Iraq Through a Rebel's Eyes
The US government's arm is tired, writes Andrew Greene. Even with one hundred and fifty thousand troops, a fortune in fuel and supplies, and the best weapons ever invented, all that power is having a rough ride. Humvees loaded with high-tech regulars are sitting targets for bits of plumbing packed with C-4, left at the side of the road. There are plenty of surprises from the front, but such news would only elicit a sad smile from Jefferson, and the same from his fellow insurgent, Madison. They knew that a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops. Nor would they have cheered those who are attempting to conquer. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (82)
"a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! If you keep on believing strong enough, maybe it will come true!
I didn't bother reading the rest after that. This site is bad enough when it strays from economics to philosophy. I hope in the future it stays the hell away from military matters, in which it has no competence.
Published: October 16, 2006 8:25 AM
"This site is bad enough when it strays from economics to philosophy. I hope in the future it stays the hell away from military matters, in which it has no competence."
I hear the same comments from left wingers when they read mises articles about welfare issues. In fact, it would be exact, if you replace military with welfare.
I guess the left and the right are more alike than they realize.
Published: October 16, 2006 8:39 AM
TGGP:
I suggest you go have a very long talk with Michael Gorbachev, about just what small militias can do to advanced militaries. In fact, something along the line of driving the Russian's out of Afghanistan with their tail between their legs.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:09 AM
Don:"The U.S. should have gone the international civil route and simply asked the rest of the world to help track down these crimnals so they could be brought to justice on our civil terms."
We did exactly that with Afghanistan. They refused to turn over Al Qaeda. Should we have then just forgotten about the crime?
A recent article in the American Spectator explained why the Kurds in Iraq have suffered virtually none of the terrorism of the rest of the country. The answer is that they have no policy of hands off the mosques. Terrorists use the mosques to recruit, communicate, train and store weapons in the rest of Iraq because the US has a "don't touch" policy for mosques and imams, thus allowing terrorism to thrive. We also prevent the Shia militias from going after the terrorists.
The insurgency hasn't defeated the US military; US politicians have, just as they did in Vietnam. As a result, I favor an immediate pull-out of US troops from Iraq. The sooner we're gone, the sooner the Kurds and Shia will end the insurgency, probably within 60 days.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:13 AM
Roger M,
Not exactly. We asked the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. They said show the proof he was involved in 9/11. We answered with a military invasion.
Re: the Kurds. They don't have a terrorism problem because they are an ethnically homogenous nation-state. Admittedly, where there is an ethnic mix, you are correct: they act ruthlessly to suppress the minority. But if Americans want to do that sort of thing, then they will have to stop being social democrats and become imperialists. Since the stated goal of current US policy is to spread democracy, this cannot be done without sacrificing the ideological goal of the mission, i.e., the "why we fight."
I don't see how you can say the US military has been defeated in Iraq. In fact, it accomplished the overthrow of a competing regime with smashing (literally) success. But once there was no competing state to fight, then there is no real metric for victory for a state military force.
If we were not going to be imperialists, then we should have turned the keys over to Chalabi and strolled back to our bases in Kuwait and Qatar, throwing out handfuls of dollars along the way. Chalabi, of course, would have been hung by his heels from a telephone pole within a month but that would have been his problem.
Published: October 16, 2006 10:12 AM
Reactionary:"We asked the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. They said show the proof he was involved in 9/11. We answered with a military invasion."
It was a lot more complex than that and we gave them several months to decide. We did offer them what proof we had at the time. Besides, it wasn't the Taliban's job to determine bin Laden's innocense or guilt.
"They don't have a terrorism problem because they are an ethnically homogenous nation-state."
Actually, they have a lot of Arabs, Shia, Turkmen, Christians living among them. Mosul is about 1/3 Arab Sunni. They suffered many acts of terrorism in the early years of the war from Al Qaeda, Sunni Arabs, and Baathists. They simply shut them down.
Published: October 16, 2006 10:30 AM
"Besides, it wasn't the Taliban's job to determine bin Laden's innocense or guilt."
Wasn't it? States often turn down extradition requests because of doubts as to guilt.
Notwithstanding the happy multicultural experiment described by the Trotskyites, Kurdistan is overwhelmingly Kurdish. And again, if we adopt non-democratic methods, then we are going to have to explain to Lance Corporal Hernandez and Sergeant Jenkins that they're not really "fighting for freedom."
Published: October 16, 2006 10:48 AM
Iraq is not a military problem. Simply the civilian government is trying to use the military in a role that it's not meant to perform. The military is used to kill people and destroy things and the US military is the best in the world in that regard. That said, no government agency is capable of "creating prosperity". The only means a government has to do anything is through the use of force, which directly contradicts the point of the intervention.
Published: October 16, 2006 11:04 AM
The only means a government has to do anything is through the use of force, which directly contradicts the point of the intervention.
True, although I would add that the use of force contradicts the stated point of the intervention.
The true, unstated purpose is often to increase the aggressor's degree of control, for which force is quite well-suited.
Published: October 16, 2006 11:37 AM
"'a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops'. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! If you keep on believing strong enough, maybe it will come true!"
Ever hear of the American Revolution?
Published: October 16, 2006 11:57 AM
It never seems to amaze me how some Americans, maybe even most, think that 9/11 was a beginning. An act of pure violence (out of envy) that had no precursor. This is like saying that the Barbarian attack on the empire of Rome had no precursor and was completely unprovoked.
I recently viewed the movie Munich. A story of vengance where each side returns violence with violence. One could say that at least there was an equal measure of violence for violence. And yet 30 some years later, the war continues. Is this the world that Washington and Jefferson wanted for us, or is it the one they advised us to avoid.
Troups in 100's of countries, propping up tyrants that become the next enemy to defeat. This is more the world of Orwell's 1984 than the world of freedom that Bush keeps talking about.
In the movie V is for Vengance, we see how a people can give up freedom for security, and get neither. Every day I fear we are getting closer to tyranny. And no mere "scrap of paper" is going to protect us from the enemy of liberty: an out of control government.
Published: October 16, 2006 12:38 PM
We can cheer the end of imperialism without cheering the deaths of our own soldiers. As misguided as the mission in Iraq may be, that doesn't mean we stand up and root for insurgents to kill more of our young men and women.
That's completely sadistic and twisted.
Published: October 16, 2006 12:43 PM
"Ever hear of the American Revolution?"
Yep. And did you ever hear of the indispensable French intervention in that revolution?
The "Rabble in Arms" could not have done it alone.
Published: October 16, 2006 12:49 PM
"The insurgency hasn't defeated the US military; US politicians have, just as they did in Vietnam."
I love this one. It is a close 2nd to "they just have to take the handcuffs off the military!" It is trotted out for every war the US loses or fails to win. So, I guess you can add Afghanistan and Iraq to the list for this convenient excuse.
Politicians do not fight wars anymore. I wish they would; we would have far fewer. I would love to see Fuhrer Bush actually participate in one of his glorious wars. It would probably look much like George Will throwing a baseball.
Well, Roger M., if the politicans should get all the blame when the US government loses a war, then are you implying that the politicians should get all the credit when the government wins a war?
Published: October 16, 2006 1:02 PM
Bill
And the Iraqi rabble have the support of all who wish the American Empire to be contained, just as did the French wish to contain the British Empire. Only in this case, their support appears to come from just about every other country except, ironically, the remains of the British Empire.
Published: October 16, 2006 1:03 PM
We could go into militia versus military all day.
The real point is that aggressive military war is ALWAYS wrong and should NEVER be tolerated by the Libertarian community. We should adopt Washington's policy of no foreign entanglements. To that end, we should immediately and unconditionally disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan and withdraw our troops, armaments and ships from everywhere in the world. Europe and Japan are prosperous and can defend themselves. North Korea is China's problem, not ours. Only the people of the mideast can decide whether they will tolerate their rulers or not. If a country will not surrender a criminal, then we will just have to accept it. Great Britain has refused to surrender criminals several times, often on anti-death penalty grounds. Negotiate an extradition treaty if necessary.
I know this will likely fall on deaf ears in the neo-libertarian community, but I will say it anyway.
Published: October 16, 2006 1:11 PM
Bill,
The debate on the Naval battle at Chesapeake may still be out, but on land? Do your remember and even believe in the obvious failure of the mighty British land forces to defeat the Continental Army?
Published: October 16, 2006 1:19 PM
Even more so, the war was of defense. Its a huge leap from this to imperialism, which is anti-American as anything else thats assaulted my country
Published: October 16, 2006 1:22 PM
Steve:"...politicians should get all the credit when the government wins a war?"
The situation with war is similar to economics in that economies flourish when the government gets out of the way. Should we give politicians credit when they get out of the way? Should we blame them when they intrude upon, and ruin the economy?
Until the Korean war, politicians let the military fight wars with the understanding that absolute victory was the goal. Beginning with Truman in Korea, politicians began to micromanage wars and have multiple goals other than victory. That's why we have had nothing but failure since WWII.
It's not even clear that we had a victory in Iraq. It has been reported that Saddam Hussein ordered many of his troops not to fight the US because he expected the UN to rein in the US and leave him in power. He wanted an army left to use against him own people who opposed him.
The war in Iraq was going well until the first battle of Fallujah. Then our politicians caved into the Sunni politicians (who supported and led the insurgency) and backed off. Then, instead of fighting the insurgency, we decided to entice them into the political process while they murdered Shia with impunity hoping to ignite a civil war.
If we get out quickly, the Kurds and Shia still have time to rescure their country by killing the insurgents.
Published: October 16, 2006 1:43 PM
Roger M,
Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East. The Kurds are fighting for Kurdistan and the Shi'ites are fighting for an alliance with Iran. But you are correct in that once we are gone, the Sunnis, who allowed Jewish and Christian worship and Western indulgences such as classical music and alcohol, will be slaughtered in their beds.
The US won the war when it deposed Saddam's government. But wars in the post-WWII era are now fought exclusively overseas and for policy reasons that have nothing to do with national defense. So it's no wonder that politicians manage them. If you want "good" wars with decisive victories, then you need to pick your fights more carefully.
But I'm puzzled as to what actions you believe the military could be taking that "politicians" have specifically prevented them from doing. The US military operates with a free hand in Iraq. The problem is, as banker pointed out, for the military to do what militaries must do to crush a popular insurgency would contradict the very goal of the intervention.
Published: October 16, 2006 2:10 PM
Reactionary:"But I'm puzzled as to what actions you believe the military could be taking that "politicians" have specifically prevented them from doing."
I don't think there is anything they could do at this time but get out. We had a window of opportunity before the insurgency gained much strength, but I believe it's too late for us to do anything.
"The US military operates with a free hand in Iraq."
Not even close. A friend has a son in the Army at a base north of Baghdad. They take mortar and rifle fire daily but are not allowed to respond to the attacks. Instead, the military built concrete barriers for soldiers to hide behind if the want to go outside and smoke. I've read similar accounts at other bases. Mosques have always been off limits and still are, but that's where the insurgency is headquartered. There are many other restrictions on what the military can do.
Iraq reminds me of Vietnam when Pres Johnson would personally plan bombing raids on North Vietnam. Crews died by the hundreds until the pilots went on strike and refused to fly until they were given control over their routes.
Published: October 16, 2006 2:40 PM
Mark Brabson: Can I get a "amen"!
Published: October 16, 2006 3:04 PM
I heard a quote that could suit this article
"War today does not start with guns firing back at one another, it starts with people firing their guns at people with no guns"
This article has it right on point. We have a Star Wars situation in Iraq. I doubt Han Solo would wear headbands like that though...
Published: October 16, 2006 3:39 PM
Roger M,
That tells me either the military doesn't know who to hit or the attacks are so diffuse they'd have to level the whole town. Which, as noted, sort of guts that whole spreading democracy thing. Hopefully when Bush's successor withdraws to Kuwait and Qatar we'll think twice before we start nation-building again.
Published: October 16, 2006 3:45 PM
Qutoing: "The insurgency hasn't defeated the US military; US politicians have, just as they did in Vietnam."
This is another one of those silly national myths. In essence it's the old German military "stab in the back" story resurrected and given an American identity.
The stab-in-the-back myth was employed by the German military brass to explain away their loss of WW1. The gist of their excuse was that the military didn't lose the war, they were let down on the "home front" by the civilian population and politicians. It was a convenient lie allowing the military high command dodge responsibility for the consequences of its own disasterous decisions. Subsequently it was of great assistance during the remilitarisation of Germany in preparation for their next war. They did just as well in that one as the first big one.
And so it goes on. The US military will do just as well in Iraq as it did in Vietnam. The myth will get dusted off, rehashed and told again. If only.... We wouldn't have lost if only...
Here's the present choice: admit defeat and get out of Iraq or admit defeat and kill them all.
Sione
Published: October 16, 2006 3:48 PM
Re: Mark Brabson
Mark,
Soviet military did what it wanted in Afganistan in 80ies and retreated orderly when told to do so. If you think for a second that Afgan resistance was possible without massive infusion of American cash and weapons and safe bases in Pakistan, you are deluding yourself. Small militias, right.
Published: October 16, 2006 3:51 PM
I don't think the military is doing ENOUGH to fight terrorism. Want to know why? Because its position as an intrinsic power structure for politicians and the President.
Half of what the institution is used for in our era is at odds with Constitutional theory.
Published: October 16, 2006 3:57 PM
Sione:"This is another one of those silly national myths."
It's not as bad as the snake oil you guys are pushing that "a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops".
Gee, why didn't the Germans and Japanese think of that at the end of WWII? All they had to do was disband their militaries and give everyone a gun and grenade. Had they been half as smart as the Afghan Mujahid or the Iraqi insurgency, they would still be under their very own military dictatorships.
The USSR had the Afghans whipped until we gave them Stinger missiles. But even that didn't defeat the Soviets. Gorbachev decided to pull out because the war was unpopular. The Mujahideen had little to do with it.
Published: October 16, 2006 4:00 PM
Did the German and Japanese people want that, though, Roger?
Militias come from people with fanatical devotion to their cause, something which wasn't really present in the above nations at the war's end.
Published: October 16, 2006 4:04 PM
I too am wondering about the 'militias versus regular armies' claim.
In terms of the 4th generation warfare arguments of William Lind, I think the claim can only be true in that regard. I think there are too many historical examples that disprove that claim, however, especially in cases where militias fought in older styles of warfare.
But, are militias almost always fighting in 4th Generation terms? I'd like to be enlightened by anybody here.
Published: October 16, 2006 4:11 PM
"Iraq is not a military problem. Simply the civilian government is trying to use the military in a role that it's not meant to perform. The military is used to kill people and destroy things and the US military is the best in the world in that regard. That said, no government agency is capable of "creating prosperity". The only means a government has to do anything is through the use of force, which directly contradicts the point of the intervention."
Exactly. It would be even better if this was a private force. Imagine if Wal-mart owned this military. Half of the world's dictators would be dead within a few years.
The problem is, that method doesn't work. Especially when its a government matter. The economy would be obliterated. There'd be more dictators. There'd be more terrorists.
Just, really obvious.
Bush cannot say "Mission Accomplished" and mean it, for his Mission included stability and social democracy in Iraq. Trotskyite social engineering if anything. However, the strict military mission of overthrowing Saddam= smash success. But, I'd think most in the military would regard that and nothing more as a terrible strategy. As it is.
Published: October 16, 2006 4:23 PM
Brett:"Did the German and Japanese people want that...?"
I can't speak for the Germans, although they seemed to support Hitler to the very end. The Japanese were actually preparing for a guerrilla war and were training children and old people to use anything at hand for weapons. Had we invaded Japan, we probably would have had to kill every last Japanese citizen. A recent documentary on the History Channel said that our dropping two atomic bombs didn't bother the Japanese military much. They decided to surrender when the USSR decided to invade Japan. They figured that the US was too soft to kill everyone, but the Soviets would.
Published: October 16, 2006 4:29 PM
Roger M said;
"The Japanese were actually preparing for a guerrilla war and were training children and old people to use anything at hand for weapons. Had we invaded Japan, we probably would have had to kill every last Japanese citizen. A recent documentary on the History Channel said that our dropping two atomic bombs didn't bother the Japanese military much. They decided to surrender when the USSR decided to invade Japan. They figured that the US was too soft to kill everyone, but the Soviets would."
The above is probably the most ahistorical thing I have ever read on this blog, Roger - the Imperial Japanese government tried to surrender well before the atomic bombings, but were rebuffed because they wanted to retain their emperor;
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/jap_midway.html
Against the majority of military and civilian counsel, Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing and maiming civilians on an unimaginable scale, kicking off the arms race, and in the end allowed the Japanese to surrender and retain their emperor anyway.
Published: October 16, 2006 5:06 PM
Ok, that wasn't the best link...try these;
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14627507.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
More than ample evidence that the US could have gotten the Japanese to surrender without bombing or invasion. Truman was not interested in such an outcome.
Published: October 16, 2006 5:13 PM
In the absence of the total destruction of Iraq and the extirpation of all of its miserable inhabitants, it doesn't appear that the U.S. will be able to achieve a favorable solution to its disastrous military adventure in that hapless country. How, for the life of me, the American people could have for a moment imagined that the Iraqi nation, eviscerated by years of war and starvation, could have presented a viable threat to the security and integrity of the most powerful country on the planet, so as to justify a "premptive" war, is beyond my humble ability to comprehend. And what is even more amazing, if that is possible, is to read comments on an otherwise informed and erudite blog like this by individuals who somehow still don't seem to get it. Truly, the end must be mercifully at hand.
Published: October 16, 2006 6:09 PM
The notion that Truman utilized the atomic bomb against the Japanese in order to faciitate their surrender and thereby prevent the loss of huge numbers of American combatants during a projected invasion of Japan has been thoroughly discredited in pretty much the same manner as Roosevelt's "surprise" at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Liberal control of both the information media and the academy has made it difficult, if not impossible, to get the truth about these, and other, residual propaganda lies from the last "good" war out to the educated public. Suffice to say, that our current national malaise is a testimony to how much further we need to go in this direction.
Published: October 16, 2006 7:11 PM
RogerM,
Who owns "The History Channel" ?
Published: October 16, 2006 7:52 PM
The History Channel is owned by A&E Television Networks.
A&E Television Networks is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).
NBC Universal is owned by General Electric (80%), Vivendi SA, and Barry Diller.
Published: October 16, 2006 8:00 PM
Simon,
You well know it, though I was hoping that ol' RogerM might put 2 & 2 together while answering the Q :)
Yea, maybe he still will...
Published: October 16, 2006 8:14 PM
I love you guys but libertarians and free market economists need help from converted military historians and actual vets who know the true nature of their former employer.
Militia vs. standing army: tough call. really this boils down to Clausewitz vs. Sun Tzu (i.e. brute force attrition vs. maneuver warfare)
Published: October 16, 2006 8:41 PM
CAITM,
With all due respect, brainwashed soldiers and experts on death and destruction are the last people we need to consult on how to organize a civil society based on mutually beneficial exchange and respect for property rights.
Maybe we should look to the founders who were deadly afraid of standing armies, and warned against going abroad in search of enemies, or even Gen. Eisenhower who warned against the military-industrial complex.
The fact is that many countries on this planet with plenty of wealth are not constantly repelling invaders or invading ohter countries because they have learned to coexist with the other people inhabiting this planet. America can learn to do the same.
We must first change our foreign policy.
Learn not to trade at the end of a bayonet. And realize that building and selling bombs, missiles and fighter jets does not make the American people or the citizens of the world safer.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:02 PM
On the history of the attrition vs. maneuver debate, most statist pay lip service to latter but privatley believe the former. That being said, the bulk of Washington's problems with the militia of the Revolutionary period stemmed from two factors: how they were employed and how they were mobilised.
Employment: Washington was an embittered colonial militia officer who had been denied a regular commission in the British Army during the previous war. And it's not worth repeating that he was a member of the colonial gentry. As such, he was going to prove that he could beat them at their game. This meant that the militia wouldn't be used as would be the optimal way for non-proessional soldiers to fight. Washington wanted a prussian-style and volley machine that could fight in line and soak up vollley after volley from the opposing line while delivering their own.
the Problem is, the colonial militia, so derrided by statists since the Revolution, amounted to conscription. the colonists in the militia line weren't all the citizen-soldier minute men any more that all soldiers today are Rangers and Delta troopers. What the State Legislature did during the Revolution was, in effect, no different than what Stalin did to raise the Red Arm to 9 million.
In short, washington wanted to use cannon fodder to do what Fredric the Great had done two decades earlier.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:16 PM
Simon,
we are no more innatley statist than a firearms instructor who teaches a concealed carry class.
CAITM stands for Closet Anarchist In The Military!
And I, and my friends here who couldn't be neither brainwashed and indoctrinated nor emotionally chained to our employer would like to render our unique observations in hope that at some point, a free people may successfully defend their territory from a resurgent statist entity some day.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:25 PM
The premise is wrong; terrorists were behind 9/11. This is easily debunked;
1.
The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
2.
The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
3.
UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
4.
If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.
5.
There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.
6.
There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.
7.
Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.
8.
The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
9.
The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
10.
Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.
11.
WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
12.
The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
13.
The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
14.
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
15.
If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.
This is just common sense. But as someone once told me common sense isn't so common. The real terrorists are in the White House. The fact that so few libertarians can see this is both shocking and sad.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:36 PM
Jack,
So an entire planeful of people--plus the plane--just vanished. Perhaps they flew to Atlantis to meet up with D.B. Cooper and Elvis.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:44 PM
Closet Anarchist in the Military,
Then I guess you are no better than a mercenary who will kill for money and pays no attention to principle, but only hopes and dreams for one day in the future when you can act like a real honorable man. Here is a clue, you aren't doing anything to bring about that day, but only prolonging it.
You and those like you should quit now and end the evil, I am sure you can get a job in the productive (not destructive) private sector.
You are even worse than the brainwashed, impoverished, no other choice, young soldiers because you know it is wrong, but you do it anyway.
If you think you are no more statist than a firearms instructor you need to seriously rethink what it is you do for a paycheck.
Published: October 16, 2006 9:58 PM
L.R.,
It's a "plane" full of people. Like I said, common sense isn't so common.
Published: October 16, 2006 11:47 PM
Roger
It is insufficient to attack a purported Libertarian position in order to validate your own. That approach does not establish your view as valid and correct. Yet all we hear from you is excuses and excoriation of non-Roger view points. So, rather than attempt to cast aspersion upon the views of those who have the temerity to disagree with your assertions, why not evaluate what it is YOU are promoting? Things like "good" wars. Invasion and destruction of innocent people's property. "Good" genocide. Kill "them" before they kill "us". And so forth.
The trouble with the myths I mentioned is they are an attempt to hide failure.
The German invasion of France in WW1 was a complete and utter failure. Instead of the German military accepting that fact, they invented a myth to evade responsibility for what they had done. Then not so long after, they tried prosecuting a war again and this time the end results were even worse than the first time around. Avoidable.
In the case of the USA there has been the lesson of Vietnam; an utter rout, a defeat which severely damaged the reputation and safety of the USA and US citizens everywhere. Then along comes a nice wee myth to help evade the lesson. So off again, this time with the adventure in Iraq. This is heading for another failure. How bad do you reckon it'll be this time around? As with the Germans, results are likely to much worse the second time.
Sione
PS did anyone see the "pyramid of skulls"? It was on the news here not so long ago. Some guys worked out what the number of Iraqi deaths due to the invasion was. Then it was calculated how big a stack you'd get if you put the skulls of the victims in a pile in front of the Whitehouse. That pile would be taller than the Whitehouse. A picture was mocked up to show what it'd look like. A sobering scene...
Published: October 17, 2006 12:20 AM
CAITM (since you obviously didn't internalize this comment when I first posted it):
With all due respect, brainwashed soldiers and experts on death and destruction are the last people we need to consult on how to organize a civil society based on mutually beneficial exchange and respect for property rights.
Maybe we should look to the founders who were deadly afraid of standing armies, and warned against going abroad in search of enemies, or even Gen. Eisenhower who warned against the military-industrial complex.
The fact is that many countries on this planet with plenty of wealth are not constantly repelling invaders or invading ohter countries because they have learned to coexist with the other people inhabiting this planet. America can learn to do the same.
We must first change our foreign policy.
Learn not to trade at the end of a bayonet. And realize that building and selling bombs, missiles and fighter jets does not make the American people or the citizens of the world safer.
Published: October 17, 2006 12:39 AM
Holy crap, some of you need some intro to logic. A writer made a statement of the sort "For all X, P is true". I laughed at that claim (meaning I do not believe it to be true). That does NOT mean I believe "For all X, P is not true".
States exist for a reason, and that reason is that they can exist. They have beaten citizens militias in the past (Washington himself did so after the revolution, and Saddam did so before we overthrew him) and will continue to do so. Will/do they do so always? I would never make such an expansive claim.
I also note that you seemed to assume a right-wing militarist or something. I am/was actually opposed to the current occupation/invasion of Iraq, the Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo/the Balkans. I am an isolationist and I do not want my country to engage in any war for any reason other than defense. I am also in favor of secession/decentralization and wish we had stuck with the articles of confederation and that the U.S federal government had not been so succesful in defeating armed groups of citizens. I've laid out my normative position now, but I'd like to note that you WOULD NOT have been able to deduce that from my judgement of an empirical claim (those who attempted to seem to have gotten it wrong). You are mixing up "is" and "ought" and it is my belief that doing so is dangerous. I strongly urge you to remember not to do so in the future. Of course you can ignore me, but be prepared for the tidal wave of mockery I will send your way!
I suppose I should note that the author could attempt to salvage the statement by clutching to one adjective phrase, but that would be a "No true Scotsman" statement, which would deserve to be laughed out of discussion.
Published: October 17, 2006 2:24 AM
Machiavelli wrote in his book (The Prince) that citizen militia will be superior to regulars and mercenaries which foreign states employ, when militia is defending it's own territory.
It was big surprise for him that spanish regular infantry employed by De Medici clan easily defeated forces of Florence and caused big losses.
Still partisan activity can force enemy to use frontline troops to guard strategic positions and thus hinder his ability to wage war (Wehrmacht had to use many units of frontline troops to wage war against partisans in Yugoslavia, Belarussia and Ukraine) though war is won by regular armies.
Published: October 17, 2006 4:47 AM
TGGP - states exist not because they can beat up their citizens (they cannot) but because the citizens believe in the idea of State. So _they_ beat the dissenters.
When that belief is shattered (at least the belief that the current form of State is a good idea), the small fraction of populace (20% or so) can easily remove even the mightiest State - the story of downfall of the Soviet Union offers a perfect example. Lots of good its mighty army and fearsome weapons did to help its rulers, heh.
Now, an army of a state may beat civilians of another in an armed conflict. However this does not directly translates into the victory for the invader - the wars are fought in order to achieve political objectives, and if fighting the war destroys the support of home populace for the particular ruling gang, the gang is losing the war. This is all too common motif, recurring over the ages.
Published: October 17, 2006 6:10 AM
Simon,
Yes, we are all bad bad men and I'm not going to defend us.
But this is truly a situation in which "it takes a thief to catch a thief." Well, I'm a "thief" and I'm merely offering my advice, as such and suggesting that you consult other "thieves" that wish to steal no more.
I would also add, as one with a bachelor's in history, that the founders were not angels. That doesn't mean we discard their writings, but they must be seen in light on the nature of such darkly ambitious men as Hamilton.
Published: October 17, 2006 8:40 AM
Now back to the issue at hand. The generally accepted belief that trained professional troops are always superior to citizen soldiers rests on fallacies at least as old as Plato. I could write a book on why this is a fallacy, but not here.
Proper study of military sicience, context in which wars are fought and with which weapons will show that the good guys (i.e. people in arms defending their commonwealth from armed invasion can still win, even the the era of digital, "net-centric" warfare.
Published: October 17, 2006 8:51 AM
Sione:"In the case of the USA there has been the lesson of Vietnam; an utter rout, a defeat which severely damaged the reputation and safety of the USA and US citizens everywhere."
That's just ignorance about history. Have you read any book on Vietnam? The US military was never defeated in Vietnam. The NV came to the negotiating table in Paris because they were losing. We offered to quit bombing NV and pull out of SV if they would agree not to invade. Two or three years after the treaty was signed, the NV tore it up and invaded SV.
I can't believe there is any argument about militias vs. standing armies. Why do people resort to militias instead of standing armies? Because they're weak and can't raise a standing army. Every militia in the world fights from an inferior, weaker position. They don't expect to defeat the enemy militarily; they hope to wear the enemy down to the point that he leaves. Don't you think that if they could, every militia in the world would buy tanks, bombers, and cruise missiles so they could defeat the standing army they oppose?
There are to many conspiracy theorists on this thread. Before long, someone is going to claim that they've seen Elvis and that UFO's control the government. I'm outa here.
Published: October 17, 2006 9:08 AM
Roger M's last comment is just such an example of the Platonic fallacy that professional soldiers or standing armies are the pinicle of military capability.
-Republican Rome's citizen militia-style army defeated Phyrrus'Macedonian-style regular army in a protracted war, and Fabius' indrect approach eventually vanquished Hannibal. This force persisted until Marius bastardized the Roman Army into a standing professional force more for internal political reasons than for outward need.
-The French army between 1789 and 1799 was a motley citizen's rabble and yet bested the Prussians, British and Austrians, all with well-drilled proffessional armies. Napoleon proffessionalized it in order to make it an efficient tool for conquest.
-Tito's Partisans in Yugoslavia virtually liberated vast tracts of that region and that doubtlessly helped successfully deter Soviet domination thereafter.
-Mao's PLA was a guerilla force (though he argued it wasn't) right up until 1949, they only used massed artillery as they captured it from the KMT. Chaing's Mechanized KMT dissentigrated without popular support. Why did the PLA regularize? well, doctrinally, it didn't until the 1980s.
the fact that regular armies form and were formed in the first place has to do more with the accepted norms of conventional warfare than with the outright superiority of a regular army
Published: October 17, 2006 10:04 AM
There is also an added fact about militias vs standing armies that should be mentioned: the fact that standing armies are trained to fight other standing armies with the same tactics, and that their logistical support is much more complicated and vurnerable inside a conquered land. When Germany launched its first spring offensive against the forces of the British Expeditionary Force in 1918, several divisions were routed and the soldiers retreated without knowing what to do - because they had been trained for trench warfare. Instead, militias do not suffer the cumbersomeness of such lockstep training and have thus more freedom to change tactics as expediency dictates. Also they have the support of the local population (as long as they do not try to impose some political doctrine a la Mao) and can parctically dissipate inside the local population. This is what goes on today in Afghanistan and Iraq. This means that their logistical lines are more flexible and thus less vulnerable, as found by the British during the Boer war, this being the reason why they resorted to the savagery of placing entire communities in concetration camps (in order to disrupt the Boers' support base). It was a good thing for the British that the Boer men did not allow their women to arm themselves . . .
Obviously, if militias try to fight against a well-trained army on the same terms, the army will prevail. Instead, whenever the militia brings the armies to fight in the militia's terms, the results are usually catastrophic for the trained army. The battle of the Cowpens is testimony to that.
Published: October 17, 2006 3:10 PM
Vince - How do you know those arguments are accurate? The problem I see with history in general is what essential facts have been deleted? by the proponents of a claim? It's pretty easy to "fact check" a lot of claims, really hard to find "deleted facts" which can change the entire viewpoint. In the end, what can really be known about the situation?
Not trying to argue complete ignorance, just that a "case" can be made for almost any view "according to history".
Published: October 17, 2006 3:36 PM
JIMB;
Fair question. History is often distorted or obscured. The best I can offer is that several attempts were made by the Japanese to sue for peace through contacts with Russia, among others. This is pretty well-documented. Most honest, decent historians will admit this.
The two conditions they placed on the offer of peace were; 1)to retain national sovreignty over the home islands, and; 2)to retain the emperor and exempt him from war crimes trial. Truman refused these overtures, bombed anyway, and in the end those conditions were met after all.
As a person who is anti-war, I see this refusal to meet these conditions prior to the bombings as evidence that peace was not the highest value held by Truman. Other historians opine that Truman wanted to use the atomic bombings to scare the Russians and Chinese and show them their place, a view that has some support in Truman's later conduct toward Russia, China, and Korea, for example.
But more to the point, after the billions of dollars invested in the Manhattan Project, Truman was not about to allow the war to end without using the bomb. This immoral position is easy to see in retrospect - I mean, come on, what would the purpose of invading a prostrate Japan have been, anyway?
Published: October 17, 2006 3:47 PM
Tell me again, how many children did Jefferson blow up? Were there English civilians murdered and burned upside down? Did the colonialists set off bombs to kill everyone just in order to agitate?
Or perhaps "the cause" might have something to do with justification. Let's see, on one hand is freedom and on the other is tyranny. To compare terrorists to Jefferson is the same as comparing the police to a street gang.
Published: October 17, 2006 4:07 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Published: October 17, 2006 8:00 PM
Jack sez:
The real terrorists are in the White House. The fact that so few libertarians can see this is both shocking and sad.
Well, perhaps that means that there really are very few libertarians in this world.
OTOH, anybody who knew the ABC of physics should easily see that the state's 'explanation' for the WTC collapse is outrageous nonsense.
But we're not living in Newton's enlightment anymore. Rationalism is out of fashion. People have reverted to believing in government witchcraft. Fiat money and other nursery ryhmes.
Published: October 17, 2006 8:38 PM
Roger M, All,
"As a result, I favor an immediate pull-out of US troops from Iraq. The sooner we're gone, the sooner the Kurds and Shia will end the insurgency, probably within 60 days.",
I'm not so sure about that. I am currently deployed to Iraq, and my perspective has changed quite a bit since I've been here. I too believe it's time to leave. The Kurds and Shia are indeed capable of rooting out the insurgencies, but only in their own neighborhoods. I don't forsee the Kurdish Peshmerga invading Al-Anbar and rooting out Al-Qaida members anytime soon. Neither the Kurds nor the Shias will go into the Sunni jihadist cesspools of Ramadi and Fallujah; it isn't going to happen.
However, I do believe that the best solution is division of the country into three or fours separate states, or one highly-decentralized state (as the Shias recently voted for). A Kurdish state, a Sunni state, a Shia state, and a city-state in and around Baghdad. The Kurds and Sunnis would quickly ramp up oil production and get their economies rolling and restore normalcy and prosperity to their people, and Baghdad would be a center of trade in the region, but what of the oil-less arab sunnis? That's a real pickle.
I've talked to others stationed out here, and many agree with me: part of what the insurgency is doing is a natural reaction that any populace would have done. I.e. if the US was suddenly occupied by a benign foreign power, I am absolutely certain that Americans would take pot shots at troops and set up roadside bombs to take out their vehicles, regardless of the intentions or actions of the occupier. However, what Americans would NOT do is drive a 4-door sedan packed with artillery shells into a crowd and detonate it. We would not strap suicide belts on and blow up the churches of those who were not participating in our actions. We would not send our children, ill-equipped, at an occupation patrol with an AK-47 and hope he is killed for neighborhood propaganda. Americans would not behead those who agree with us. Americans would not be fighting to install a fascist state, whether it be National Socialist (Baathist) or Salafist (totalitarian Islamic governnance, or "Islamofascism" if you like the term) state in the Iraqi's case.
We have had many opportunities to "exit" since the war began:
1. We could have toppled Saddam and left. Let the Iraqis sort their own affairs out.
2. We could have left after we were assured the Baathists would not come back to power anytime soon after capturing Saddam and killing his demented sons.
3. We could have left after the Iraqi Gov't was stood up.
4. We could have left after the Constitution was approved.
I could go on and on. The fact is, Iraq is a better place then when we came in, and many of the problems here would go away when we leave. The US government did a great job doing the only thing its good at: commiting coercion and exercising force. The Baathist regime is gone. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But now we are conducting what the government is decidedly AWFUL at: Institution-building and socio-economic planning, and I can't figure it out why. I've explored the empire theory, but there's a lack of evidence for the only logical motivation: dollar hegemony.
So perhaps it is time to pull back, let Iraq natually break up, set up shop in Kurdistan, and smack down any terror camps that develop in the Sunni cesspool.
Published: October 17, 2006 9:51 PM
Great article. The US Government is doing many things that the Founders complained about in the Declaration of Independence.
I am wondering about the Washington quote at the end. It doesn't seem like it fits the period. I read on this website: BogusFounderQuotes that it has never been confirmed as authentic.
Published: October 18, 2006 12:45 AM
Thanks to all of you who have taken an interest in the article, from whatever point of view. Here are some comments about your comments, mainly in reverse order.
Jon Robinson is right: many Washington quotations are nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, some of the claims that quotations are bogus are as unreliable as the quotations themselves, and primary research is the only way out. I think the sentiments are close enough, based on the rest of the written record---if we can trust that, what with stories about cherry trees and all. History definitely is a subjective enterprise.
Nick Bradley's is a strong piece of analysis and there is nothing I can add to it.
9-11 conspiracy theorists should remember Occam's Razor. Yes, the government has used the event to its advantage, because subjective men act for their own benefit---as Austrian economics teaches us---but why stretch the matter any further?
Doug, Sologue, and others with similar comments are right: there is no moral equivalence between the insurgents and the Founders. Their views of property and the sovereign individual couldn't be more opposite. The only similarity I see is tactical: guerilla warriors fighting the big government's regulars; rebels trying to stick it to The Man.
The pacifists should know that liberty cannot favor pacifism or isolationism. We cannot hang onto our property if we sit indoors, disarmed and disengaged, in the vain hope that nobody will bother us. The government shouldn't have the monopoly on our protection, and probably shouldn't be protecting us at all (because that's not its true purpose), but someone needs to do it. Don Robinson talks about civil responses to uncivil acts, but there is a thin line between that and surrender.
CAITM (great analysis), Francisco Torres, Mark Brabson, Leigh Jacobs, and even TGGP are asking the right questions. Can irregulars beat regulars? How much foreign help and money does it take? Were the colonials really guerrillas, or organized infantry? What level of resistance will force a governor to resort to annihilation---and therefore to lose? These questions matter because some day, maybe, we'll try to use the answers. They are the same ones Madison used to ask, because he wanted to ensure that Federal troops could always be beaten---by us.
Published: October 18, 2006 7:12 AM
Mr. Greene,
You posit:
"9-11 conspiracy theorists should remember Occam's Razor. Yes, the government has used the event to its advantage, because subjective men act for their own benefit---as Austrian economics teaches us---but why stretch the matter any further?"
Who are the 9-11 "conspiracy theorists"?
What, indeed, would Occam's Razor be "saying" to them?
"Yes, the government has used the event to its advantage,..." Which event(s), and in which way(s)?
"because subjective men act for their own benefit"
Who are these "subjective men"? And, How did "they" act? Better, Who "benefited", and How?
"but why stretch the matter any further?"
Which is "the matter", and How is it being "stretched"?
"but why stretch the matter any further?"
"The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda which we must now consider are, however, of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundation of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth."(1) F.A. Hayek, 1944
Published: October 18, 2006 8:39 AM
Mr Greene,
Your words
9-11 conspiracy theorists should remember Occam's Razor.
are a bit cryptic. But it seems to me that you're trying to smear people who speak the truth. So let me have another go at it :
It's a FACT that the buildings in the WTC were destroyed using controlled demolition. This is physics. If you ask cui bono ?, then it seems that the criminals running the American state are indeed responsible. I don't see anything 'being streched'. Do you ?
Published: October 19, 2006 1:25 AM
TGGP
'jack shit' ? What's that ? A new 'actually scientific' term ?
You sound a bit...scared ? Yes, that's likely the case. You can't stand truth because you 'trust' your government.
Do you consider that Mr Dutch's rant is a serious debunking ?
By the way, what is, exactly, a conspiracy theorist ? Is that some sort of shortcut to easily suppress disenters, perhaps ?
Try thinking about this...Not so long ago, people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe were burnt alive...
And people like you were the ones doing the burning...People who blindly believe in the 'official' 'science'(dogma of course).
So, again, controlled demolition is a far better explanation than the ad hoc theories of your government and its court intelectuals. Face it.
Published: October 19, 2006 8:47 PM
Your description of Dutch's piece as a "rant" is laughable, considering the utter lack of evidence you've presented
I suggest you bother to read Reynolds article, wich you obiusly didn't.
Published: October 19, 2006 11:06 PM
TGGP
Read what Reynolds says about free-falling. Then read the 'debunking' by Dutch. Realize that they are talking about different things.
The point is, you don't think for yourself. You trust 'scientists'...
I notice that you didn't say anything about the popular mechanics debunking. Was that also a "rant"?
Sorry, Dutch is enough for me. And yes, I read the introductory page of PM and is indeed a politically correct rant.
cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts
Sounds like rant to me...
Published: October 19, 2006 11:37 PM
TGGP
Read what Reynolds says about free-falling. Then read the 'debunking' by Dutch. Realize that they are talking about different things.
The point is, you don't think for yourself. You trust 'scientists'...
I notice that you didn't say anything about the popular mechanics debunking. Was that also a "rant"?
Sorry, Dutch is enough for me. And yes, I read the introductory page of PM and is indeed a politically correct rant.
cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts
Sounds like a rant to me...
Published: October 19, 2006 11:37 PM
Tom Paine said;
"It's a FACT that the buildings in the WTC were destroyed using controlled demolition. This is physics."
That may indeed be the case (though I doubt it), but for it to be a FACT, versus a HYPOTHESIS, one would have to present some solid PROOF, which is, I submit, still rather lacking in both the case of the WTC towers;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
and The Pentagon;
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
I am willing to entertain your hypothesis, particularly in WTC #7 case, which is admittedly fishy (and had a large # of federal tenants).
But to the larger question of qui bono - it is not necessary to debunk an "official" explanation. The Bush Administration KNEW Bin Laden was going to strike in a big way;
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
They knew what the likely target(s) were;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Really, no elaborate plot was necessary. Just keep troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, keep aiding Israel and Egypt militarily, keep starving Iraq and demonizing Iran, stand around, look bored, read "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren...in short, just be your own, incompetent, evil selves, let Osama do the rest...
Published: October 20, 2006 1:48 PM
The one thing about 9/11 that has always bothered me and for which no one has provided sufficient explanation is the collapse of WTC-7. I have repeatedly watched the video's from different angles, studied the debris field and examined the other evidence. My mind really wants to come to the conclusion that the building was dropped by pre-placed explosives. It is the only theory that really fits.
I think the government's official version is bullsh*t to a great degree. I think some of the 9/11 so called conspiracy theorists are a little overboard too. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Perhaps the Mossad was involved.
In any event, it is a very healthy thing to question the government extensively on this and to probe deeply. If the government can prove its case, than good for them. And make no mistake, the burden falls on the government, not on the questioners.
Published: October 20, 2006 2:40 PM
Am I even more tired than I think I am? Earlier, I could have sworn that there was an exhange between "Thomas Paine" and "TGGP". Now the comments by "TGGP" seem to have been removed. If so, WHY? I recall his comments were somewhat rude, but so what?
It seems there are quite a few conspiracy theorists on this blog. I agree there is lot's of circumstancial evidence that there could be a conspiracy behind 9/11, but that's all it is: circumstancial. Circumstnacial evidence is not proof, and when posts that contest the evidence with links to well-written arguments are removed (I think they were anyway, maybe I am just crazy), I have to wonder what exactly is going on this site.
That said, if they were removed simply because of there degree of unpleasantness, I have no complaints.
Published: October 20, 2006 3:15 PM
I meant "their" degree of unpleasantness, not "there".
Published: October 20, 2006 3:17 PM
Yes, the posts from TGGP seem to have been removed. Perhaps because he called me an idiot ? I really don't mind that...As a matter of fact, his losing his temper shows he's not so sure about his position. Maybe the Administrator could put his posts back ?
Vincent, the way the twin towers collapsed strongly suggests that they were demolished. Look at point 7. in Jack's post and this from Reynolds article :
www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
Published: October 20, 2006 7:35 PM
Tom, I'm not a tructural engineer, however I have spent a lot of time professionally looking at steel frame building construction. I know the WTC towers were built in a most unconventional manner, with way more "clear" space per floor than any other office building ever built, certainly more than any office tower ever crashed into by a plane.
Virtually the only support for the very long trusses and deck pans were small, relatively flimsy clips that tied them to the outer "monocoque" outer frame and the inner core, as opposed to your average 15-story office building which has many more intermediate columns between the core and the shell of the building. Most of the building's concrete mass was contained in these relatively lightly-supported floors. I don't have any problem believing the "official" explanation because I watched the buildings come down on TV thousands of times, and what occurred certainly looks consistent with the explanation offered on the NOVA program. The damage to the strucutal steel that was evident would support this mode of failure also.
But if one really insists that the WTC collapses were an inside job, it is counterproductive, I think, to maintain that somehow the planning and execution of such a plot could somehow be pulled off without anyone talking or otherwise slipping up. It just doesn't pass the giggle test. It's much more likely that if it were an inside job that it was done by intentional neglect of the potential threat and institutional incompetence, and not by controlled demolition, #7 WTC aside.
Published: October 21, 2006 1:23 AM
TTGP is gone because of his uncivil tone, not because of his underlying arguments (which he only succeeded in undermining with his tirades). When you can make 9-11 conspiracy theorists sound sensible by comparison, it's time to rethink your approach. The HAHAHA comment at the top didn't deserve to survive either.
Published: October 21, 2006 3:30 AM
Tom Paine quoting www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
"Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2)."
Does it bother anyone that this guy (Reynolds) doesn't know the difference between acceleration and velocity (speed)?
Published: October 21, 2006 9:54 AM
To assume the it was an inside job is to assume that government is omnipotent and omniscient. In addition, to assume that government could have protected us from any such terrorist is also to assume the same.
We sit painfully aware of the ills that government performs in front of our eyes on a daily basis (i.e., the fed, welfare, redistribution of wealth, etc.) without throwing the bums out on election day, so why do we believe that they feel the need to hatch some secret plan to increase their power.
By way of example: The Patriot Act is available for all to read, yet the average American quietly acquiesces to its interventions. Even the actions of FDR were available for all to read, yet the books by Flynn did not create a severe backlash.
Let's face it, Bush did not need 9/11 to attack Iraq. He simply could have sold it to the public out in the open based solely on his democratization of the world crusade, and most would simply have gone along for the ride.
Published: October 21, 2006 2:01 PM
Greg, it doesn't bother me though I admit it doesn't sound good. Anyhow, I know that acceleration is the rate of change of speed, wich is the rate of change of position.
Vincent, I see three different issues.
1) If you believe that wtc7 was indeed a case of controlled demolition, then I ask, When were the explosives set up ? After the planes hit the towers ? In just a few hours ? Hmmm...
2) Whether the government is too incompetent to prevent leaks if they indeed were responsible is not something that can be known a-priori. The libertarian insight is only that govt. cannot produce goods efficiently. On the other hand, if you regard govt. as a criminal enterprise it follows that, for them to thrive, they must be an efficient enterprise in their line of bussiness...lying, robbing, killing.
Minorities too can sometimes conquer by means of superior military skill and can thus establish minority rule. But such an order of things cannot endure. If the victorious conquerors do not succeed in subsequently converting the system of rule by violence into a system of rule by ideological consent on the part of those ruled, they will succumb in new struggles - Mises - H.A.
In a word, it's not so hard for the state to cover its tracks because people don't really want to know...
3) What would convince me that I'm wrong with respect to the twin towers is this :
Were they specifically designed to collapse the way they did ? I believe they were designed NOT to collapse if hit by an airliner. But in the unlikely event of collapse, were some 'failure mode' purposedly built in into the structure ? Like glass breaking along predefined lines ?
I couldn't find relevant information in your link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
Should I listen to Sunder's interview ? I would rather prefer a page from the original contractors and designers explaining what happened to their buildings - as opposed to studies made by the state. (NIST)
Anyway, I don't see how your description of the building's structure disproves controlled demolition. The key point is that for all that mass to go down in an orderly way and at free fall speed, the material needs to be cut up in 'small' chunks. That applies to the core and to the outer shell. How was the cutting done ? Did it happen 'spontaneously' ? Why was floor 10 reduced to rubble an hour after the plane hit floor 90 ? Where did the energy to break things up come from ?
The lynchpin of physics is mass-energy conservation. So, was there enough energy in the planes to reduce the buildings to rubble ? Did the burning soften all the structure ? (obviously not). Was there enough potential energy in the rest of the structure so that it self-destroyed ? And it happened in an orderly fashion ?
Published: October 21, 2006 3:03 PM
The article caught my eye, but many of the comments caused them to roll. Especially those conspiracy theories. The government did it in a time and a culture wherein, highly classified secrets find their way into the hands of journalists dying for a story, on an almost daily basis. I doubt it. Yes, I really do believe fanatical Islamists want to subjugate me and my way of life.
However, the premise of the article makes for interesting consideration and debate.
While I find myself at odds with the war; I find it has more to do with the prosecution than the actual 'war' itself. By that, I mean, I find it to be a refusal to accept the fact that war is only won when the cost of resistance exceeds the cost of surrender. Not since WWII has the U.S. government been willing to prosecute a war with this in mind. Rather, politicians and political opinion, being prone to hyper emotional responses, and easily aroused to start the battle(s), they rarely have the fortitude to finish the job.
(consider this undeniable fact: Both political parties in both houses, nearly unanimously voted to authorize war in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
We can deny this with accusations of "lies" and other excuses by professional politicians, but the fact is: This country, its people and its politicians wanted to wage war. They just don't want to see it through now that it has begun.
This is precisely why wars should not be so casually entered into.
To think any nation can wage limited war, with limited collateral damage is a fools mission. This is precisely why, despite the awesome power of the US military, a rag-tag group of part-time insurgents can stave off annihilation. Without the will to conquer and totally subjugate a nation, warfare is, indeed, a waste of resources; human and monetary.
Published: October 24, 2006 1:59 PM