Log in

View Full Version : Why Marxists should look back on 9/11:



p.m.a.
5th September 2007, 10:49
Like many other fringe concepts and hermeneutics, the Spectacle today has consumed and subsumed the notion of a conspiracy theory. The phrase brings negative connotations of pasty-skinned kids with tinfoil hats prattling on about UFOs and the new world order. But a conspiracy is merely a plan hatched in secrecy by a few people, to affect something on a larger scale. Conspiracies are often hatched in immediately hostile environments, and are forced into secrecy by threat of existence. In all parts of the left spectrum conspiracies have been important historical foils: from the Bolsheviks storming the Winter Castle, to every anarchist blowing up shit. These are plans, whose consequential implications are meant to affect society on a larger scale, hatched in secrecy by a few people.

Now, even the government-approved explanation of 9/11, the poorly written hole-ridden piece of shit, is technically still a conspiracy. They say a man on a dialysis machine in a cave in Afghanistan executed the whole ordeal with a computer and nineteen soldiers. These amateur pilots successfully conspired to take over four commercial airliners with a few boxcutters, and execute military flight maneuvers to fly them into the Twin Towers. But countless people, before and after the plane crashes, including many firemen (who were subsequently threatened by their unions to keep quiet), reported explosions, both seen and heard. Many of these are visible on the media coverage.

Now, as Marxists of varying persuasion, we pride ourselves on deriving our analysis from material reality, from economic factors, and from science. Any scientific observation of the Twin Towers will leave you with questions. If they claim that the fire was so hot that it could melt the 47 steel frames in each tower, why are people clearly seen on the floors around the plane crash? Why are there barely any flames coming from the tower, instead only plumes and clouds of dark smoke, a clear sign of an oxygen-deprived and thus barely-alive fire? Why was there molten steel in the sublevels of the tower over a month after the attack, and why were there traces of thermite, a common explosive used in controlled demolitions and the military? Why were thousands of putoption stocks (guaranteeing the decline of a stock's value) bought for UA, AA, and WTC in the days approaching 9/11, and why does the government refuse to inquire into the matter? How big of a coincidence is it that Marvin Bush was head of Securacom, the company that ran security for the WTC, and how strange that the weekend before 9/11, the towers were subject to 36-hour power-outs in the higher floors, and the bomb-sniffing dogs were pulled? Larry Silverstein bought the complex in the months before 9/11, on a contract that insured them $3bn against terrorist attacks. Not only was the WTC complex a tax-drain on the City of New York due to its ancient asbestos fireproofing, but Larry Silverstein successfully argued in court that each tower counted as a separate act of terrorism, thus winning over $7bn and an exclusive contract to rebuild the area. And finally, if you watch the towers, each falls exactly at Galileo's described free-fall speed, which would necessitate that when the top of the tower above the crash site began to topple, the bottom amalgamation of 47 steel frames and thousands of tonnes of concrete must've been pulverized immediately, to provide no resistance to the falling scraper. Never in the history of the modern world has a steel skyscraper fell from fire melting its support structure, even buildings that have been hit by planes and buildings that have burned 30x as long as the Towers did; but, on 9/11, we're expected to believe it happened three times.

Now, while I've always amused conspiracy theories based on UFOs and hollow-earth-living alien reptile overlords, of course my keen Marxist intuition has kept them as mere entertainment. But when trying to dismiss the 9/11 truth assertion, it's a lot harder. All that is just a tip of the iceberg of things that don't add up about the government story. And, furthermore, I know this isn't exactly a site full of people who believe the government anyway. States have been known to orchestrate terror attacks on their populace to rally support, and there are plenty of instances we all know of dirty politics. We know the bourgeoisie will stop at nothing to maintain its rule, because we've seen this a million times before. What if now we are in the end of a transitional period of capitalism? What if neoliberalism was a primary mode of the 1990s, and now neoconservativism is a reactionary attempt by the ruling class to maintain America's hegemony? China, India, and Iran are all rising fast, and Venezuela and South Korea are quickening too. The next fifty years, as David Harvey describes, will find America's dominance seriously threatened by burgeoning new capitalist economies. And oil was the only was for the Neocons to secure America's hegemony. In the face of a emerging supranational Empire (not an NWO, but instead of the Negri/Hardt description) loomed on the horizon of the 21st Century, so a new Pearl Harbor was exactly what was needed for a last stretch for 20th Century's formation of capital to remain in power. Thus, 9/11 was orchestrated not only to justify a war for virtual control of the world's oil spigot, but to instate new authoritarian policies in the domestic terrain. It's a class war accelerated in the 21st Century - and Marxists, and revolutionaries of all self-descriptions, to start exposing the lie, and using it as a tool to attack the state and spread revolutionary consciousness.

EDIT: Anyone willing to consider the possibility should watch 9/11 Mysteries: Controlled Demolition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536), available for free, for an indepth look at the Towers.

Dimentio
5th September 2007, 11:38
Any conclusive proof that Marvin Bush was the head of the WTC security when it blew off?

p.m.a.
5th September 2007, 18:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:38 am
Any conclusive proof that Marvin Bush was the head of the WTC security when it blew off?
Absolutely. See this article from the the washington spectator (http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20050215bushes_1.cfm).

Philosophical Materialist
5th September 2007, 19:45
It is nonsense. The 9/11 Truthiness movement is a collection of hate groups, anti-intellectuals, pseudo-scientists, far-right nutjobs and snake oil salesmen.

The often-repeated "Arab caveman" theme is deeply racist and lies in reactionary arrogance that only the US is capable of pulling off such an attack. Al-Qaeda is a well-organised, well-funded network ran by an educated élite.

The "fire that melted steel" is a piece of long-debunked nonsense. Steel does not retain its strength until melting point. Fires which burn at 500-600 C can weaken the strength of steel significantly.

Marvin Bush was not in charge of security on 9/11, again anciently debunked.

Here are some sites which give deserved treatment to such nonsense.

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

http://www.911myths.com/

The 9/11 conspiracy movement is a reactionary's wet-dream to link to the Left.

p.m.a.
5th September 2007, 20:43
Originally posted by Philosophical [email protected] 05, 2007 06:45 pm
The often-repeated "Arab caveman" theme is deeply racist and lies in reactionary arrogance that only the US is capable of pulling off such an attack. Al-Qaeda is a well-organised, well-funded network ran by an educated élite.

Way to put words into my mouth to refute an argument - I never once asserted only the US is capable of planning such an attack. And would you have any evidence to support the assertion that Al-Qaeda exists, let along that it is well-organized and funded?


Steel does not retain its strength until melting point. Fires which burn at 500-600 C can weaken the strength of steel significantly.

600ºC would be approximately ~11-1200ºF, if my mental math is correct. Now, you see the red-orange fire visible when the planes hit the towers? That looks maybe to be around 600ºC. But the plumes of black smoke emitted from the towers for the next hour until they fell? No one can argue that is a 600ºC raging inferno. Especially when firefighter radio transmissions from inside the building suggest otherwise.

You are, however, right about Marvin Bush. Looking into it further, he only served on the Board of Directors of Securacom (now Stratesec), and that was only until fiscal year 2000. Thanks for catching that one, it would've been a bit easy anyway.

In response to those sites: the best debunking 9/11 argument, IMO, comes in regards to the accusations of thermite/thermate being used in the controlled demolition. Thermite isn't used to cute horizontally, but rather vertically. Besides this, most of those sites either hyperfocus on asinine arguments made by parts of the 9/11 truth movement, or they're so riddled with poor grammar that I can't make it through them.

Philosophical Materialist
5th September 2007, 23:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:43 pm
And would you have any evidence to support the assertion that Al-Qaeda exists, let along that it is well-organized and funded?

600ºC would be approximately ~11-1200ºF, if my mental math is correct. Now, you see the red-orange fire visible when the planes hit the towers? That looks maybe to be around 600ºC. But the plumes of black smoke emitted from the towers for the next hour until they fell? No one can argue that is a 600ºC raging inferno. Especially when firefighter radio transmissions from inside the building suggest otherwise.

You are, however, right about Marvin Bush. Looking into it further, he only served on the Board of Directors of Securacom (now Stratesec), and that was only until fiscal year 2000. Thanks for catching that one, it would've been a bit easy anyway.

In response to those sites: the best debunking 9/11 argument, IMO, comes in regards to the accusations of thermite/thermate being used in the controlled demolition. Thermite isn't used to cute horizontally, but rather vertically. Besides this, most of those sites either hyperfocus on asinine arguments made by parts of the 9/11 truth movement, or they're so riddled with poor grammar that I can't make it through them.
The question on Al-Qaeda is as foolish as being asked to provide proof that Christmas Island really exists. Al-Qaeda has been established and its existence reported by a great number of media outlets and government agencies.

If you are unsure why the WTC collapsed, then I can point you to the two large passenger jets which crashed into them at 600mph carrying a load of flammable fuel, or you can read the NIST report or articles from peer-review journals. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfem...turalengineerin (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin)

It is also covered here http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm with links to more resources here http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

You also haven't bothered to check up on your facts before spouting 9/11 Troof propaganda.

You have repeated nonsense about "firemen being silenced by unions" and "the towers falling at freefall speed" (it actually took 18 seconds), the Marvin Bush story (which you now retracted)

Instead of pedalling Google videos and YouTube clips, the Troofers can actually submit evidence for peer-review, and debate with engineers and scientists. Here are some more links for your enjoyment. These are from what actual engineers say about the WTC as well as some resources.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_...se_Analysis.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf )
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-sed120301.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php)
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001...r5/wtc-125.html (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html)

Debunking resources, including from academia:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news/wtc/wtc.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

Academic article: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yes (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes)

A collection of articles by researches from MIT: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
Bibliography of analyses of the collapse of WTC: http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy....20of%20Collapse (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse)

Architecture magazine on the engineering forensics of the collapse: http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html

On WTC7:
http://www.americanlaboratory.com/articles/al/a0212mar.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/
http://212.204.44.125/WTC/wtc----the-const...wtc/WTC_GBO.htm (http://212.204.44.125/WTC/wtc----the-construction/great_buildings_wtc/WTC_GBO.htm)
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
hhttp://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/Final%20NCSTAC%202004%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/n...r5/wtc-125.html (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html)
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
http://www.ncsea.com/articles/seerp/wtcseerp.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/...P08/default.asp (http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP08/default.asp)

In this article, the author, Anne Elizabeth Powell, describes in detail how civil engineers quickly mobilized and led the efforts to evaluate not only the performance of the structures involved in the two assaults but also the vulnerability of the nation's infrastructure to future attacks in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html

This Web site provides a summary of seismic observations, including seismogram traces of the two impacts and three collapses at the WTC (including those of the twin towers as well as that of the adjacent building, WTC-7):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

This report presents results of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations that mapped the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the WTC area on September 16 and 23:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

p.m.a.
6th September 2007, 05:58
The question on Al-Qaeda is as foolish as being asked to provide proof that Christmas Island really exists. Al-Qaeda has been established and its existence reported by a great number of media outlets and government agencies.

It's common knowledge that Al-Qaeda was created by Donald Rumsfeld and the CIA, who trained Bin Laden and other operatives to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it is also common knowledge that the remnants of Al-Qaeda have been directly under the influence of the Inter Service Intelligence, the Pakistani military intelligence agency, and the C.I.A.'s main influence in the Middle East in the anti-Soviet campaign. Now, are you going to tell me you think a jihadist network, started by the CIA to fight "Communism," and clearly under the influence of American intelligence up until the date of Sept. 11? (source (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=isi)).

Anyway, beyond small and scattered CIA-funded operations primarily in and around the Middle East during the 1990s, little other significant Al-Qaeda activity has ever been reported. Why is it that Mahmood Ahmed, head of Pakistani ISI, was having breakfast at the Capitol in Washington, considering reports (that the 9/11 Commission never investigated) that the ISI transferred $100k to Mohamed Atta through asset Omar Saeed Sheikh(source (http://www.flonnet.com/fl1821/18210150.htm)). Now, overall, if Al-Qaeda was created as a CIA-front, maintained a history of being financially supported and manipulated by the CIA through 9/11, why do you still insist that Al-Qaeda is anything more than a puppet of U.S. foreign intelligence?


If you are unsure why the WTC collapsed, then I can point you to the two large passenger jets which crashed into them at 600mph carrying a load of flammable fuel, or you can read the NIST report or articles from peer-review journals.

The WTC towers were designed to withstand airplane crashes. Its tube structure was a steel-mesh exoskeleton over an interior core of 47 steel beams. Les E. Robinson, one of the building's original structural engineers has stated "We designed the buildings to take the impact of the Boeing 707, hitting the building in any location. Frank A DeMartini, a WTC construction manager, has stated "I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because the structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- and the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that netting." Finally, Kevin Ryan, of Underwriter Laboratories, refutes the NIST report in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST, found here (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).

p.m.a.
6th September 2007, 06:10
You have repeated nonsense about "firemen being silenced by unions" and "the towers falling at freefall speed" (it actually took 18 seconds), the Marvin Bush story (which you now retracted)

Firefighters weren't harassed by unions, I was mixing up my facts. However, Auxillery Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr. reported bombs detonating in the buildings, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that higherups in the NYFD, as a result of NYFD's antiterrorism consultant James Woosely's (a former CIA director) advice, firefighters could not discuss the explosions, should they want to keep their jobs. This is documented here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html). You're correct about Marvin Bush: however, the acting CEO of Securacom/Stratesec until 2002 was still Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of the Bush family (source (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)). And, finally, the official 9/11 report states that tower two fell in ten seconds, and that tower one even quicker. Regardless, the calculated time for a pancake collapse of a 110-story tower should be 93 seconds.

What I don't understand, on your part, is why the idea 9/11 was orchestrated by a reactionary and authoritarian sect of the national bourgeoisie is so extraordinary. These types of attacks, or acceptance of foreknowledge of attacks, have happened many times in the past (I'm sure they're listed in Zinn and Chomsky books we both own), without repudiation. We have seen capitalist class warfare on massive scales before -- all at pivotal and important transitional points of global capital. The sinking of USS Maine as pretext for the Spanish American War; the fact FDR knew of the Pearl Habor attacks a week in advance; the Golf of Tonkin debacle; COINTELPRO. These are all domestic acts of capitalist class warfare against the American proletariat -- all conspired and executed within the highest echelons of the state and finance capitalists. And on September 10, 2001, America's hegemony was declining. After the crash of the internet bubble in the 90s, and the first serious decline of the neoliberal era, American capital had no new resolution to capitalism's inevitable crises -- and thus neoconservativism, a return to grace of capital's true form (war, destruction, tyranny) within a post-modern context, was born. 9/11 is easily explainable as capitalist class warfare, committed by the most reactionary and authoritarian faction of the national bourgeoisie, in an effort to maintain US hegemony through control of the world's oil spigot, in the face of the inevitable decline of American economic dominance against upcoming capitalist powers.

rouchambeau
6th September 2007, 16:33
Say the government was involved in 9/11. So what? What does that change?

p.m.a.
6th September 2007, 18:02
It doesn't change anything perse, and it's basically impossible to prove one way or another. However, as the evidence mounts, Marxists should consider using the event as a way to bring a class analysis to the current War on Terror.

Philosophical Materialist
6th September 2007, 19:16
p.m.a. Paul Thompson's Troofer quote-mine timeline is not an appropriate source. Linking to PrisonPlanet, a far-right website run by a crypto-fascist lunatic is not an appropriate source. You also linked to David Griffin a theology professor who deludes himself into thinking that he knows about about science and engineering than scientists and engineers. Griffin and Alex Jones are snake oil salesman. Kevin Ryan is a fantasist who was laughed out of court. The war on terror and the American capitalist system generated the 9/11 Truth movement, where gullible anti-intellectual people buy Truther books, DVDs and apparel from con-men who often have a hateful agenda.

p.m.a.
6th September 2007, 20:39
Alex Jones is simply not a "crypto-fascist." He's clearly just not that bright, and happens to be the main profiteer within the 9/11 truth movement. His conclusions about NWOs are as simple and lacking in a material understanding of the reality of capital as his libertarian (note: free-market, with no government restrictions, thus hardly fascist) politics. It's just unfortunate the majority of Americans are simple enough so that they flock to his analysis of the events. Beyond his histories of false-flag operations by governments, and the visibility he brings to the 9/11 truth issue, he brings nothing but confusion to the issue. I'd say he's more likely to be a government agent meant to spread disinformative conclusions about 9/11, than his being a "crypto-fascist" (a claim which echoes MIMs decrying of Trotskyites, and the RCP's accusations of neocon "Christian Fascism"; both clearly show a lack of material understanding of what fascism is as a system, and thus significantly undermine the historical context of the word).

Kevin Ryan was an executive at Underwriters Laboratories, a not-for-profit privately owned but mostly working under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. I think that may qualify him as an "expert" as much as anything else does.

The fact that David Griffin is a theology professor does not negate his years of academic history that would qualify him as a researcher. Logically, if your argument stands, than Griffin can just as easily dismiss your debunking by your atheism. A person's beliefs have little factor on their arguments except as contextualization for their origins. Griffin's beliefs and lessons may not be based on material reality, but his work for the 9/11 truth movement has been.

Listen, I'd be perfectly willing to accept the idea capital created the 9/11 truth movement. And, frankly, there's been plenty of capitalist profiteering off of it (see Jones again). But when Bush and Cheney came under the 9/11 Commission, they did so on their own terms: they had to appear together, they were not under oath, no recordings or transcripts could be produced, and no victims families could be involved. If you're telling me that Dick Cheney, who ran the military games occurring that morning that produced 22 reported airplane hijackings on radars around the country causing NORAD to stand down, shouldn't be held under oath, and that the circumstances of the interview are not practically self-incriminating, then I don't really have a counterargument.

Philosophical Materialist
6th September 2007, 21:18
Kevin Ryan was fired by UL because he used his position within the company to illustrate his crazy theories. His own company disowned him and his theories. Ryan sued his employers and was laughed out of court.

Alex Jones is most certainly a crack-pot, but he does not represent right-libertarianism. He has very little social libertarianism, he is adamantly homophobic and equates homosexuality with paedophillia (and accuses gays and lesbians of trying to "convert kids.") He is also deeply xenophobic, he is also misogynist and calls feminism "a CIA-run conspiracy" that "women are too stupid to see", he even called Gloria Steinem a "CIA agent." His economic positions resemble forms of right-wing populism, musings about "freedom", mixed with social conservatism. Whatever he is, he is a far-right nutjob. Your speculation that he's "a government agent" is just one in a million idle speculations from the Troof movement. Different Troofer sects call each other "disinfo agents" "CIA plotters" who "try to distract from the REAL conspiracy." Idiots like Jones exist, but Troofers use "conspiracy!111" as an analytic tool for everything.

David Griffin can do research, but he's attempted to analyse structural engineering despite not being trained. He yet thinks that most structural engineers are wrong. Atheism cannot be compared to this, atheism just tells you one thing about a person "that they don't believe in gods or god." Theology is the study of myth, science and engineering require investigative method. Griffin and the crackpot Steven "cold fusion" Jones do their own research but it does not fit the standards of peer-review. However people in the Troof movement listen to them because they say what they want to hear.

Also yet you finished with yet another piece of unsubstantiated nonsense re: Cheney/NORAD/stand-down http://www.911myths.com/html/cheney_in_charge_of_norad.html

p.m.a.
6th September 2007, 22:59
So all you can decry Kevin Ryan for is the fact you don't agree with his opinions. And I'm glad you also think people should be fired for their opinions. And all of this bullshit with Alex Jones is true - but he's still, by definition, not a fascist. Glad we can agree on that one.

But who was in charge of NORAD doesn't even matter. Because the Defense Department was running simultaneous military drills that morning that created over 20 false terrorist hijacking warnings on military radars everywhere in the country, and the games left only eight fighter jets left to defend the country. Because fighters have to leave in pairs, this meant they had four chances out of twenty possibilities to catch four jets. Now, let me ask you, what are the odds that the entire defensive system at that time was mobilized, doing drills of exactly the same scenario, and the same targets (the WTC and the Pentagon), as what was happening?

I encourage you to also investigate the London 7/7 bombings. Again, during this act of "Al-Qaeda terrorism", Peter Power, Director of Visor Consultors, a private firm on contract by the London Metropolitan Police, was preforming a drill that morning, involving terrorist bombing attempts in the exact Tube stations, at the exact same time. Powers has done many interviews reporting this, here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&articleId=821) is one for your enjoyment.

Listen, perhaps I can provide a more Marxist analysis of why 9/11 was probably organized by the state. As Marxists, we know that capital goes through cycles of crisis, and that war is a solution to this crisis. Today, why is that still so?

Today, all capital circulation happens within the international banking systems and families. All money is printed by the Federal Reserve, a privately-owned bank which loans the money it prints to the US government at an interest rate higher than its value, thus insuring the US government itself is constantly under debt to the banking interests. The Federal Reserve was initiated by the Federal Reserve Act, written by ten men representing the largest bankers in 1910, was pushed by R-RI senator Alderich, and Woodrow Wilson agreed to pass the act after contributions by the banking interests immediately upon his election as president. The Federal Reserve, being owned by the banks, has repeatedly allowed bankers, beginning with JP Morgan, JD Rockefeller, and the crashes of 1919 and 1929, to create crisis very easily.

Now, war resolves crisis. Why? Well, it disperses overaccumulation across different regional markets of capital. It recirculates money through the rebuilding of destroyed areas afterwards. Well, after the creation of the Federal Reserve, every war America entered has necessitated the government borrowing its costs from the Federal Reserve. Thus, the larger the war, the more money the Federal Reserve and the bankers make.

There were four major war mobilizations by the United States in the last century, the age of credit. They are:
- World War One
- World War Two
- Vietnam (the height of the Cold War)
- the "War on Terror"

What initiated the first three wars? Woodrow Wilson's top adviser at the time of WWI was Edward House, a man who had very large ties to the banking industry. Edward House had discussions with Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary of England, documented in The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, about sinking an American ship to provide the wave of support needed to bring the US into WWI, and making bankers $26bn (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm), not adjusted for inflation. Going forward into WWII: FDR's uncle was one of the signed authors of the Federal Reserve Act, so his banking history is established. Now, FOIA-declassified files document FDR's provocation of the Pearl Habor incident, and that he knew (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408) it was going to happen a week in advance. Yet he ignored it, and WWII made bankers $288bn (not adjusted, but fyi, based on 1990s dollars, it'd be around two trillion). Finally, the Golf of Tonkin incident, the second attack alleged sinking of the USS Maddox, brought the US into the Vietnam War. But the second attack has been proven to have never happened, with the UK Times reporting LBJ admitted this on tape (source (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1829bc5816.htm)).

Now, if the US has orchestrated or encouraged false-flag attacks, or opportunistically ignored warnings, for the last three major wars it has mobilized, then why would the War on Terror, the largest mobilization to date, be any different? This is clear capitalist class warfare.

p.m.a.
6th September 2007, 23:40
For an excellent film linking the Federal Reserve with the history of false-flag operations, and its consequences today, I'd recommend ZEITGEIST (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=Zeitgeist&total=1177&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0). While the conclusions at the end about a One World Government are simple unfortunate results of 20th-century modernist conceptions of monolithic tyrrany, I think a Marxist analysis of the emerging state of Empire better fits. I think the NWO nonsense is the result of an inability (or unwillingness) to accept that America is on the fall, soon to be replaced by other capitalist empires. But that is where Marxists can intercept and influence the movement.

Philosophical Materialist
6th September 2007, 23:45
Kevin Ryan was fired because he misrepresented his opinion as carrying the endorsement of UL. Don't twist the facts.

The Gulf of Tonkin has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was fabricated to provide a Casus belli for the USA to escalate its war against Vietnam. 9/11 is a different kettle of fish, the "9/11 government did it" theories are lacking and unworkable, they defy coherence and logic.

I welcome the fact you see Alex Jones for the fool he is, but you seem to share a lot of his fellow beliefs. Your analysis of the origins of WW1 and WW2 are as tremendously blinkered as your analysis of 9/11. Putting it down to US bankers? What dross, I've heard that one before - from many Troofers including Alex Jones himself. Jones and his followers have a penchant for Federal Reserve-based conspiracies, which explains their enthusiasm for Ron Paul, the anti-Federal Reserve candidate. You acknowledge that Jones is a crank, but you use his website as evidence of your theories - what gives?

The origins of the First and Second World Wars are frequently discussed in historiography. The notions of "it was because of US bankers" are from the realm of anti-intellectual ignorant cranks. You won't read such nonsense in well-considered historical journals.

p.m.a.
7th September 2007, 01:30
The proven false-flag operations were never causes of any wars, but just political excuses to engage the economic benefits. Both world wars were remnants of European economic powers clashing, that the US entered later for its own invested interests. In both instances, an attack against the US was used to rally political support for its economic gain. In Vietnam, the war was an attempt to boost the first serious recession in the Fordist boom of post-War victory. War efforts escalated with the recession in the economy, and after the war was lost, immediately the crash of 1972, triggered by the OPEC oil crisis, restructured capital itself into the post-Fordist neoliberal era of today. War and depression are in direct correlation, with one always leading, and following, the other.

If the Gulf of Tonkin was fabricated, how are the 9/11 theories any different? Capital has been in major crisis since the turn of the century, and American hegemony is becoming seriously threatened by the rise of a new regime of accumulation necessitated with the rapid development of China and other booming capitalist countries. The emergence of a network power, a new form of sovereignty which will find many coexisting nodes of capitalist accumulation, threatens all modern notions of state and economy -- and America, as the last imperialist power of the modern age, is violently resisting its inevitable destruction the only way it has ever known how: by lying to support massive extortion and exploitation, destruction and death, onto the multitude of the proletariat and oppressed peoples. If false-flag operations were used to sociopolitically support economic wars of stabilization and profit by the bourgeoisie, why now in the most threatening time to their hegemony, would they not do it again?

rouchambeau
7th September 2007, 17:44
It doesn't change anything perse
So what's the point of devoting energy to it if, in the end, we find that the government is still corrupt and involved in this kind of activity?

Tatarin
7th September 2007, 19:08
To add a coin to the discussion, I don't think al-Quaeda is a huge underground organization in control of everything "evil" on this planet. It does exist, but many terrorists are independent bombers who are inspired by radical Islam - one could say similar to the thoughtcrime in 1984.

p.m.a.
8th September 2007, 00:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:44 pm
So what's the point of devoting energy to it if, in the end, we find that the government is still corrupt and involved in this kind of activity?
Because the government at least knew about it ahead of time (this was revealed on many mainstream outlets a couple years ago), and their ignoring all warnings, foreshadowing, and evidence leading up to the event at least makes them just as guilty as the hijackers. And furthermore, I think if the event was explained to us truthfully, there wouldn't be such a voluminous list of abnormalities in procedure that have been written off due to "incompetence". And if they at least knew about it before, and there's a lot wrong with the official story, then why keep writing it off as an impossibility?

If 9/11 was orchestrated by the state, it would be massive evidence of blatant capitalist class war that, if Marxists got actively involved at the right time exposing this, it could result in a large jump in social consciousness. How many times does it have to be revealed to that previous "attacks" "maybe didn't happen"? Why risk that again now? Besides, even if they didn't orchestrate it, it's still their fault for fucking around in the Middle East so much. We just don't have a way to make everyone else see that.

Mkultra
8th September 2007, 01:47
A new poll by Zogby International has found that 51 percent of Americans want Congress to probe the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. The poll also found that 67 percent of respondents feel the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building Seven. The poll was sponsored by the website 911truth dot org.

peaccenicked
10th September 2007, 13:40
The Gulf of Tonkin has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was fabricated to provide a Casus belli for the USA to escalate its war against Vietnam. 9/11 is a different kettle of fish, the "9/11 government did it" theories are lacking and unworkable, they defy coherence and logic.

Logic?http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/usgame.htm
unworkble? We are talking about Neo-cons here! There is also the unworkable precedent of Northwood who plotted to shoot down US planes and blame it on the Cubans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


Looks like Philmat has an idealistic trust for the war criminal government unlike most Americans as the Zogby polls suggest.

He seems to enjoy regurgitating government sponsored propaganda, such as Popular Mechanics against those who dare question the official story. these include Castro and Chavez, and many relatives of the victims.

Defy coherence? We are only asking for a new investigation, is that not coherent enough?


While investigations are being initiated and campaigned for. http://www.911blogger.com/node/9332

So-called revolutionaries should be welcoming these events and not prejudging the case or issuing out reactionary poo-poos. We have enough government agents doing that already.

Philosophical Materialist
10th September 2007, 16:07
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:40 pm
While investigations are being initiated and campaigned for. http://www.911blogger.com/node/9332

So-called revolutionaries should be welcoming these events and not prejudging the case or issuing out reactionary poo-poos. We have enough government agents doing that already.
I welcome Kucinich's intention to hold further investigations, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is zero-evidence of an "inside job." Proponents of the 'inside job' have fallen back on pseudoscience and accusations that structural engineers and scientists have been "threatened" or "bought off."

So-called revolutionaries who tie their fate with the 9/11 Troof Movement will end up with egg on their face. Look at the people who support the movement, it is a hotbed of reaction.

Janus
12th September 2007, 23:41
Please use the search function before starting redundant threads. We have more than enough 9/11 conspiracy threads.

9/11 conspiracy theories (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41869&hl=)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41869&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=29986&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28892&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36556&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=19857&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=3684&hl=

bootleg42
13th September 2007, 00:37
Originally posted by Philosophical [email protected] 10, 2007 03:07 pm
So-called revolutionaries who tie their fate with the 9/11 Troof Movement will end up with egg on their face. Look at the people who support the movement, it is a hotbed of reaction.
Don't forget the majority of the 9-11 truth movement are either the crowd that says, "we need to take america back" or they're VERY paleoconservative (which is very racist, look it up) and they ALL Ron Paul lovers (he's a hardcore right-winger). So everyone, even if you believe something is up with the whole 9-11 story, try not to join those 9-11 movements because you'll just end up with those types I listed.