Conspiracies

[dougplumb]

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

The First Global Revolution (1991), A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome

You can find this book as a free PDF online.

[Selene]

Doug:

You do not get out much I guess.

"The pictures we have seen out of Abu Ghraib would certainly be torture."

The Abu Ghraib pictures were like a Saturday night at Paddles in NY City for cripes sake.

Adam

[dougplumb]

Do they electrocute people at these parties?. I see guys with their faces covered in black hoods standing on one foot with an electrode in either hand. I didn't know there was anyone that didn't consider what goes on in Abu Garib torture.

Maybe its not electrocution, but are you argueing that the US doesn't use torture at its foreign bases ? There are lots and lots of military and police that will say torture is used.

Anyway this is distracting us from the main point. You have absolutely no objective evidence that supports your case. I have tons that supports my case.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[Selene]

Doug:

Yes there are folks with electrodes as electric play is engaged in in that community by some members.

Secondly, ok you are right and you do not care to take an orderly approach to the issue.

It has been such an exhaustive and excellent intellectual exercise for me that it will probably take me months to recover.

:yawn:

I have broken more intellectual sweat opening a tic tac box.

Sorry you could not keep up.

Essentially, you prefer to stand in the darkness and curse the darkness while condemning candles as a government plot to rot our teeth.

So sad.

Adam

Edited May 18, 2009 by Selene

[dougplumb]

Selene,

Smart people like you doctors are a lot easier to propagandize than dummies like me. That is a fact. See Jaques Ellul's "Propaganda" for that info. Bernays book is childs play when it comes to propaganda, this guy digs into it.

Check it out on Amazon. It was written in the 70's.

[dougplumb]

"Essentially, you prefer to stand in the darkness and curse the darkness while condemning candles as a government plot to rot our teeth."

I've given you audio interviews of 3 different doctors that have looked into fluoride, you say nothing but insult me.

I show you tons of evidence on 911, you side swipe me on little issues and fail to address the big ones, then you insult me.

You haven't expended any intellectual effort at all in this thread. In that sense I agree with you.

[Selene]

Doug:

Is it hard to type with both feet in your mouth.

First, I am not a doctor.

Second, Jacques Elull's book Propaganda is brilliant.

I used it when I taught rhetoric at college.

Adam

[dougplumb]

Maybe you are right - it just cannot happen here and I am wrong by not starting with that axiom.

[dougplumb]

Show me one piece of evidence that supports your belief.

You know what Ellul says about smart people and propaganda. You areobviously a smart guy, are you immune somehow or is Ellul wrong ?

Where did I put my feet in my mouth, exactly ?

Where is my arguement wrong ? Give me a single point.

[Christopher]

Ok, we've got a live conspiracy online against 9/11! How exciting...

Now, just to address a simple claim - the WTC buildings did collapse inward just as if it had been demolished when the planes flew into them. Expected, or cospiracitically strange? Well actually, all tall buildings are designed to collapse inward when there is a structural failure. Imagine if buildings didn't collapse inward? Imagine the WTC collapsing sideways and destroying countless city blocks... now if a building did that, I would think that was a conspiracy!

Citation for the following -> http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm

Buildings are designed to collapse inward on structural failure. Check your facts.

Christopher

[Christopher]

Oooh, I can't resist another post! Even the cospiracy theorists seem to be out of sync.

For example, one site claims that jet fuel has a maximum burning temperature of 1500 F.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ian-vasquez.pdf

A second conspiracy site claims that steel loses about half its strength at 1100 F, but argues that the jet fuel never burned that hot. http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

These cited facts together actually support the conclusion that jet fuel could have weakened the steel beams sufficiently to collapse.

[Judith]

One link with a video that provides some food for thought:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Astonishing_Interv...ick_Rockefeller

Judith

[dougplumb]

So no one is actually able to post evidence that supports the official belief, but conspiracy theorists are still fools.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth do not think the buildings collapsed naturally. No one has seriously challenged AE911Truth.org without stating outright lies about science. Popular Mechanics is filled with nothing but lies and misinformation. Pick your point ....any point. I'll show you how they are lying in any point they make.

The government would push man made global warming, but they would never lie about this. We know this could never happen here.

The interview with Jay Rockefeller is interesting, this stuff comes out all over the place. I gave an earlier reference to a Club Of Rome document that explains the plans from the outset in black and white.

I wonder why the official version does not explain that the buildings were designed to collapse straight down. I wonder why the designers never explained that when explaining that the buildings were designed to withstand multiple direct collisions with aircraft of this size. I wonder why the NIST report completely ignored the existence of the center core when explaining the collapses in ver 1- did they forget about the center columns ?. A BBC special showed an animated version of the collapse, but the building once again did not have any center columns.

The lack of center columns lie was maintained until conspiracy theorists found construction pictures of a strong center column being built as part of the structure.

The buildings had a very strong center core, no one mentioned any kind of "fail safe" design in NIST, the design was a "safe life" design. The center core columns would have prevented the buildings from being able to collapse straight down- just by common sense and the incompressibility of concrete. No one of any substance is saying the buildings were designed to go straight down. I have seen hollow earth web sites with more credibility than this one. Anyone can put up a web site...what matters is who stands behind it.

I don't trust people that lie all the time... If the official version is true, why is it constantly being changed ? Why are its supporters lying all the time ?

Edited May 19, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[dougplumb]

Judith,

Heres one for you:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4446387174017711777

(the hidden agenda of the tax free foundations (our real government policy body) - interview with Norman Dodd)

[Brant Gaede]

Oooh, I can't resist another post! Even the cospiracy theorists seem to be out of sync.

For example, one site claims that jet fuel has a maximum burning temperature of 1500 F.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ian-vasquez.pdf

A second conspiracy site claims that steel loses about half its strength at 1100 F, but argues that the jet fuel never burned that hot. http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

These cited facts together actually support the conclusion that jet fuel could have weakened the steel beams sufficiently to collapse.

If it was just jet fuel the buildings might not have collapsed, burning itself out first. But stuff inside the buildings burned too. I can understand how those big buildings went straight down considering their tremendous mass and type of construction: the primary structural support was in the exterior walls. I'm mildly curious about the third building that came down that Doug mentioned, but laymen's discussions don't illuminate much except the conspiracy theories themselves. I do enjoy smorgasbords of nonsense as they tend to fall down eventually of their own weight also.

When I saw the first artist renditions of the Twin Towers as depicted in The (New York) Daily News in the 1960s, I wondered if provision had been made for withstanding and dealing with an airplane accidentally flying into one of them. I had read about the B-25 that had flown into the Empire State Building during WWII. The Empire State building was built around a central core and the structural steel was insulated with concrete. The steel in the World Trade Center Towers was supposed to be insulated with some kind of asbestos compound/mixture glop. During construction the geniuses that ran New York City (into the ground, btw) outlawed the use of this stuff and an inferior product was used to finish the job. At the time an engineer wrote a letter to The New York Times stating that a serious fire would then therefore cause either building to collapse. Other skyscrapers built since have had had no effective insulation used and might also be subject to collapse from fire--maybe.

--Brant

just repeating some things I've read that seem to make sense

Edited May 19, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

I don't trust people that lie all the time...

No, me neither.

[Selene]

Brant:

Correct. My Dad fought that fire in the Empire State Building and I have a piece of the right motor about a fist and 1/2 in total volume size with his writing on it at to the date and part of the plane in his hand.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

A couple of point about Plumb's postings on 9-11. He seems to refer to eyewitnesses. I would regard eyewitness testimony as some of the poorest evidence. Experiments have shown that eyewitnesses do not see as well as they think they do. There is an experiment done in many college psychology where some event will be enacted. I believe a video that almost all the witnesses get it wrong.

I am sure that there were offices being renovated in the WTC. I am sure that is true in all large office buildings. I flatly don't believe that this was true of both buildings in the WTC that no one had been in them for a week before 9-11.

I will respond to anyone other than Plumb.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[dougplumb]

If anyone is seriously interested in this topic I would say that the references below are about the best that illustrate the "conspiracy theory" point of view. There is a lot of garbage out there that espouses 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've studied this stuff to a meticulous level and have forgotten more than I know now.

(1) Jim Hoffman - on the science of the fires and why the buildings couldn't have collapsed by fire and the impacts. Hoffman isn't a formally educated engineer I don't think but he is very good at this and clearly understands the technical issues of the building design

(2) Richard gage (architect and creator of ae911truth.org) - same stuff as Hoffman, in fact uses a lot of Hoffmans stuff.

(3) David Ray Griffin - has written about 3 books on the subject of 9/11 - covers the event from a wide spectrum point of view.

No one knows what caused the buildings to collapse - there are some hypothesis' but none that explain all of the evidence. The manner of the collapse of wtc1 & wtc2 are a big mystery. I believe thermate (Dr. Stephen Jones) was used but it was not all. Three main theorists on this topic are Stephen Jones, Judy Wood, Bill Deagle and possibly someone else I cannot think of at this moment. I am not really qualified to say which one is more correct, but I tend to think Deagle may be right myself. The mini nukes explanation makes a lot of sense to me since this technology was developed in the 50's to demolish large buildings but the controlled demolition method was later created and that is what is used today.

You can find mp3 interviews of these people on places like Rense, GunsAndButter and PrisonPlanet, RadioLiberty.

I found the interviews with Hoffman on GunsAndButter (KPFA) to be the most informative and interesting. 9/11 is a very interesting thing to study IMO.

[dougplumb]

Chris Geib: "A couple of point about Plumb's postings on 9-11. He seems to refer to eyewitnesses. I would regard eyewitness testimony as some of the poorest evidence. Experiments have shown that eyewitnesses do not see as well as they think they do. There is an experiment done in many college psychology where some event will be enacted. I believe a video that almost all the witnesses get it wrong."

Eyewitnesses for facial recognition are often wrong, but in this video a bunch of firemen are describing what they saw on that day. There are many witnesses that claim to have seen the squibs, they are also on many videos of the collapses - including the original CNN footage that was shown that morning which I saw as 9/11 was happening.

Most people don't want to learn about 9/11. They are happy with the government fairy tale about an omni-potent terrorist mastermind who has brought America to its knees and started two wars. This is the stuff of comic books, not real life.

[Christopher]

Well some of your evidence comes from people who aren't engineers, but all of my knowledge does come from people who are engineers. Here's how it's explained:

The buildings were constructed with a center column. They were also constructed to withstand an aircraft impact. You will note that indeed the buildings did survive the aircraft impacts... they both collapsed after a significant amount of burning took place.

It is believed that the jet fuel and all the burning caused the center column on the floor where aircraft impact took place to weaken. What happened was that as the steel core weakened, the weight of the building above the impact floor crushed down, collapsing the impact floor. The impact of the crush caused the floor under it to crush, and so on and so forth like a domino effect. In fact, if you watch the videos, this is exactly what it looks like happened. The floor of impact crushed first, then each floor under it crushed down and down.

I also hope you read my post on why buildings are structurally built to collapse inward. I'm sure this goes for all skyscrapers... it would be silly to do otherwise.

[dougplumb]

"In fact, if you watch the videos, this is exactly what it looks like happened. "

It looks to me like the top parts of the building above the collapse point in either building was converted to dust before it fell. It does not look like a pancake collapse at all. In fact close examination clearly reveals large chunks being projected upwards and outwards at a speed far greater than the collapse.

Propaganda call tell you what you see beore you see it. People think the buildings collapsed due to pancaking. Watch the videos of wtc1 or wtc2 collapsing.

"I also hope you read my post on why buildings are structurally built to collapse inward. I'm sure this goes for all skyscrapers... it would be silly to do otherwise."

I read some of this, I am wondering why this idea hasn't been put forward before and I am wondering why controlled demolitions require so much meticulous planning if buildings naturally collapse in a similar manner. I am not a structural engineer.

Give me the link to your explanation. Are you a structural engineer ? What do you think of the hundreds of engineers that disagree with you ? I don't think there are more than a handful of engineers that publically support the official version. Few have their names on the government reports.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[Christopher]

Doug,

I don't mean to be pestering of your beliefs. You do seem to know a lot more on the subject than I do. I hesitate though with most conspiracies, and the few sites I have looked at on 9/11 conspiracies just don't fit my observations and related knowledge of the event.

I'm also partially anti-conspiracy because of what I experience when I begin believing in conspiracies. The feeling I experience is anger and fear because conspiracies usually represent a form of power-grabbing. Power is an interesting thing... it exists mostly between people in the form of subjective appraisals. If you believe someone has power, you conform to it. This is the fear that allowed Communism to exist. When I begin experiencing such fear, I feel smaller, I feel like the world is built on aggression, and I feel more distant from human connectedness.

So that's my primary reason for being anti-conspiracy. In many ways, paying attention to conspiracies actually sickens the soul and gives more power to those who might be conspirators. It is true people in power want to stay in power. But there are so many people who, unrestricted by fearful beliefs, acheived great wealth despite the 'mice in the corner plotting.' Bill Gates is just such an example.

Christopher

[Selene]

Doug:

"It looks to me like the top parts of the building above the collapse point in either building was converted to dust before it fell."

I think either your seeing eye dog died or you have been dropping the acids of "it had to be the big bad boogie man named ________________[fill in the blank]

conspiracy" because I cannot explain it.

This aspect of conspiracy and the ongoing discussion of mysticism [another current thread started by Chris] have a lot in common.

For example, "sensing" that something exists, but not being able to prove it or one of the obverses that I can prove it exists on paper,

but I cannot see or sense it.

Adam

[dougplumb]

Christopher "But there are so many people who, unrestricted by fearful beliefs, acheived great wealth despite the 'mice in the corner plotting.' Bill Gates is just such an example."

Those days of successful entrepeneurship are going to end very soon. Sustainable Development will make our lives miserable and we will be unable to afford the goods from China. Our resources will be owned by large private corporations who have taken over government, the people will soon have no resources to trade for goods and we will become a third world country. Our governments are not doing anything to help people out of these rough times, only the banks are receiving help from government. Power is being concentrated in a way difficult to image - 10 trillion dollars in debt !

The idea that you have rights as a human being will be replaced with the communitarian agenda. What is best for the population will replace individual ideas. Once this technological corporate state has control it will never lose control. They finally have the technology to take over the world and goal is to preserve and protect the English ruling elite - presumably before people wake up to the factthat our economy was designed to collapse and that we must continue to give rights for value as we go further into unrecoverable debt. The debts that the banker have over us allows them to create more rules, regulations and fines from which to collect interest on that debt.

The Club Of Rome document and others explain how the elite wish to lower our standard of living. There will be carbon taxes on almost everything and the environmental agenda will have The Rights Of Man eliminated (reason for environmentalism), private property and gun ownership will soon be a thing of the past. We will become share croppers in this country.

It is something to be afraid of and if we all recognize this corruption, honest people in power will see that they have the backing of the people. Nothing can change without the backing of the people. Politicians can be smeared or shot. No one can stand up to this unless they have the backing of the people.

Bill Gates was GIVEN his operating system and the mouse. These were invented by Xerox. Gates is one of the ruling elite, he is especially into population control. If you think he is in Africa to save black populations, watch the populations decline where the Bill & Melinda gates foundation does its work. His parents were also part of planned parenthood. The Norman Dodds interview I posted explains how these foundations work.