also said that companies making weapons donated many millions to the Republican party (he is suggesting, that they bribed US governement to stand down and do nothing to prevent Al Qaeda from attacking, so they could earn huge amounts of money at war).
I know they are only speculations and cannot be treated as serious evidence of Bush's guilt, but I'd like to do something with it. I don't live in America though, so I don't know what is true in his statements, and what is only a CT crap. Maybe someone living in US, or having knowledge about this case could help me?
I'm interested mostly in any information which denies theory of this itentional stand down and thus planing of making profit from war.

Again, I apologise for my English, but I believe You'll undestand what I wanted to say :D

[Unsecured Coins]

insert link to Gravy's site here

oh, and Welcome!!

[R.Mackey]

Welcome to the Forum. Your English isn't bad at all.

What you're describing is what is called a "LIHOP" theory, meaning "Let It Happen On Purpose." This kind of theory is a whole lot harder to disprove, but it's much harder to prove, as well.

We had a discussion about LIHOP theories in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98724), along with reasons why they don't make sense. The best argument is that the people who worked the hardest on al-Qaeda, and were in fact close to detecting the attack, didn't have enough information in time. There's no easy way to explain why the White House would have known if those people didn't. The White House gets its information from somebody -- so who?

Also, why can't the White House have merely reacted to September 11th in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why must they have known ahead of time? Lobbying, no-bid contracts, etc. work the same in both cases. This is not evidence or even motive for LIHOP, because it doesn't depend on LIHOP at all.

I hope that helps answer your question. Again, it's hard to prove either way. Demand your opposition prove what they're saying, rather than just making up a story that sounds good.

[sebbiel]

Thanks :) It'll be very helpful to me. I didn't know this LIHOP abbreviation, so now I can start searching for more info about it myself.

I'll post my other questions in this thread when I'd have any. Thanks again :)

[OldTigerCub]

Welcome to the forum, Sebbiel. If you haven't already found them, a couple of very good sources of information about 9-11 conspiracies are Gravy's website and the Screw Loose Change blog. You can find links to both of these in my signature below.

Edit: By the way, your English is much better than that of many posters here for whom it is their (our) first or only language! :D

[DGM]

Thanks :) It'll be very helpful to me. I didn't know this LIHOP abbreviation, so now I can start searching for more info about it myself.

I'll post my other questions in this thread when I'd have any. Thanks again :)
Welcome:
The problem with arguing LIHOP is it's only clear if you know the outcome. Most of the LIHOP arguments come from hindsight.

My advice is when you argue against these points:

A: Don't let them shift the burden of proof (a favorite tactic). Make them support their argument with documented facts.

B: Always point out how clear things are in hindsight. It's much easier to explain how things are going to happen if they already did.

Good luck.

[cisco]

I mostly want to just say THANK YOU for taking up the cause abroad.


Also, try researching the trans-Afghan oil pipeline. A lot of LIHOPers try to use it as evidence but I recall reading somewhere that the Taliban gave it the go ahead and the war has actually delayed it. I hope someone here can confirm or deny.

That's all I got for LIHOP. I haven't seen much evidence for this theory other than its champions having beef with the US government. It's hard to disprove a theory that no one is actively trying to prove.

Edited to add: Sorry for the use of slang. 'Having beef with' = having a grudge against, having a reason to dislike, etc. Any questions about our English please ask. You're doing fine though.

[sebbiel]

Thanks for links, I've seen this websites already and found them very useful, and thanks for advice, I've already prepared exactly the same strategy.

And what about this Halliburton and other companies, which chairman's have connection to the governement? What do you think about this connections? Are they real?

Raytheon: 1.7 mln $ to the Republican Party
Northrop Grumman: 2.7 mln $
General Dynamics: 2.5 mln $
Boeing: 427 000 $
Lockheed Martin: 3.7 mln $

(all this donations are since 2000)

And others, like Halliburton, DYNCORP, TITAN, CACI, MPRI (copied from his post)

All this companies of course have made a great profit from war.
How good are their relations to the White House? Is it true, or is it a manipulation?

And could anyone recommend me any good and worth reading source about Plame case? My opponent is trying to suggest that it another evidence of "inside job".

Edit: thanks for explaining slang ;) I believe it's a good way to learn English, visiting and discussing with English speakers.

[cisco]

Thanks for links, I've seen this websites already and found them very useful, and thanks for advice, I've already prepared exactly the same strategy.

And what about this Halliburton and other companies, which chairman's have connection to the governement? What do you think about this connections? Are they real?

Raytheon: 1.7 mln $ to the Republican Party
Northrop Grumman: 2.7 mln $
General Dynamics: 2.5 mln $
Boeing: 427 000 $
Lockheed Martin: 3.7 mln $

(all this donations are since 2000)

And others, like Halliburton, DYNCORP, TITAN, CACI, MPRI (copied from his post)

All this companies of course have made a great profit from war.
How good are their relations to the White House? Is it true, or is it a manipulation?

I don't know if it's true or not but I have no reason to disbelieve it - political contributions are common here. What you might want to check into is how much money those same companies gave to the opposing party - the Democrats.

And could anyone recommend me any good and worth reading source about Plame case? My opponent is trying to suggest that it another evidence of "inside job".

Can you explain what you mean? If they are claiming that her name was leaked from within the government then they are almost certainly correct. If they are claiming some connection to 9/11, well, I've never even heard of that.

Remind them that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[T.A.M.]

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://911digitalarchive.org/
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

You're welcome

TAM:)

[Par]

Also, try researching the trans-Afghan oil pipeline. A lot of LIHOPers try to use it as evidence but I recall reading somewhere that the Taliban gave it the go ahead and the war has actually delayed it. I hope someone here can confirm or deny.



I recommend “Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia” by Ahmed Rashid. However, it was written before the 9/11 attacks, so it doesn’t directly address whether or not the war has served to hinder any such project. Nevertheless, a sensible inference might be that it almost certainly has.

In short, the main problems with the pipeline project were simply the unstable nature of Afghanistan and the equally unstructured character of foreign involvement. The Taliban and the Northern Alliance were frequently taking and then losing this or that city. Although the Taliban broadly held onto control during the main planning phase of the pipeline, warlordism was also widespread. The Central Asian Republics of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, recently freed from the control of the Soviet Union, were desperate to develop by exporting their plentiful supplies of oil and natural gas. To this end, their somewhat unstable leaders unrealistically pushed for the construction to proceed in spite of the worsening civil war in Afghanistan. Further, factional Afghan leaders and warlords would perpetually make promises to the oil companies and foreign powers which they would utterly failed to honour. The Taliban indeed agreed to the pipeline, but before the war, Unocal chose to withdraw due to a combination of such complications.

[Gazpacho]

He said, that Dick Cheney, Halliburton and others, like Condoleeza Rice, let Al Qaeda attack US to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq to make money (Halliburton and this meals and "houses" for US Army etc.). He also said that companies making weapons donated many millions to the Republican party (he is suggesting, that they bribed US governement to stand down and do nothing to prevent Al Qaeda from attacking, so they could earn huge amounts of money at war).

- Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton before he became Vice President. He sold his interest before taking office, although he still receives deferred salary no matter what he does.[1 (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html)][2 (http://www.halliburton.com/public/pubsdata/ir/pdf/H02661.pdf)]
- Halliburton makes equipment for oil well operations. Until last April it had a subsidiary, KBR, that provided logistics and construction services. It has never made weapons.
- KBR bid for and received a contingency contract for the US military, where the government orders services without having to hold bids for each individual order.
- KBR provided the same services to the US military in Bosnia, under the Clinton administration, under the same kind of contract.
- There's no particular reason to believe that Bush or Rice own stock in Halliburton. They probably have owned stock in defense companies, or invested in funds that then invested in defense companies based on their own judgement. So have millions of other people.
- You can find a list of top Bush 2000 campaign donors here (http://opensecrets.org/2000elect/other/bush/pioneers.asp). I didn't notice any defense companies on the list.

[gumboot]

All this companies of course have made a great profit from war.


This is of course where they get it wrong. Halliburton has not made large amounts of money from the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, it's a myth. The "Halliburton" work is actually work their subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root (KBR) is doing under the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract. LOGCAP is a publicly bid long-term contingency contract, with the winning company providing logistical services to the US Army if the army needs them. (It's worth pointing out that KBR is a former subsidiary of Halliburton - they are now an independent company).

KBR successfully won LOGCAP I, lost LOGCAP II to DynCorp, and was successful in bidding for both LOGCAP III and the current LOGCAP IV.

There have only been two suspect activities in relation to LOGCAP. The first was during the Bosnian War under President Clinton. DynCorp held LOGCAP at the time yet Clinton authorised the creation of a no-bid Balkans Support Contract specifically for KBR to provide services that should gave gone to the LOGCAP holder. Interestingly, there was very little attention in the media about this.

The second suspect activity was in LOGCAP III in Iraq. The Defense Contract Audit Agency criticised KBR for their billing methods for meals prepared in Iraq at US Bases - they didn't feel the US Army should be paying for meals that were prepared but not served. However the DCAA ignored the fact that the Army had instructed KBR to provide specific numbers of meals at specific locations, regardless of how many people used the service.

It is worth noting, to those who claim that KBR (and therefore Halliburton) made lots of money from LOGCAP, that LOGCAP task orders are billed at cost plus a fixed profit margin. KBRs LOGCAP task orders have averaged 1.4%. They have received about $216 million in task orders in Afghanistan and just under $300 million in task orders in Iraq. So in reality they've made about $10 million from these two wars combined - or a paltry 0.425% of Halliburton's net income from 2006 alone.

-Gumboot

[Par]

Also, try researching the trans-Afghan oil pipeline. A lot of LIHOPers try to use it as evidence but I recall reading somewhere that the Taliban gave it the go ahead and the war has actually delayed it. I hope someone here can confirm or deny.


I have been thinking a little further about this.

As I understand it, if the United States was so desperate to secure the pipeline, then they could have done so fairly easily. They would have needed simply to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate governing power – something the Taliban were very keen to see happen, and had attended meetings in the United States with that aim in mind. With that recognition in place, the United States could then have abandoned the Northern Alliance and openly negotiated with, traded with and armed the Taliban, hence almost certainly leading to them successfully suppressing the Northern Alliance and securing the requisite stability for proceeding with the pipeline. This would cause problems, of course. Human Rights and Feminist organisations were putting significant pressure on the United States to refrain from recognising the Taliban. Further, Iran would have continued to arm and fund the Northern Alliance. Both these problems, however, could likely have been overcome by political railroading on the one hand and sufficient support of the Talban on the other. This course of action would have been orders of magnitude more feasible, more efficient and safer than engaging in a considerable conspiracy by allowing or facilitating a massive terrorist attack and then engaging in an extremely expensive and relatively unpredictable war.

[Tweeter]

Truthers from Poland.
Like i said, "The Truth is everywhere".

[Par]

Truthers from Poland. Like i said, "The Truth is everywhere".


When I saw that Tweeter had posted on this thread, I thought to myself “I wonder if he’s posted that X-Files reference again”. Sure enough, he had.

[pomeroo]

Thanks for links, I've seen this websites already and found them very useful, and thanks for advice, I've already prepared exactly the same strategy.

And what about this Halliburton and other companies, which chairman's have connection to the governement? What do you think about this connections? Are they real?

Raytheon: 1.7 mln $ to the Republican Party
Northrop Grumman: 2.7 mln $
General Dynamics: 2.5 mln $
Boeing: 427 000 $
Lockheed Martin: 3.7 mln $

(all this donations are since 2000)

And others, like Halliburton, DYNCORP, TITAN, CACI, MPRI (copied from his post)

All this companies of course have made a great profit from war.
How good are their relations to the White House? Is it true, or is it a manipulation?

And could anyone recommend me any good and worth reading source about Plame case? My opponent is trying to suggest that it another evidence of "inside job".

Edit: thanks for explaining slang ;) I believe it's a good way to learn English, visiting and discussing with English speakers.



An excellent discussion of the Plame kerfuffle can be found in Shadow Warriors, by Kenneth Timmerman. There is absolutely nothing related to this case that remotely suggests an inside job. You are arguing with fools. You have come to the right place. Welcome.

[sebbiel]

Can you explain what you mean? If they are claiming that her name was leaked from within the government then they are almost certainly correct. If they are claiming some connection to 9/11, well, I've never even heard of that.

I don't know what he is going to do with this his "evidence" for sure. I believe he'll try to use it as a proof of Bush's strong will to attack Iraq and earn money. Well... all this conspiracy theories are too... unpredictable (because of their stupidity) for me. And I have time to think about it, because rules of this "debate" are strictly regulated: everyone have one week to add his post to the discussion. He added his one week ago, now it's time for his friend to do so, and then I'll have to do the same. So I have two weeks to prepare myself and write a reply.

Gazpacho, gumboot, thank you very much.

Truthers from Poland.

Unfortunately... as irritating and irrational as everywhere else.

[LashL]

Welcome, sebbiel. :welcome4

[Reheat]

Truthers from Poland.
Like i said, "The Truth is everywhere".

You're right, the truth is everywhere, but it's quite obvious that YOU'RE looking in the wrong place.

[T.A.M.]

yes there are cockroaches and rats nearly everywhere on the planet as well...nuff said.

TAM;)

[leftysergeant]

I have no doubt that the leaking of Plame's status was intentional, that it was intended to harm her, that it was done with criminal intent and knowledge that it was a criminal act.

That may support the contention that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are unfit to lead a nation at war by reasons of both incompetance and a lack of ethics.

It does not support the idea that they could have planned ahead of time for the attacks, but let them happen first.

They may simply have disregarded the seriousness of the attacks, thinking the terrorists to be not much more competant than any prior attackers.

Seeing how well any of their subsequent military operations have worked out, I can see how it is very likely they had no clue what was coming.

They seem to have no clue about much of anything.

I hope you find this forum useful. And, by no means should you feel unconfortable with your command of the English language. You actually write it more clearly than GW Bush can speak it.

[Brainster]

I have no doubt that the leaking of Plame's status was intentional, that it was intended to harm her, that it was done with criminal intent and knowledge that it was a criminal act.

Then why was Armitage, who was the leaker, not charged with anything?

[leftysergeant]

Scooter fell on his sword for him.

[SDC]

Dzien dobry... Welcome. (And I see no reason to be surprised that there are Truthers in Poland, as there are everywhere else in Europe to greater or lesser degrees.)

Your written English is excellent, but if there are particular Polish-to-English matters that baffle you, I'll try to help. I read Polish quite well.

[sebbiel]

SDC, nice to see Polish language written without mistakes by someone from abroad. So does it mean that I could write in Polish if I couldn't know how to translate something into English? And all of you are too kind, I know my English is not good, but I'm still working on it ;)

I've been trying to find somethimg, that would clearly show my adversary's one-sidness (sorry if I would use inapropriate word, I'm using a dictionary but I'm not sure about such thing as.. for example, a Polish word for "a man focusing only at one side of an aspect and totally forgetting or don't listening about the second side" is "jednostronny". But in Polish, this term "jednostronny" might also mean a road with only one way, or a thing that have only one side (Moebius...). So in this dictionary, under the term "jednostronny" is English "one-sided". And I don't know does it in English mean only a person, which is focusing only at one side, or only a thing that have a one side, or both this terms together. So please be indulgent ;) And sorry for this, but translating own thoughts to foreign language, without any proper knowlegde is sometimes very hard and frustrating...).

He is suggesting, that those companies like Ratyheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc. are donating Republicans because they wanted US to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course this suggestions makes sense only when this companies were, and still are donating only Republicans, because if we prove, that they were (and still are) donating both parties, this speculations will become less credible.

So I have found some information, and I would ask you to help me verify their value:

(unfortunately I cannot give you links to sources yet)

"Reversing their historical pattern of giving lopsidedly to Republicans, employees of the nation's biggest weapons makers chose Hillary as their candidate, reports Thomas Edsall, Columbia journalism professor and Huffington Post political editor. Analyzing records of individual candidate contributions of $500 or more, Edsall found that employees of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon gave Democratic Presidential candidates $103,900 and Republicans only $86,800 in the third quarter. That's a big vote of confidence for the Democratic Party, and particularly the frontrunner."

"Corporate contributors to the DLC and New Democratic Network include
Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health
Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Philip
Morris, RJR Nabisco, Chevron, Prudential Foundation, Amoco Foundation, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and many other Fortune 500 companies."

"The Raytheon Company, IBM and Fidelity Investments each gave at least $1 million to the host committee for the Democratic National Convention in Boston, according to a donor list."

(By GLEN JUSTICE
Published: July 25, 2004)

and from page about 2008 elections (name of a company, total contributors and percentage of this money they gave to the Democrats <first number>, and Republicans <second>)

General Electric
$986,021
58% - so they gave 58% to the Democrats
42% - and 42% to the Republicans

Lockheed Martin
$697,525
51%
49%

Raytheon Co
$632,287
53%
47%

General Dynamics
$591,940
61%
39%

Northrop Grumman
$580,662
48%
52%

Boeing Co
$536,946
55%
45%


These are my first results of searching info about it. Do you think it is worth mentioning in my debate?

[SDC]

Jednostronny = only on one side, onesidedness, is an awkward term but well understood. Refusal to consider other possibilities.

And one thing I would say. Yes (I hope this is legitimate) the US government and US defense industry is intertwined. That does not mean, however, that the US defense industry, or the profit motive in general, determines US foreign policy. Especially with someone like Bush -- but by no means only him -- an ideology based on spreading democracy dominates; Bush honestly believes (I think) that in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere he is promoting a better, more open, more democratic world order. (I only hope some others on this forum have stepped out of the room now.) He may well be wrong; but he is acting from honest motives.

It's not all that different from the idea of "za wasza i nasza wolnosc" -- for your freedom and ours -- that prevailed in 19th century Polish history. Sorry about my failure to include the correct marks and case endings, I'm sure I could on this keyboard, but there is too much to do.

I should add: US corporations contribute to anyone, everyone, who has a good chance of winning an election. Saying that "Corporation X gave to Bush [or Clinton, or Obama, or Bugs Bunny]" doesn't say much. "Corporation X" would give money to me if it looked like I could win an election.

[sebbiel]

I should add: US corporations contribute to anyone, everyone, who has a good chance of winning an election. Saying that "Corporation X gave to Bush [or Clinton, or Obama, or Bugs Bunny]" doesn't say much. "Corporation X" would give money to me if it looked like I could win an election.

I agree. But here it is obvious. In this polish forum it is not so obvious. There statement "Corporation Raytheon gave to Bush $2 000 000" means "They gave $2 000 000 only to him, because they like him and thought it'll convince him to attack Iraq." - they think about this money only as a bribe. Bribe, which have hidden meaning. What meaning? Of course! "Do nothing, let them attack, and then we'll be making money." This is their explanation of this donation. According to them these two millions mean only "let it happen".

So I am trying to find a reliable proof which beyond doubt will say "look, it wasn't anything special or extraordinary, it was normal and common. Don't use it as an evidence of Bush's responsibility for 9/11"

I've gathered more information and I think I've found it already.

Also I think I've gathered all info I've wanted for now, so I am going to start writing my part of this "debate". But I'll post here any further questions if I would have any (not soon, propably after few weeks from now).

Thanks again for your help :)

[SDC]

I don't know what I can say. It sounds as though they, your opponents, don't understand the US system. The US system is very different from Europe; more obvious. (In other words, I think Europe is equally corrupt, but in the US everything is more obvious. Where is BenBurch?) Good luck, stay in touch.

[sebbiel]

Well, I believe that the ignorance and lack of knowlegde are the main purposes of this faith in conspiracy theories. Everything they simply don't understand become suspisoius. And a new urban myth is born ;)

[GregoryUrich]

Thanks for links, I've seen this websites already and found them very useful, and thanks for advice, I've already prepared exactly the same strategy.

And what about this Halliburton and other companies, which chairman's have connection to the governement? What do you think about this connections? Are they real?

Raytheon: 1.7 mln $ to the Republican Party
Northrop Grumman: 2.7 mln $
General Dynamics: 2.5 mln $
Boeing: 427 000 $
Lockheed Martin: 3.7 mln $

(all this donations are since 2000)

And others, like Halliburton, DYNCORP, TITAN, CACI, MPRI (copied from his post)

All this companies of course have made a great profit from war.
How good are their relations to the White House? Is it true, or is it a manipulation?

And could anyone recommend me any good and worth reading source about Plame case? My opponent is trying to suggest that it another evidence of "inside job".

Edit: thanks for explaining slang ;) I believe it's a good way to learn English, visiting and discussing with English speakers.

Hi Sebbiel,

If you want some historical background on how:


the CIA, the American government, American dominated Multinationals, the World Bank and the IMF collaborate to undermine democracy and pillage the economies of other nations (Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uraguay, Sri Lanka, Russia, Poland, Korea, Phillipines, etc, etc.)
Coporate donations to Republicans lead to huge payouts through no-bid contracts (i.e. Iraq, New Orleans)
Cheny, Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration were direct benficiaries of war profits from Iraq
These types of people don't bat an eyelash at the deaths of 100s of thousands to accomplish their ideological (and presumably other) goals


Read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". None of this proves LIHOP, but it sure illuminates the possibility.

[ref]

These types of people don't bat an eyelash at the deaths of 100s of thousands to accomplish their ideological (and presumably other) goals


What might those goals be?

[GregoryUrich]

What might those goals be?

Ostensibly, "The Chicago School" neoliberal economic policy advocated by Milton Friedman. Since these policies favor only the extremely rich and are disastrous to the middle and lower classes, maybe it's about self-serving economic oligarchs.

If you haven't read the book, I strongly recommend it. It also shows how the war in Iraq was NOT about democracy, enumerating multiple cases of the US interfering with the emerging democratic process. Since, the war clearly was not about WMDs, it must have been about "the economy stupid". (No offense intended.)

The book demonstrates, ad nauseum, that the US has consistently placed economic dominance in the forefront and assisted or otherwise supported the crushing of democracies opposing this economic system.

How much is an American life worth? Say our cold-calculating neoliberals calculate 10x another world citizen. They have no qualms about hundreds of thousands of foreigners "dying for dollars". How could anyone imagine that a few thousand Americans is unthinkable to these people?

[sebbiel]

I don't thik I'll be able to read any books you recommend here. They are probably not available in Poland.

[ref]

I don't thik I'll be able to read any books you recommend here. They are probably not available in Poland.

I don't know about Gregory's book, but when it comes to ordering books in general, you always have Amazon.com ;)

[GregoryUrich]

I don't thik I'll be able to read any books you recommend here. They are probably not available in Poland.

The book has been translated to 28 languages if I remember correctly.

See: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book/editions

The polish edition is due out in October. You could get it shipped from Amazon UK (in english of course) without too much expense.

[SDC]

No Amazon.pl? This is sad news. There is certainly amazon.de and amazon.fr and amazon.co.uk. Go tell Dick Cheney! Tell him to order Amazon to fire up the ... oh, whatever it is that they would fire up! Next stop, Warszawa, the Paris of the North! Jeszcze Polska nie zginela, poki my zyjemy, and you can tell them I said so!

More seriously... GUrich, I read (and try to follow) your technical postings with interest. Your attempt at political commentary is the Bunk. Life is messy; things do not tie up so neatly. Klein is a New York Nutcase. (There are almost 8 million, at last count.) I'd advise our Polish friend to read some other recommended works.

[sebbiel]

Yes, I know I could buy it from Amazon, but I don't think that I'll be able to receive and read it before this "debate" ends. After this I'm going back to studiyng polish law (I'm studying law at university).

[GregoryUrich]

No Amazon.pl? This is sad news. There is certainly amazon.de and amazon.fr and amazon.co.uk. Go tell Dick Cheney! Tell him to order Amazon to fire up the ... oh, whatever it is that they would fire up! Next stop, Warszawa, the Paris of the North! Jeszcze Polska nie zginela, poki my zyjemy, and you can tell them I said so!

More seriously... GUrich, I read (and try to follow) your technical postings with interest. Your attempt at political commentary is the Bunk. Life is messy; things do not tie up so neatly. Klein is a New York Nutcase. (There are almost 8 million, at last count.) I'd advise our Polish friend to read some other recommended works.

Klein is from Canada. I assure you she is anything but a nutcase and her book is extremely well researched and referenced. Give it a chance. There are many forms of social democracy including the US starting with FDR. So the radical neoliberals still have work to do exterminate social responsibility in favor of optimizing production. Klein clearly demonstrates how dangerously radical the neoliberals are and what is at stake.

[SDC]

Klein: my mistake, I was thinking of another writer. Well, she is still a nutcase; even Canada produces some. And I decline this political debate. I repeat: stick to engineering, where you appear to have some expertise.

Wait a minute... I thought it was the neoconservatives who were evil? Now it is the neoliberals? Did I miss a memo from the New World Order? (Not to be confused with "Nowy Swiat" [Gurich, that's "New World" in Polish, and is the name of one of Warsaw's most famous boulevards. Since it dates from the 18th century (?), it is evidence that the evil New World Order, whether neocon, neolib, or neoneo, has been around for centuries]).

[GregoryUrich]

Klein: my mistake, I was thinking of another writer. Well, she is still a nutcase; even Canada produces some. And I decline this political debate. I repeat: stick to engineering, where you appear to have some expertise.

Wait a minute... I thought it was the neoconservatives who were evil? Now it is the neoliberals? Did I miss a memo from the New World Order? (Not to be confused with "Nowy Swiat" [Gurich, that's "New World" in Polish, and is the name of one of Warsaw's most famous boulevards. Since it dates from the 18th century (?), it is evidence that the evil New World Order, whether neocon, neolib, or neoneo, has been around for centuries]).

Yeh, it get's kinda wacky when the neocons are neoliberals. In the economic context neoliberal = laissez faire = extreme unbridled capitalism. The communists in Russia are the conservatives. Go figure...

I'm really not trying to get into a political debate. Klein provides relevant historical evidence of the behavior of certain individuals and groups.

[sleahead]

I haven't read Klein's book, but I did hear her interviewed on the radio here in the UK. Apparently she has a premise that Mrs Thatcher used the chaos and disorder created by the Falklands War to push through unpopular policies. The interviewer said to her three times: I lived through that period. I don't recall the chaos and disorder. In reply, Ms Klein just waffled each time. I agree with the interviewer - there was no chaos and disorder. I hope the rest of Ms Klein's book is better than this snippet.

[padragan]

But second of my adversaries is clever, and do not argue about things we can easily debunk. Instead he is claimimg that it is Al Qaeda who atacked USA, but it has been made with silent aproval from US governement. He is using Pearl Harbor as a proof of this (yes, he is not listening about USS Enterprise heading to Pearl Harbor).

I think it's pretty simple... Like has been pointed out in the thread, remember who's having the burden of proof here. Either your friend says:

- I believe that Bush let it happen on purpose

in which case you can say that you do not agree, but if he wants to believe it it's up to him (but of course you can point out that it's silly to believe in claims without evidence)

or he says:

- The Bush administration let it happen on purpose

in which case just toss the burden of proof in his face. The second he CLAIMS something, simply declare that you expect him to give you hard evidence that the claims are true. Even IF Pearl Harbour was a LIHOP (something I have no knowledge to say anything about) that doesn't
in itself prove anything regarding 911. So... until he actually put some good stuff on the table you can simply just laugh at him.

[GregoryUrich]

I haven't read Klein's book, but I did hear her interviewed on the radio here in the UK. Apparently she has a premise that Mrs Thatcher used the chaos and disorder created by the Falklands War to push through unpopular policies. The interviewer said to her three times: I lived through that period. I don't recall the chaos and disorder. In reply, Ms Klein just waffled each time. I agree with the interviewer - there was no chaos and disorder. I hope the rest of Ms Klein's book is better than this snippet.

If I remember correctly, in the book she refers to the Falklands War getting all the media attention, distracting from democratic discourse and the patriotic sentiment allowing the Thatcher government to expedite unpopular domestic policy.

To quote wikipedia:

The political effects of the war were strong in both countries. A wave of patriotic sentiment swept through both: the Argentine loss prompted even larger protests against the military government, which hastened its downfall; in the United Kingdom, the government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was bolstered. It helped Thatcher's government to victory in the 1983 general election, which prior to the war was seen as by no means certain.

I would say that of the 10-15 countries covered in the book, her case for "The Shock Doctrine" in England is the weakest by far. Nonetheless, her thesis is based on using the opportunity provided by overwhelming events to effect political or economic changes that otherwise would be democratically unfeasible.

The other cases are generally much stronger, for example Pinochet's CIA-backed coup, suspension of democracy and dramatic terrorisation of his own country, permitting implementation of sweeping economic changes all prepared in advance by Milton Friedman's "Chicago-school" proteges.

[sleahead]

If I remember correctly, in the book she refers to the Falklands War getting all the media attention, distracting from democratic discourse and the patriotic sentiment allowing the Thatcher government to expedite unpopular domestic policy.

The only 'unpopular' policy mentioned in the interview was the privitisation of British Telecom. I doubt this was unpopular at all. Does she mention any others in the book?

I have to disagree with Wiki's assessment of the effect on the election. Firstly, the election happened a year after the Falklands War had finished. All patriotic fervour had long gone and there was no distraction from democratic discourse. Secondly, the Labour Party lead by Foot and Benn were never going to win anyway. The electorate were not eager to revisit the shambles of the late 1970s. The well known quote is by Labour bigwig Denis Healy. Referring to the 1983 Labour Party election manifesto, he said it was "The longest suicide note in history".

[GregoryUrich]

The only 'unpopular' policy mentioned in the interview was the privitisation of British Telecom. I doubt this was unpopular at all. Does she mention any others in the book?

I have to disagree with Wiki's assessment of the effect on the election. Firstly, the election happened a year after the Falklands War had finished. All patriotic fervour had long gone and there was no distraction from democratic discourse. Secondly, the Labour Party lead by Foot and Benn were never going to win anyway. The electorate were not eager to revisit the shambles of the late 1970s. The well known quote is by Labour bigwig Denis Healy. Referring to the 1983 Labour Party election manifesto, he said it was "The longest suicide note in history".

Thatchers approval rating was as low as 25% with approval for the government as a whole at 18%. Under the cover of the war Thatcher first attacked the coal miners union linking them as "the enemy within" to "the enemy without", or Argentina. After the war with better approval ratings she was able to get on with the economic plan. The invasion of the Falklands had the code-name Operation Corporate for good reason. Not only British Telecom, but British Gas, British Airways, British Airport Authority and British Steel were sold as well as shares in British Petroleum. Thatcher wrote to Friedrich Hayek that these "reforms" were unthinkable prior to the war.

[Corsair 115]

The book demonstrates, ad nauseum, that the US has consistently placed economic dominance in the forefront...In that case, might you explain why they let the subprime mortgage issue continue to fester until such time as it became a major U.S. financial problem, negatively impacting not only the American economy but also the economies of other nations?

[Gazpacho]

sweeping economic changes all prepared in advance by Milton Friedman's "Chicago-school" proteges.
What do you mean "prepared in advance"? Are you suggesting that it's unusual for economists to have ideas about what's wrong with an economy that, at the time, was going very wrong?

If Mugabe were overthrown tomorrow, would you accuse the IMF and every economist who has written about Zimbabwe for the past 8 years of planning his overthrow?

PS: time for a split, perhaps.

[sleahead]

Thatchers approval rating was as low as 25% with approval for the government as a whole at 18%. Under the cover of the war Thatcher first attacked the coal miners union linking them as "the enemy within" to "the enemy without", or Argentina. After the war with better approval ratings she was able to get on with the economic plan. The invasion of the Falklands had the code-name Operation Corporate for good reason. Not only British Telecom, but British Gas, British Airways, British Airport Authority and British Steel were sold as well as shares in British Petroleum. Thatcher wrote to Friedrich Hayek that these "reforms" were unthinkable prior to the war.

I'd like to see a source for those approval ratings, Gregory. Mrs Thatcher's comment to Hayek, if correct, is a curious one, given that British Aerospace, The National Freight Corporation, Cable&Wireless and Amersham International had all been privitised before the Falklands war began and the privitisation of Britoil and Associated British Ports was already in the works.

[westprog]

I'd like to see a source for those approval ratings, Gregory. Mrs Thatcher's comment to Hayek, if correct, is a curious one, given that British Aerospace, The National Freight Corporation, Cable&Wireless and Amersham International had all been privitised before the Falklands war began and the privitisation of Britoil and Associated British Ports was already in the works.

It's difficult to quantify the extent to which Thatcher's election victory was due to the Falklands war. The Labour Party were determined to lose the election no matter how unpopular Thatcher became.

However, any LIHOP theory related to the Falklands should bear in mind that victory was a very close thing. If a couple more Exocets had hit the right ships, the whole thing would have collapsed in fiasco.

And while Thatcher won her post-victory election, Bush senior managed to lose his - a much bigger victory, but the approval ratings melted like mist in the sun after "Read my lips - no new taxes".

[GregoryUrich]

In that case, might you explain why they let the subprime mortgage issue continue to fester until such time as it became a major U.S. financial problem, negatively impacting not only the American economy but also the economies of other nations?

The book doesn't get into much domestic policy in the US with the exception of privatisation of the military and disaster response. I suggest reading it so we could have an informed discussion.

[GregoryUrich]

I'd like to see a source for those approval ratings, Gregory. Mrs Thatcher's comment to Hayek, if correct, is a curious one, given that British Aerospace, The National Freight Corporation, Cable&Wireless and Amersham International had all been privitised before the Falklands war began and the privitisation of Britoil and Associated British Ports was already in the works.

I strongly recommend getting the book. It is well referenced and well researched. Remember that we are talking about the absolute weakest case supporting her thesis. Even if you don't agree with Naomi Klein, it might be useful for understanding "the other side".

[GregoryUrich]

What do you mean "prepared in advance"? Are you suggesting that it's unusual for economists to have ideas about what's wrong with an economy that, at the time, was going very wrong?

If Mugabe were overthrown tomorrow, would you accuse the IMF and every economist who has written about Zimbabwe for the past 8 years of planning his overthrow?

PS: time for a split, perhaps.

They had the full economic plan ready for implementation by a military leader planning on overthrowing a democratically elected government. Enough said.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am suggesting there is useful information in a well researched resource.

Splitting the tread would not be a bad idea. Nonetheless, I see no meaning in discussing a book if no one else has read it.

[T.A.M.]

seibbell:

Keep in mind that while Greg is for the most part agnostic on the issue of 9/11, He does seem to lean toward the "truther" perspective.

Any book he or others with stronger truther leanings recommend, is likely filled with misinformation AND/OR quotes taken out of context, and likely extremely bias analysis.

That said, it is perhaps a good thing to, as Greg has said, get the perspective of the "other side", just remember to check the references used in her book, look them up yourself, and verify them.

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

seibbell:

Keep in mind that while Greg is for the most part agnostic on the issue of 9/11, He does seem to lean toward the "truther" perspective.

Any book he or others with stronger truther leanings recommend, is likely filled with misinformation AND/OR quotes taken out of context, and likely extremely bias analysis.

That said, it is perhaps a good thing to, as Greg has said, get the perspective of the "other side", just remember to check the references used in her book, look them up yourself, and verify them.

TAM:)

Seibell might want to consider that at "truther forums" I am suspect for not accepting many of the main arguments for controlled demolition and questioning things I feel are not supported by evidence or good science.

It just may be that I am one of the few true skeptics. I don't limit my informational input based on fear of bias. For example, I have read Milton Friedman also.

That said, I agree with TAM about checking sources and not believing everything you read. That's how I discovered that no one new how much the World Trade Center Towers weighed.

[T.A.M.]

GregoryUrich said:

It just may be that I am one of the few true skeptics.

Gregory:

Do not think that just because we believe the vast majority of the official account of 9/11 that we are not "true" skeptics. I am skeptical of the role of ISI in 9/11. I think they may have played a role, so I WANT PROOF of it, or else it is just speculation on my part. So far I have been presented with an article from the "Times of India" which quotes an anonymous Indian Intelligence source.

1. All other articles I have seen, including the Wall Street Journal article, are simply reporting the news from the "Times of India" article.
2. India and Pakistan are enemies, so one has to be equally skeptical of info related to pakistan, coming from indian intelligence.

So you see, there are elements of the 9/11 attacks that my gut tells me we are being duped on, or kept in the dark about, but with out proof, and critical analysis of that proof, it is only "my gut" and nothing more.

TAM:)

[cisco]

Gregory:

Do not think that just because we believe the vast majority of the official account of 9/11 that we are not "true" skeptics. I am skeptical of the role of ISI in 9/11. I think they may have played a role, so I WANT PROOF of it, or else it is just speculation on my part. So far I have been presented with an article from the "Times of India" which quotes an anonymous Indian Intelligence source.

1. All other articles I have seen, including the Wall Street Journal article, are simply reporting the news from the "Times of India" article.
2. India and Pakistan are enemies, so one has to be equally skeptical of info related to pakistan, coming from indian intelligence.

So you see, there are elements of the 9/11 attacks that my gut tells me we are being duped on, or kept in the dark about, but with out proof, and critical analysis of that proof, it is only "my gut" and nothing more.

TAM:)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2251747968277bbb0d.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10346)

If Truthers had this kind of intellectual honesty they might not have been spinning their wheels for the last 6 years.

[GregoryUrich]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2251747968277bbb0d.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10346)

If Truthers had this kind of intellectual honesty they might not have been spinning their wheels for the last 6 years.

What kind of intellectual honesty?

If JREFers had real intellectual honesty:

They would have questioned the mass of the WTC towers and found...that it weighed only 60% of what everyone was telling us.
They would have checked Bazant's "Simple Analysis" years ago and found...that it proves nothing.
They would have calculated the collapse times correctly and found...21 seconds for "crush down".

JREFer's brand of intellectual honesty is for the most part an ill-tempered farce.

[Dave Rogers]

They would have calculated the collapse times correctly and found...21 seconds for "crush down".

That's a new one. Where do you get 21 seconds from?

Dave

[GregoryUrich]

That's a new one. Where do you get 21 seconds from?

Dave

I calculated it. I will post it as soon as the "Simple Analysis" analysis is done. I want to use the strain energies from that work. Right now I am using 500MJ per floor loss which at this point appears to be close to correct.

[Dave Rogers]

I calculated it. I will post it as soon as the "Simple Analysis" analysis is done. I want to use the strain energies from that work. Right now I am using 500MJ per floor loss which at this point appears to be close to correct.

Since you've only just calculated it and not told anyone the result, and since we're all using drastically - and arguably unrealistically - oversimplified assumptions about the collapse to be able to calculate anything at all, don't you think it's a bit excessive to accuse everyone on the debunker side of the fence of intellectual dishonesty just because our calculation results differ from yours?

Dave

[GregoryUrich]

Since you've only just calculated it and not told anyone the result, and since we're all using drastically - and arguably unrealistically - oversimplified assumptions about the collapse to be able to calculate anything at all, don't you think it's a bit excessive to accuse everyone on the debunker side of the fence of intellectual dishonesty just because our calculation results differ from yours?

Dave

Did I accuse everyone? My impression is that there are very few intellectually honest people on either side. I was responding in kind to the general statement regarding "truthers". Both TAM and Cisco are using a "poisen the well" strategy to discredit me and a valid resource I have provided.

I have seen many (>20) JREFers point to Bazant's "Simple Analysis" and Greening's momentum transfer analysis as proof without questioning them. I rarely see anyone acknowledge that a "truther" has demonstrated something useful, including my mass analysis. It is definitely not having different results that I see as intellectually dishonest. It is the failure to investigate (or calculate) that I see as at best lazy, at worst intellectually dishonest.

Surely you can point to JREFers who are investigating and calculating. I furthermore respect your consistently constructive contribution to these discussions. Nonetheless, I can point to 5 times as many JREFers that ride on Gravy's, Newtons Bit's and Mackeys' shoulders heckling and ridiculing people about issues they don't even understand.

[Dave Rogers]

I calculated it. I will post it as soon as the "Simple Analysis" analysis is done. I want to use the strain energies from that work. Right now I am using 500MJ per floor loss which at this point appears to be close to correct.

OK, I put 500MJ loss of KE per floor, 288100 metric tons total mass, equal mass per floor, initiation at floor 97, and equal crush up and crush down for the first 26 floors into a spreadsheet and got 14.3 seconds total collapse time. Crush down gives 14.0 seconds. Assuming constant floor weight is a simplification in favour of faster collapse but constant energy per floor is biased in favour of slower collapse. I'm still a very long way from 21 seconds. Assuming complete crush up before crush down isn't consistent with observation, and is virtually tantamount to a starting assumption that the collapse won't propagate anyway.

Gregory, I think you're in a small minority who actually use rational analysis to question the events of 9-11, and that you sometimes get unfairly lumped in with the lunatic majority of the truth movement. On this one specific point, though, I don't think 21 seconds is a good metric for intellectual honesty.

Dave

[twinstead]

Gregory, I think you're in a small minority who actually use rational analysis to question the events of 9-11, and that you sometimes get unfairly lumped in with the lunatic majority of the truth movement.

He has people like Killtown, Heiwa, iAmerican, and others (the list is endless) to thank for that. If I were him I'd be PISSED at them.

[GregoryUrich]

OK, I put 500MJ loss of KE per floor, 288100 metric tons total mass, equal mass per floor, initiation at floor 97, and equal crush up and crush down for the first 26 floors into a spreadsheet and got 14.3 seconds total collapse time. Crush down gives 14.0 seconds. Assuming constant floor weight is a simplification in favour of faster collapse but constant energy per floor is biased in favour of slower collapse. I'm still a very long way from 21 seconds. Assuming complete crush up before crush down isn't consistent with observation, and is virtually tantamount to a starting assumption that the collapse won't propagate anyway.

Gregory, I think you're in a small minority who actually use rational analysis to question the events of 9-11, and that you sometimes get unfairly lumped in with the lunatic majority of the truth movement. On this one specific point, though, I don't think 21 seconds is a good metric for intellectual honesty.

Dave

I assume you are using inelastic collision for momentum transfer. In my calc I may have a couple things included that you don't. I am using:


no crush up (in favor of faster collapse)
actual weight per floor
scaling energy loss with structural strength
no mass sheading from upper part (in favor of faster collapse)
mass sheading from lower part ramping up from 0 to 20% after 10 floors
only calculating down to ground floor (in favor of faster time)


Maybe I'm doing something wrong. You can have my spreadsheet if you are interested in checking it. How dishonest is that?

[funk de fino]

I strongly recommend getting the book. It is well referenced and well researched. Remember that we are talking about the absolute weakest case supporting her thesis. Even if you don't agree with Naomi Klein, it might be useful for understanding "the other side".

If you are getting your info from her book about Thatcher and the political and economic situation in the UK from that book, then it is junk, not just a weakest case.

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong. You can have my spreadsheet if you are interested in checking it. How dishonest is that?

I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, I'm just saying that getting a different result to you is not evidence of dishonesty on my part. I'm not sure when I'd be able to look through your spreadsheet - doing my own calculations is a lot quicker because I don't have to follow someone else's methodology - but if you'd like to post a link I'll have a look, and I suspect one or two others might be interested. I haven't included mass shedding in my calculation - it was fairly quick and dirty - but I've calculated the collapse time right to the ground, which I suppose implies infinite compaction of the debris, and should give a longer time by about a second.

Dave

[GregoryUrich]

I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, I'm just saying that getting a different result to you is not evidence of dishonesty on my part. I'm not sure when I'd be able to look through your spreadsheet - doing my own calculations is a lot quicker because I don't have to follow someone else's methodology - but if you'd like to post a link I'll have a look, and I suspect one or two others might be interested. I haven't included mass shedding in my calculation - it was fairly quick and dirty - but I've calculated the collapse time right to the ground, which I suppose implies infinite compaction of the debris, and should give a longer time by about a second.

Dave

I noticed another thing. I subtract the strain energies during the initial collapse. We should really start a new thread for this.

[cisco]

He has people like Killtown, Heiwa, iAmerican, and others (the list is endless) to thank for that. If I were him I'd be PISSED at them.

I disagree. GregoryUrich is in the same boat sailing down the same river with these people.

Use all the math you want and you still have to dodge Occam's Razor, the fact that no explosives were heard or seen, the fact that there was no need to blow up the buildings after flying jumbo jets into them, the fact that Flight 93 doesn't fit into any well-executed conspiracy, the fact that no one within this necessarily vast conspiracy has talked (anonymously or not), the fact that Larry Silverstein has lost money, the fact that experienced people on the scene knew the buildings were coming down long before they did, the fact that the whole world has been captivated by this event for over 6 years and not one piece of compelling evidence has been produced by The War Against Truth (aka Trooth Movement), and the fact that Al Qaeda confessed.

Weird globs of metal or +/- a few tenths of a second in the collapse don't change any of that.