Sad news that Van Jones, the American Green New Deal proponent and author of The Green Collar Economy, has resigned from Obama's administration for characterising Republicans as "assholes", and questioning the official account of 9/11.
Republicans are not assholes in any literal sense, because the asshole (or anus as we doctors prefer to call it) is an organ vital to the functioning of any living animal system, and the Republicans clearly fall far short of such importance.
Van Jones was of course using the term figuratively to convey that in his view the Republicans tend to be offensive and unpleasant, and although I personally try not to use any ad hominem attacks, I would not judge anyone who uses that kind of pejorative in the emotional heat of political struggle.
As for the 9/11 question, Van Jones is just one more voice to wonder about gaps in the official account, the central one being, "Why did Building 7 collapse?". WTC7 was NOT hit by any plane, but subsided like the Twin Towers, concertina-fashion, as would happen in a controlled demolition. This is a statement of plain fact, and to express this fact is not to be a conspiracy theorist, but a person with an open and functioning mind.
The reasonable hypothesis that WTC7 was demolished on 9/11 then raises interest in the many structural engineers who see similarities between the way the Twin Towers collapsed and the way buildings collapse under controlled demolitions. Again, these are legitimate scientific and technical questions, but reasoned discussion of these questions is obscured by hysterical allegations of "conspiracy theorists".
Never forget that Tony Blair sucessfully dismissed the idea that Iraq's oil resources had anything to do with his disastrous invasion as a "conspiracy theory".
Of course, there are a plethora of irrational conspiracy theorists around who will sieze onto any and every question, but the fact that an psychotic person believes that the Nazis were behind the Reichstag Fire does not prove that the Nazis did not do it. The fact that some conspiracy theorists are wacky does not prove that politicians' manifold bad decisions are all down to cock-ups never down to deliberate planning.
The world is poorer for the resignation of Van Jones. The best we can hope for is that it will once more raise the substantive questions that remain about 9/11.
20 comments:
What's with the 9-11 conspiracy rubbish?
Reminds me of an old viz letter: "I have just returned home after watching Oliver Stone's new flick World Trade Centre, and I
have to say I was a little disappointed by the storyline. Two planes crashing into the Twin Towers... on the same day. It's a bit far-fetched.
I mean, seriously, the two planes flying into the buildings might have had something to do with the toqwers falling down. It might just compromise the structural integrity of the buildings somewhat. Could you outline what you think might have happened that we 'don't know about?' And why. And then how.
None of the above, you have not read the post in a comprehending way. Please go back and read it again, look at the video, do a little background reading, and then answer the following questions:
1. What was WTC7?
2. Was it hit by a plane?
3. Why then did if fall down?
Thank you.
I think you'll find everything you're looking for in here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf
I find your questions beyond patronising, coming from someone intimating government involvement in the collapse of WTC7.
but anyway:
1) World Trade Center 7
2) No
3)intense fire and severe structural damage
or if you like:"NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. "
Happy?
sorry
missed part of the ref
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf
mmm
bit of a bugger this comments box thing - doesn't like long addresses
put the ref together in your address bar:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/
WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf
Here's a clickable link.
look up how to do it on google.
None of the Above, you assert that I am intimating government involvement in 9/11. Please copy and paste the relevant text if you can find it. The closest I can see is the phrase "gaps in the official account" - which is very far from an assertion of a conspiracy within the Bush administration to do a Reichstag fire.
You may be happy with the Administration line on the collapse, but there is a large body of technical opinion that is not. Did you actually look at the video comparing WTC7 with a controlled demolition?
The bottom line is, if the official account is truthful, skyscrapers are exquisitely vulnerable to fire, and the US Govt should be tightening up regulations, and strengthening all skyscrapers to avoid a repeat.
In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.
http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html
This is and issue primarily for American citizens, not for UK citizens. I have not gone into it in much detail, just enough to retain my scepticism of official accounts.
What do you make of the finding of nanoparticles consistent with use of explosives in the debris of the Twin Towers?
The nano-particles straw-clutching is the stuff of a madman's dreams. Absolute wrong-headed scientific drivel.
It only looks like a controlled demo in so far as the building falls down. That's it. Controlled demos aim to REDUCE the amount of debris flung out of the building etc, etc yada yada yada.
There is NOT a large body of technical opinion claiming it was an explosion or similar. I know you think a few crackpots amount to a body of evidence but they don't.
You should go into it in more detail. Scepticism is healthy but sometimes the official line is the correct one.
WTC7debunked
You may also like to research Jim Hoffman, the man behind your nano-particle (and much other 9/11 related) gibberish, and his many wacky ideas.
makes for 'interesting' reading although I imagine the wtc-debunked video above has pretty much settled it with the lack of explosions and the visual evidence of a compromised structure doomed to fall from early on etc...
IMHO Hoffman is gold-plated stupidity with knobs on. It's about time they shut down the internet.
Although you don't directly intimate government involvment, you do state the building collapsed "as a would happen in a controlled demolition" and go on to suggest that the twin towers collapsed in a way showing "similarities" to this. And with further mention of conspiracy theories not always being incorrect, it's explicit to anyone what the subtext of your post is, despite your wheedling and sophistry. What's the party policy on 9/11?
Anyway, face it, you're a troofer.
Anonymous:
"...madman's dreams...wrong-headed ...drivel...crackpots"
Ad hominem abuse is a universal indication of a weak argument.
It's also a sign of withering disdain
You might like to apply yourself to the substantive arguments raised in the videos and powerpoints. The lack of explosions, the opinion of the man who built the tower, the fireman watching WTC seven buckling hours in advance of the collapse?
Anonymous,
I am well aware that conservatives hold all other views as beneath contempt. That is a given, and it has no effect, because it is so constant.
There is an explosion in the
Italian film , and the fire fighters say "The building is going to be brought down".
Also, this is the first time such a building has collapsed in a fire, unless you know otherwise.
I am prepared to believe that it came down due to the fires, because my mind is open to the facts: are you prepared to be convinced that it could have been demolished for some reason?
If id did fall due to fire, then should not all such buildings be restructured to avoid a repeat?
Rather than mulling over the historical details, it might be more useful for us to consider what we people do if they were in a hijacked plane in the future. If I were in that situation, I would be inclined to try to overpower anyone who stood up to say he was taking over. Obviously, the overpowering would be more likely to be successful if all able bodied people on the plane did the same. I put this to our government comittee looking at these things after 9/11, and after consideration, they came back and said they could not advise this course of action, for fear that someone might get hurt...
It's all very well not wanting to mull over historical details as long as the "details" of history aren't intimations of controlled demolitions of the towers akin to a troofer.
I don't concede that any of the towers came down from a demolition of any kind whatsoever because they didn't. All the evidence points to what actually happened and you have just cherry-picked a few half truths from half-baked internet videos and 'open' journals (the editor resigned after that piece of crap was published on his watch btw)
And no, all such buildings should not be redesigned as the chances of a similar event occurring are (hopefully) very small and it is doubtful that anything could be done to save a building in similar circumstances to the Twin Towers and WTC7. It wasn't just intense fire that brought them down but structural damage to the internal and external frames etc.
And for the record, I am not a conservative, whether your other commenter is or not, - either politically or by personal nature. I'm a lifelong socialist with Green sympathies, only put off from voting for them by stuff like 9/11 truthers, anti-stem-cell research policies and a few oddballs on the fringe with wacky ideas about medicine etc. And I would say I am naturally extremely sceptical too.
If hijacked, I'd like to think I'd be right beside you...
all the best
Comments on Mark Roberts video.
Roberts’ piece is clearly polemical. However, let’s look at his top 10 arguments:
1.The WTC collapses look nothing like controlled demolitions. 2. There’s no noise. 3. Weidlinger's independent findings. 4. WTC7:No explosions heard. 5. Les Robertson 6. No WTC7 detonations. 7. No pyroclastic flow. 8. WTC7 badly damaged 9. Irwin Cantor, the steel will yield. 10. and so on.
How strong are these arguments?
1. The collapses actually do rather look like CDs: straight down, no deviation, 'explosive'. If it was a covert op you’d have to disguise the demolitions (like crashing planes in first). Comparing windowless, empty, building shells, brought down with standard techniques is much less important than that they fell straight down in their footprints at near freefall speeds. 2. There are MANY reports of people hearing explosions. But it’s secondary: most of the supposed explosions would be high up in the 110 floor buildings and lower explosions would have killed most people there. 3. Weidlinger was chosen by Silverstein to investigate why the buildings came down. 4. Plenty of loud unexplained bangs, like the firemen in Loose Change: "bang, bang, bang, like they were bringing a building down'. If you watch the collapses, they sound like huge rumbling trains. A continuous set of explosions of smaller charges could effect this. 5. Les Robertson's clearly a nice guy and very affected by what happened. But people can be briefed, threatened, be 'team players', or got at, like van Romero on this issue. 6. WTC7 is quiet and was significantly damaged by WTC1. But see Barry Jennings' video (RIP); it’s possible WTC7 was meant to come down that morning. There is evidence of emergency workers' countdown over radio before collapse. Also BBC announced 7's 'collapse' 20 mins BEFORE it did. 7. Ok, he can have this one. The dust clouds weren't superheated volcanic killers. But they were killers: high contents of asbestos and rare metals have since contributed to the deaths of hundreds of rescue workers. 8. WTC7 was badly damaged, ok. Yet it comes straight down, quickly, progressively, as if sinking into the ground. A damage-collapse, really? of a 47 storey skyscraper?? 9. What other fire-damaged buildings have completely collapsed into dust and debris? three: WTC 1, 2 and 7. 10. and so on.
The top 10 building evidences for 9/11 would probably be 1. the buildings' collapses: straight down, at nearly free fall speed, through the path of greatest resistance, after fires of 59 and 102 mins. 2. William Rodrigez' evidence: huge explosion BEFORE first plane, variety of noises, supposed explosions, through building. 3. Existence of hotspots MUCH HOTTER than the fires would support, for WEEKS afterwards. 4. Traces of explosives: thermite residue, nano-particles, sulphuration of beams indicating thermate. 5. It COULD be done: use of highly efficient explosives, shaped charges, inward blasts, offices absorbing some of the blast, higher floor collapses obscuring charges lower down. 6. Opportunity: Bush's cousin Wirt Walker CEO of WTC security firm, and brother Marvin Bush too. 7. The complete power down before 9/11. 8. Motive: multiple wars, the "new Pearl Harbor" needed: see Rebuilding America's Defenses by the PNAC. 9. Silverstein: the owner on WTC7 deciding "to pull it"; the WTC needing hundreds of millions of dollars work on asbestos removal. Ie, an insurance job. If this seems scandalous, Silverstein attempted to claim for two terrorist attacks and for twice the money he had paid for the WTC six weeks earlier! 10. The seismograph seems to show possible foundation detonations, huge short duration spikes inconsistent with a progressive collapse.
None of us is free from ideological standpoints. Roberts is a 9/11 "debunker" as fitting a label as the word "conspiracist" he uses for his foes.
When it comes to the state and acts of war it’s no surprise that the dominant propaganda is the state's and not those who disagree.
But, clearly, it is of much greater importance if it turns out we were lied to.
Hi None of the Above
Well, an ounce of agreement is worth a pound of disagreement.
I'm glad to find you were not a conservative. We are unlikely to share a plane that gets hijacked, so it is up to the airlines to add a bit at the end of the in-flight briefings, "...And if anyone tries to hijack this plane, we ask all passengers to join us in overpowering them". Maybe the idea might run better in the USA than the UK, given your constitutional position of all citizens being ready to defend their homesteads &c.
Reading the stuff you drew my attention to makes me realise that things have moved on from my brief exposure to the questions a few years ago, although there is clearly still contention on a lot of points. (see new post above).
You asked about green party policy; over here in England, the greens have stayed clear of 9/11 controversy; the Green Party of the United States has backed McKinney's call for a better investigation.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=102
Which I hope you will agree is not unreasonable, since there are so many unanswered questions - like how the FBI managed to ignore the warnings given.
"an ounce of agreement is worth a pound of disagreement"
I'm sure any dictator would *agree* with this! Disagreement can be highly productive, whereas perpetual consensus smacks of complacency, or worse.
Most dictators would also agree with the statement "The sun is hot". That does not mean that the sun is not hot. Nor does it mean that any person who believes the sun is hot is in sympathy with dictatorship.
One of the core symptoms of schizophrenia is called "delusional perception" where a small action (e.g. someone touching their nose) is taken to mean a big event (e.g. the nose toucher is a Communist conspirator).
This is not to say that those who over-infer meanings that are not there are schizophrenic, but it is a plea to address the specific statement, not to draw huge generalisations from specific statements. I am thinking here of the hysterical reactions of some US rightwingers to Obama's health care proposals, inferring that the proposals imply euthanasia &c.
My statement meant that it is good that the two of us who were debating 911 can agree that airline passengers should collectively overpower any would be hijacker.
Post a Comment