portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article questions global

9.11 investigation | political theory

Question for anarchists: why embrace-endorse the official explanation for 9/11/01 events?

please answer it

thanks
.

answer 'Alexander Burka' 26.Feb.2012 14:55

it remains an utterly simple question

Burka: " That's not a simple question at all. "

Burka: " "Embrace-endorse" is a silly characterization.

Burka: " It doesn't matter if 9/11 was an optical illusion "

Who said it was an "optical illusion" [??] until you just did - now __that__ is a silly characterization.

9/11 'doesn't matter' ?? It is the lynchpin for the coming martial law crackdown (attempt anyway). All of the post-USA Patriot oppressions that have arrived are courtesy of a perceived 'terror' bogeyman.

Do anarch-cultists believe in (Newtonian or otherwise) physics? In order to refer Marx or any other variety of Western philosophical-political interpretation, physics must be at least observed and acknowledged (if not obeyed - cf. WTC 7).

Quit trying to contort, anarch-cultist-style (as they have been since Hedges busted your chops a few weeks ago) *out of answering* the utterly simple and straightforward question.

How about this... 26.Feb.2012 16:29

ura dolt

"9/11 'doesn't matter' ?? It is the lynchpin for the coming martial law crackdown (attempt anyway). All of the post-USA Patriot oppressions that have arrived are courtesy of a perceived 'terror' bogeyman."

Lol... No the lynch-pin is that you are so stuck on isolationist politics that you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Accept it.  If you are a truther, you're a wingnut.
Accept it. If you are a truther, you're a wingnut.

This has been answered already, but... 26.Feb.2012 16:44

TBFY

Most rational beings have reviewed and come to accept the "official story" because it makes logical, physical sense. There is both motive and evidence, which engineers and physicists across the globe have agreed upon, as well as political theorists and analysts have concluded that the official story is more or less true to reality.

Now here is a question for you. Do people that are as loony as you have any belief in objective reality or is your life just a series of subjective pot-fogged delusions that you suffer through? Does eating cheetos and watching reruns of 70's sitcoms while being stoned out of your gourd, and thinking about how to evade the evidence of a reality that scares you ever get boring? Or does the brady bunch and the cheetos cat provide you all of the challenge that you seek in this world?

Please I'm genuinely curious about the reality-challenged.

As soon as anyone on this thread explains - using physics - 26.Feb.2012 17:03

the collapse of WTC Building 7

which was not hit by an aircraft,

I'm willing to go along with whatever anarcho-tinfoil-cultism you have to offer. Fire away.

" if there aren't many anarchist truthers " 26.Feb.2012 17:09

response

this is for the dude in the 'Discussion' section who mentioned about ideology, oppression blah blah blah.

The question posed by this article thread is not a request to "find out how many anarchist truthers [whatever the hell that word means, someone questioning the 9/11 narrative doesn't necessarily even seek "truth" or know it yet]" exist.

The question is quite simple:

Why do so many 'serious' anarchists / Church-O-Anarchy™ adherents immediately fall into the same discrediting mode for any alternative narrative or explanation -- from the officially-provided, U.S.-Gov't-stamp-of-approval one -- whenever the topic is broached?

don't let your ideological catholicism (about the grand history of oppression blah blah blah, doesn't even matter how/why 9/11 happened blah blah blah) blind you to what's in front of your face.

" isolationist politics " ?? 26.Feb.2012 17:21

wtf

what the hell does

" politics "

(??) "isolationist" or otherwise

have to do with 9/11 ?

within the space of 3 days, three skyscrapers were determined to have collapsed in their own footprint at free-fall speeds due to fire (metal frame skyscrapers had never done so before or since), a domestic 'Patriot' act -- pre-drafted before the event, an illegal, pre-emptive military invasion of Afghanistan was launched and another pre-planned invasion of Iran was on the table. None of which had to do with 19 'hijackers' (within weeks it was proven that most to those ID'd came not from Afghanistan)...

anyway if you can't see the unprecedented nature of even that...

(the "how 9/11 happened doesn't matter / the details of it don't matter" response isn't going to cut it - you need to produce and endorse a narrative for the events. You can't just say: "all invasions, militarism and economic-other oppressions suck" )

Ok, since you are completely incompetent 26.Feb.2012 17:31

(A)

Here is your answer, I'm guessing that you are going to use some completely uncredible source to respond to this, and then ask me to respond but I'm going to preempt that with a demand, that if you are going to challenge scientific finds it must be through an accredited, peer-reviewed journal. I'll say that again, because I know you're oblivious to reality as was mentioned above, ACCREDITED (most scientists, scientific and academic organizations accept it as a genuine quest for understanding) PEER-REVIEWED (other scientists review the data and can replicate the conclusions).

I know that you are probably so far gone to objective truth that you are going to claim that every scientific journal and institution has some how been corrupted in this vast fantasy you've constructed but, to tell you the truth those retorts just prove you wrong. Your unwillingness to submit evidence to an actual scientific pursuit should be a strong indicator to you that you are in denial of real things.

Sadly, this will not move you, but it will make me laugh when you respond with your fairy-tale beliefs so at least I'll get some reward
The Answers That You Claim To Seek.  But Avoid From Fear Of Reality Are Here.
The Answers That You Claim To Seek. But Avoid From Fear Of Reality Are Here.

" more or less true to reality " 26.Feb.2012 17:35

which is it

More, or less?

And, what on earth does "true to reality" mean ?

TBFY your post was an incoherent mess (grammatically and conceptually) - almost as bad as the U.S. government's (yes the engineers who worked for, for example, National Institute of Standards and Technology were government employees) explanation for the WTC Building 7 collapse... which took them eight years to concoct by the way.

and the engineering, scientific, physical fact remains that until September 11, 2001 -- and after that day -- no steel-framed skyscraper had-has ever collapsed due to fire. (Let alone into its own footprint, at free fall speed. 3 of 'em did that within hours of each other that day, one which wasn't even hit by an aircraft)

then there's the Pentagon. never mind what hit it (yes until more of the dozens of cameras' footage is ever seen by investigators proving otherwise, it was a Boeing 757).... conveniently (coincidentally??) the side of the Pentagon -- out of 5 to choose from -- which got struck by the "hijacked plane" was the very one that was being renovated with relatively few employees within it at the time; and also conveniently (coincidentally??) held a major portion of DoD accounting records, which were conveniently (coincidentally??) obliterated in the impact and ensuing fire/damage to the building.

" Here is your answer " 26.Feb.2012 17:50

since when

" most scientists, scientific and academic organizations accept it "

is that an anarchist perspective?

Anyway, your post above contained


NOT

ONE

MENTION

of ANYTHING that occurred on 11 September 2001.

as usual: is there some (paranoid, perhaps??) fear at work here, which physically-otherwise _prevents_ you from actually even discussing or mentioning even one or two small aspects of that day's events?

p.s. your .pdf link -- whatever the hell it was supposed to be -- produces the following:

- - - - -
Not Found

The requested URL /media/2012/02/414091.pdf was not found on this server.
- - - - -

So Indymedia's Media Server Sucks. Maybe it was an inside job?!?!) 26.Feb.2012 18:01

(A)

The lack of link is indymedia's fault, likely it will show up soon, but since you are incapable of even understanding modern technology here is a link.


Yes 26.Feb.2012 18:05

(A)

"'most scientists, scientific and academic organizations accept it...'

is that an anarchist perspective? "

As far as science goes absolutely, science is the realm of science and scientists some of whom are and some of whom aren't anarchists... Unfortunately it is not the perspective that all people take on science, you for example believe, apparently, that science is the realm of internet fantasies.

" every scientific journal and institution " 26.Feb.2012 18:06

more blanket horseshit rhetoric

No,

(even though we still don't know WTH you're talking about, there's nothing but pure hot air rhetoric in your post above and not one single reference to a fact, a thing, a date, a person, a specific entity, or an event)

actually -- if it's the collapse of the World Trade Center towers you were alluding to perhaps (??) -- because as noted above, you certainly didn't mention a single specific thing in your post (and quite 'credibly' on your part you also gave a non-functional .pdf link),

the entities which handled that were a select few academics -- i.e. individual scholars from certain specific academic institutions that are known for engineering -- and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which happens to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

so knock it off with incoherent/blanket rantings such as " every scientific journal and institution " ... it was a highly select few. (and there remain dissenting opinions / interpretations of data, plus new data-evidence; the problem always was, that the skyscraper rubble was cleared completely out within a few days, from the most important-significant collapse of major office buildings to have occurred in the past 200 years.)

now, many academics -- in an industry/academia/government revolving door sort of arrangement -- do serve on the staff of NIST and make contributions to its work. But lets remember, for one that NIST's conclusions about the WTC towers were based on a sheer paucity of physical evidence (most of the towers' fallen structures had been shipped off to China for scrap within 48 hours of the collapses) and relied very heavily on modeling, which was _not_ 'peer reviewed' in the normal manner; in fact it was only two weeks after 9/11 that mass media news organizations and had trumpeted, far and wide via national TV about -- for example -- the 'pancake theory' of collapse, etc. In two weeks -- hell even two __months__ time, there is not enough data processing and scientific-engineering expertise that can be brought to bear (let alone given the tiny amount of physical evidence analysed/tested from the skyscrapers)....

and it took NIST another *eight years* to come up with / concoct the 'story' of how never-hit-by-a-plane World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed freefall into its own footprint just as the pair of larger towers had done the same day.

Simple Question! 26.Feb.2012 18:28

so simple

Question for anarchists: why embrace-endorse the official explanation for the moon landing !?!?!

Nothing in this post has explained how your so-called moon landing actually happened!

It is up to you to explain away every possible alternative theory!

Why are anarchists so stuck to their cultish theory that the US landed on the moon!

Why do you insist on following the government/party line!

" As far as science goes absolutely " 26.Feb.2012 18:33

lol

>> " science is the realm of science and scientists some of whom are and some of whom aren't anarchists... "

O darn ("aren't anarchists")

what in the hell does "science is the realm of science" mean?

Do you eat food? Flush a toilet? Use a tent? Use tools/ eating utensils?

Those are products of science and engineering. Science is an everyday reality, not "the realm of science".

>> " you for example believe, apparently, that science is the realm of internet fantasies. "

You mean, fantasies such as three steel-framed skyscrapers collapsing due to fire -- never having done so before or since September 11 2001?

I already mentioned that the 'science' utilized -- with regard to the WTC building collapses in NYC that day, remember that's only *one small part* of all the unexplained anomalies of that day -- to investigate the WTC skyscrapers was cherry-picked via very select few entities, based on the skimpiest of physical evidence (not at all the way to handle the greatest one-day disaster in architectural and building engineering history), and the rest was gussied-up with specious, non-peer-reviewed computer models.... just look at what has been done with the Global Warming Denial industry of late. And as mentioned above, with NIST issuing its report, you had a Commerce Department-subjugated entity putting its 'stamp of approval' (8 years late albeit as regards WTC 7) on things.

But if you had actually done, for example, any computer modeling in either a scientific or engineering capacity yourself, you would have understood that.


questions questions 26.Feb.2012 18:33

utterly simple

Question for anarchists: why embrace-endorse the official explanation that the government is not composed of reptile overlords??

Not one anarchist on here has proven that the government and media aren't reptiles!

Are anarchists so beholden to the orthodox government/Church-o-anarchist explanation that president Obama and congress are actually people!

The burden of proof is not on me to prove there is a reptilian shadow government, it is on cultish anarchists to prove otherwise. But no one has done it!

" reptile overlords " 26.Feb.2012 18:43

.

You've miserably and pathetically failed at being 'funny',

so the only possible reasons for trying the weasel-out-of-answering-the-actual-question response of "reptilians" can be:

1. real fear/paranoia

2. disinformation

" moon landing " 26.Feb.2012 18:45

.

See "reptilian" response, above.

utterly pathetic.

" if you want us to believe something different make your case " 26.Feb.2012 19:01

don't want you to 'believe' anything

This is precisely why the -- simple -- question was asked.

(v. 2.0) What causes you to 'believe' in the official explanation of what occurred that day ?


You state:

" 10+ years on I have yet to hear an alternative explanation that makes more sense than the mainstream interpretation of what happened. "

Please expand/be more detailed. *not* with an 'alternative explanation', but elucidating what you mean by the 'mainstream interpretation' (?? what is that?) "makes sense".

In a few sentences (let's say 300 words or less), without cribbing from online-other sources or talking about reptilian moonlandings, you should be able to explain to us here on PDX IMC what your, 'anarchist', *own* understanding of the events of 11 September 2001 are.

(and if you wish, for embellishment provide us with a few specific references / sources which caused you to arrive at such comprehension)

You're losing this and all other arguments... again, for the nth time. 26.Feb.2012 19:50

orly?

"9 11 Commission Report Implicitly Discredited by More Than 100 Architects and Engineers"

Wow... more than a hundred? That must mean almost 0% of architects and engineers in the world agree with your fantastical claims.

Someone asked for a peer-reviewed accredited journal and that is the way empirical studies work... please bring them forth or STFU.

You keep saying a lot of nothing 26.Feb.2012 19:57

(A)

'" science is the realm of science and scientists some of whom are and some of whom aren't anarchists... '

O darn ("aren't anarchists")"

Right so in interest of full disclosure not everyone on earth is an anarchist... oops. Science is not the realm of ethics and politics though there are quite a few scientists that are anarchists. Also in interest of full disclosure I should have said that while some are and some aren't anarchists, none of them are 9 11 truth clowns like yourself. So, be careful that in your pseudo-scientific endeavours from now on that you don't inadvertently try to point out something that turns out not to be a meaningful insult to your adversary but turns out to almost totally discredit your own bunk nonsense.

"what in the hell does "science is the realm of science" mean?"

Sense you are dense it means that science is a realm that doesn't extend beyond itself, into for example politics and ethics, also that pseudo-science like your own has no claims over it. It seems redundant but so is the reality that you have failed to grasp and continue to avoid addressing thus far.

"peer-reviewed accredited journal that is the way empirical studies work" 26.Feb.2012 20:03

what

"study" were you referring to, again?

The "study" of *****WHAT***** ?

btw, which person (out of 23 thread comments so far) has actually discussed or mentioned any actual fact, things, persons/specific entities, or events of 11 September 2001.

If you 'want' to discuss some_thing_, then you must first bring a thing to the table. No more .pdf links that don't work, obfuscating in generalities about "peer-reviewed accredited journals" [?? which ones?] or "that is the way empirical studies work" [OMG, and you would know fer sure]. Let's get specific. Item by item.

Not such a "Simple Question?" 26.Feb.2012 20:43

blues

Not everybody around here thinks of themselves as anarchist. For example, there are:

A- Anarchists

B- Socialists, Equalitists, etc.

C- Some who can't quite discern what an "anarchist" might be

I am an equalitist who can't quite tell the difference between "anarchist" and "anti-authoritarian." So maybe I am "B" and/or "C". Anyhow, Official Explanations are nearly always just propaganda. I would never, for example, ask if socialists should "embrace" them!

Yes, some architects believe the official line. But thousands of them do not. I do not believe it either because I saw the Twin Towers explode just like fuses with my own eyes. They miraculously turned into a fine dust, and all of this evidence was hauled away or destroyed within days. And I saw #7 come down exactly as if it was a controlled demolition. So obviously something is seriously in need of further explanation!

(This strange "isolationist" issue keeps popping up. The military and the bankers hate "isolationism"; it's bad for their useless business. I don't know if I'm "isolationist". I am for tariffs and against gratuitous wars.)

It's very wrong to say 9/11 skeptics need tin foil hats. II would never accuse people who believe the official story of living under rocks, for example.

Here are some architects, engineers, and demolition experts who believe the buildings were deliberately blown up:

Danny Jowenko, 1955-2011: How a Demolition Expert Brought Explosive Attention to 9/11 Truth
 http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/550-jowenko.html

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
 http://www.ae911truth.org/

Peer-Reviewed Accredited Journal or GTFO! 26.Feb.2012 20:48

(A)

"No more .pdf links that don't work"

You keep saying that but the link works fine for those in this dimension. What's it like over in fantasy-land?

Also there is nothing for us to refute since you have neither given an accredited scientific refutation of the accredited scientific research that I posted, nor are your initial claims supported by ANY (not even one) accredited scientific peer-reviewed journal. Not. Fucking. One.

GTFO (A) ! 26.Feb.2012 21:26

what

what are you talking about?

there is no "Peer-Reviewed Accredited Journal" that even purports to explain what happened on 11 September 2001! Not. Fucking. One.

" your initial claims "

what have ____I_____ ever "claimed" on this thread??????

Point it out ****er!!!

I never "claimed" anything, except that it was my right as a citizen to ask for a full investigation into the events of 11 September 2011. And so have hundreds of thousands of others, asked for the same.

you are the one contorting yourself into a "I Hate Chris Hedges! he sucks! I ****ING HATE HIM!" anarchist frenzy over nothing here. And it is in fact NOTHING: there are no "peer reviewed journals" which 'explain' what happened on 9/11; only government-produced studies, by the likes of the subjugated-to-U.S.-Department-of-Commerce NIST, and of course the sketchy 9/11 Commission report. Government documents - that is all. no "peer review" (and certainly not an open / impartial one).

" What's it like over in fantasy-land? " 26.Feb.2012 21:33

exactly as you've continued portraying it

until,

of course you bother to post any single fact, item, thing, object, person, entity -- just SOMETHING -- pertaining to the day of 11 September worthy of discussion-consideration,

and refrain from the "peer-reviewed accredited journal" (examples even of which you've provided Exactly Zero) hype-bluster.

As of now, no one even knows what you are talking about. I'm talking about the events of 11 September 2001. Got anything to state about those?

The government told, bought and paid for the story that exists. It's your job as a non-government (?) entity to back it up.

" accredited scientific research that I posted " 26.Feb.2012 21:44

huh?

you mean NIST's report? (btw that isn't "accredited scientific research" ... their report didn't consist of 'research' but rather, NIST's assessment of what happened at the WTC based on evaluation a miniscule body of physical evidence/building rubble and some computer models that they ran to 'fit' their conclusions. See the provided, and accredited, Architects & Engineers web site above link for more detailed discussion and re-evaluation.)

is that the one on the Twin Towers, or the one on WTC 7?

You don't even know what it is, that you posted a link to... you empty-headed ignorant bozo.

as mentioned above, NIST is a government agency subservient to the U.S. Department of Commerce. it's not an academic or impartial institution.

you do know, of course that it took NIST almost eight years to produce a report 'explaining' how WTC Building 7 came down.... and it consisted primarily of conjectural conclusions based on a very sketchy and non-peer-reviewed mathematical model they'd concocted in-house.

You can't wrigle out of this 26.Feb.2012 21:56

(A)

Aside from the fact that the NIST is a trusted scientific institution and regardless of what you bafoons claim you have yet to demonstrate a reasonable refutation of that there's also research done by Purdue University and the NFPA which support the claims of the NIST. That's three among other less credible sources like scientific american and pop. mechanics that totally debunk your claims give us even FUCKING ONE. Before you claim to have an argument. ONE.


You've lost. GTFO

Wait guys... Wait. 26.Feb.2012 22:29

3===@

What if...
And 9/11 was an inside job?!
And 9/11 was an inside job?!

" Purdue University " ?? 26.Feb.2012 22:56

Wh Th Fu

" aside from the fact that the NIST is a trusted scientific institution "

Trusted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (and all corporations therein dependent), of which it is a subsidiary.

" demonstrate a reasonable refutation of that there's also research done by Purdue University and the NFPA "

wtf?? Do you even know what you are citing/referring to there? The Fire Protection standards have nothing to do with the physics, engineering and architectural forensics that _caused_ the free fall collapses of 3 skyscrapers (including one that wasn't hit by an aircraft) the same day due to "weakening from fire".

Keep in mind what NIST actually is, btw -
- - - -
NIST is the federal technology agency that works with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards.
- - - -

it's just the agency which sets standards for products and manufacturers. It is not an analytical or forensic agency such as is the FAA in matters of air traffic accidents. between 1901 and 1988 it was known as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Their widely used Handbook 44 provides "specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices". It's just a highly technical, precise measurements laboratory. NOT a forensic one.

Their investigation of the WTC collapses was not really centered around the *engineering* reasons or architectural forensics of the collapse itself; it was only to provide fire codes and building standards for the pre-conceived notion of 'collapse by fire' (which has never happened to a steel frame skyscraper before or since 9/11) for future building construction. Essentially, all skyscrapers built since 9/11 thanks to NIST are now 'ultra fire safe'.

But the

A and regardless of what you bafoons claim you have yet to demonstrate a reasonable refutation of that there's also research done by Purdue University and the NFPA which support the claims of the NIST. That's three among other less credible sources like scientific american and pop. mechanics that totally debunk your claims give us even FUCKING ONE. Before you claim to have an argument. ONE.


" You've lost. GTFO "
" You can't wrigle out of this "

Talking about yourself? Who can't even answer a simple question, let alone discuss or bring up a single solitary fact, entity, thing, person, or event connected with 11 September 2001 on a 30+ comment discussion thread?

Keanu Reeves is an anarchist ? 26.Feb.2012 23:00

" and 9/11 was an inside job?! "

who even _cared_ (or mentioned) about "inside job" until you brought it up?

No one is positing 'alternative theories' here. Facts and evidence thus far listed (in the official story) have not been investigated or properly heard (WTC Building 7 being but one example).

Just answer the damned question, and quit spewing just like a White House / government shill to anyone who even dares question the official story.

Nope.... 26.Feb.2012 23:03

(A)

K, you think that they aren't up to your standards and... that doesn't mean shit, but here's our chance, post something from someone MORE credible, because a) these are credible and b) you have nothing so you try to make claims about these sources.

Here's how it works, for the millionth time, there are claims made over and over and supported with scientific data, which I've referenced. Now find me something that has some credibility and purports to refute this or shut the fuck up!

" you think that they aren't up to your standards " 26.Feb.2012 23:21

shut the fuck up

"refute" __WHAT__ ? I never put up anything to be refuted. (as to NIST, check out previous posts on this thread and the A&E 9/11 references. The collapse of three skyscrapers due to "weakening by fire" has _NEVER_ occurred before or after 9/11. an engineering and architectural anomaly. the third skyscraper was not even struck by a plane, but collapsed in an identical manner to the other 2.)

I'm asking YOU the question. See the first post of this thread.

I want to know WHY you think it's so deadly important to promote the government-sponsored conclusions on 9/11.

Why do you embrace them? Provide links to them?

Think they are the _only_ explanation (and that's just concerning what happened with the skyscrapers in NYC)?

Instantly attack and ridicule those who would even cause a tiny deviation from official government conclusions/policy regarding events of 11 September 2001?

What is the reason for your voracious attacks on such persons?

(If you are so hard-core convinced of the 'correctness' / infallibility of NIST etc. then why even bother responding a dozen times on this thread, shouldn't that be enough "proof" for the universe?)

Talk about something else besides what happened in New York to the WTC towers. There are myriad things wrong with or missing from the government's explanations and investigation.

Quit Whinning And Show Us The Refutation 27.Feb.2012 00:00

(A)

Shit or get off the pot truth-clown the claims are made and supported by scientific institutions, refute them or go away. A&E is far less scientific than even things that I didn't post because they're not credible so go find something real.

Also 27.Feb.2012 00:11

(A)

Anarchists don't promote the official story because mostly we don't care about it, BUT in the same sense that we promote the helio-centric solar system story and the round-earth story and the material-universe story we "promote" the official story because it is absolutely important to have the most likely scientific story available and not allow a bunch of pseudo-scientific fools to pervade a legitimate political theory.

We take truth and logic seriously, you don't that's why we think you are a waste of our time. We don't promote anything on this topic other than that you have no credibility.

So your real question then is, "why do anarchists always attack people that spread fictional accounts of real events?"

Well truth-clown it's simple, if reality is not concrete one cannot make any argument about anything, including ethics, and since anarchism is an ethical philosophy it cannot have any worthy claims in a world where everyone's subjective reality is considered legitimate. Therefore, as much as any ethical philosophy, anarchism has a need to refute claims about reality that are false.


ALSO you keep bringing it up, if you would just go hang out with the other residents of fantasy-land and leave us alone we'd probably only make fun of you on occasion and you wouldn't even know.


Hope that answers your disingenuous question that your trying to derail the conversation with to avoid the fact that you have no credible sources.

" trying to derail the conversation to avoid that you have no credible sources " 27.Feb.2012 00:36

well

derailment of conversation has been YOUR job since -- hey, how much do you get is it paid by the line, or .... ?

" if reality is not concrete "

in science (assuming that was what NIST performed in relation to the New York skyscrapers) there is a set of "concrete" standards and reality by which measurements are made and benchmarks are assessed.

" since anarchism is an ethical philosophy it cannot have any worthy claims in a world where everyone's subjective reality is considered legitimate Therefore, as much as any ethical philosophy, anarchism has a need to refute claims about reality that are false. "

so -- since you bring this up -- how might anarchism deal with the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which was

I want to hear it from you, the anarchist (even though I don't believe after this ridiculous Pizza Keanu Reeves Man thread that you truly are one) regarding this topic.

no cribbing, providing links to NIST (which have already been refuted) etc. Your own words, how anarchism explains the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 11 September 2001.

if you don't understand Newtonian physics, that's ok. I just want to hear your anarcho-reasoned explanation for the 11 September 2001 events that transpired with respect to that particular building.

So your real question then is, "why do anarchists always 27.Feb.2012 00:44

attack people that spread fiction " ?

No,

that is not and never was my question.

First of all, I do not -- at all -- believe or trust that you are an anarchist. You -- given the amount of time you have ridiculously spent posting on this topic -- are pretty obviously not one, they would've moved on to something far more interesting long ago.

Second, you attempted to twist and misrepresent my earlier remark which was [verbatim quote]:

-----
Instantly attack and ridicule those who would even cause a tiny deviation from official government conclusions/policy regarding events of 11 September 2001?
-----

I don't know who or what you are (moreover no longer give a shit whether or not you might be some sort of "anarchist"), but I was asking you there a direct and straightforward question.

It had nothing to do with [your words]: "why do anarchists always ... "

I have no idea of what anarchists "always" (?) might do or think. But I do know enough about anarchism and anarchists to 1) know that you are not one, 2) know that they don't behave the way you are doing on this thread, and 3) know that they have a lot better things to do than respond in the way that you have, and with the frequency that you have, here today.


Here in simple terms yet again is what I'd requested -


-----

I'm asking YOU the question. See the first post of this thread.

I want to know WHY you think it's so deadly important to promote the government-sponsored conclusions on 9/11.

Why do you embrace them? Provide links to them?

Think they are the _only_ explanation (and that's just concerning what happened with the skyscrapers in NYC)?

Instantly attack and ridicule those who would even cause a tiny deviation from official government conclusions/policy regarding events of 11 September 2001?

What is the reason for your voracious attacks on such persons?

(If you are so hard-core convinced of the 'correctness' / infallibility of NIST etc. then why even bother responding a dozen times on this thread, shouldn't that be enough "proof" for the universe?)

Talk about something else besides what happened in New York to the WTC towers. There are myriad things wrong with or missing from the government's explanations and investigation.

" moving goalposts " / " touchdown " 27.Feb.2012 00:46

anarchists are fans of American football

and cheesebag internet icon .gifs

?

Ohh Geez... I feel sorry for you. 27.Feb.2012 00:50

(A)

Here's a simple of explanation of how anarchism deals with events that occur in reality. Are you ready? "Ask someone that is knowledgeable in the area, and get others who are knowledgeable to corroborate their perspective"

I know it's tough to understand but here is why you're living in a fantasy and we aren't communicating, because you just asked how an ethical/political philosophy explains something that is an issue of engineering and mathematics. See you likely believe that it is ok for any random fool like yourself to try to weigh in on topics that require specified knowledge in an area. Anarchists however tend to defer to people that know what they are talking about, we don't, unlike you truth-clowns, invent things to fit our desires.

And this is why you don't have any friends.

" Ask someone that is knowledgeable in the area " 27.Feb.2012 01:05

are U ready, I know its tough to unnerstan

" and get others who are knowledgeable to corroborate their perspective "

Yeh well there's your first (of many) problem(s). NIST is pretty knowledgable, given their standards testing facilities and expertise/staff for architectural issues relating to Fire Protection in commercial/residential buildings. Problem is, those standards have nothing to do with the physics, engineering and architectural forensics that _caused_ the free fall collapses of 3 skyscrapers (including one that wasn't hit by an aircraft) the same day due to "weakening from fire".

Keep in mind what NIST actually is, btw -
- - - -
NIST is the federal technology agency that works with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards.
- - - -

it's just the agency which sets standards for products and manufacturers. It is not an analytical or forensic agency such as is the FAA in matters of air traffic accidents. between 1901 and 1988 it was known as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Their widely used Handbook 44 provides "specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices". It's just a highly technical, precise measurements laboratory. NOT a forensic one.

Their investigation of the WTC collapses was not really centered around the *engineering* reasons or architectural forensics of the collapse itself; it was only to provide fire codes and building standards for the pre-conceived notion of 'collapse by fire' (which has never happened to a steel frame skyscraper before or since 9/11) for future building construction. Essentially, all skyscrapers built since 9/11 thanks to NIST are now 'ultra fire safe'.

anyway the point being that NIST was not really equipped (or inclined) to forensically analyze the skyscraper collapses, not the least of their problems being the paucity of physical evidence which had virtually all been shipped as scrap to China within 48 hours of the event; all they ended up doing was cherry-pick a few key hired-gun academics -- some of whom had absolutely no expertise in explosives or building demolition (remember that's what the planes did to the towers; oh noes, that isn't what happened, they collapsed from "fire" and the third tower wasn't even hit by a plane...........................) -- and then throw in a few theoretical computer-numerical models and their brew was complete.

" Anarchists tend to defer to people that know what they are talking about " 27.Feb.2012 01:17

oh do they now

well seeing as you, faux-anarchist, have invented things to fit your desires all the way along on this thread it's not too surprising.

that you have deferred to defending the casus belli [look it up - they have these things, y'know called dictionaries] for genocidal military-industrial complex that has wreaked havoc on the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001, I mean.

A wee bit more on "defer to people" 27.Feb.2012 01:23

sooner or later

one day, you are going to have to figure out things for yourself. Unfortunately, since you neglected to attend high school physics and it wasn't covered even when you attempted to get your GED I can't really go into it with much detail (let alone expecting much comprehension on your end) here.

but there is a good Wikipedia page on Isaac Newton, as well as other ones on the science of physics and many related topics.


So you give up then? 27.Feb.2012 03:13

(A)

Since you refuse to refute the NIST with credible sources you don't seem to have an argument.

funny distraction 28.Feb.2012 15:14

lol

as soon as the local portland 911 truth freaks got outted as a bunch of con artists

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2012/01/413648.shtml#396802

they pulled the plug on their meetup and sent someone to indy to stirup the anarchists. they like stirring up anarchists. with just a dash of nazi
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/392889.shtml

SO OBVIOUS
LOL *eats popcorn*

" SO OBVIOUS " - who's the tinfoil hat conspiracist now 28.Feb.2012 17:23

distractingly funny

oh man I had to pick myself off the floor after that one

I posted this thread with no affiliation whatsoever with the "911 truth movement" (you coincidence theorist seem to have a compulsive need to 'label' everything) or its associated organizations. Just a concerned PDX IMC user.

it was an honest, straightforward question based on my observations/having seen a certain amount of cynicism and ridicule directed towards those who question the official story, by some who profess anarchism.

But as it turned out, we got Mr. '(A)' [most definitely _not_ any sort of "anarchist"] and other trolls to derail any questioning of the official U.S. government-sanctioned narrative tout de suite.

" SO OBVIOUS " lol, look who the tinfoil conspiracist is now 29.Feb.2012 09:28

distractingly funny

oh man had to pick myself off the floor after that one.

Just a concerned PDX IMC user -- interested in the anomalies of that day's events and certain anarchists/PDX IMCers who uphold the U.S. gov't. line -- who posted the honest, simple question to the newswire; no affiliation whatsoever with any "911 truth" (you seem to have a pathological-compulsive need to label and categorize) organization or group.

it's not tinfoil if you have evidence 29.Feb.2012 12:42

get a clue

distractingly funny is easily amused and can't follow/read links. this was the one that buried the so called "truth" alliance and their fake catfight with racists/"cointelpro"  link to 3.bp.blogspot.com

petros and tim sitting in a tree....

*finishes popcorn*

" *finishes popcorn* " don't really care about your kook-oid theories 29.Feb.2012 13:04

+

and this thread long ago qualified for Godwin's law (thanks much to tr***s like you)

rex and Antifas are gatekeepers for US Government and elitist Establishment 11.Mar.2013 09:13

Antifas are Fascists

Question: Why do rex and the Antifas always vehemently ridicule 9/11 Truthers, critics of the bogus War on Terrorism, critics of Israel, and critics of the Global Warming hysteria?

Answer: Because rex, low Fidelity, and the Antifas are gatekeepers for the US Government and the elitist Establishment.

Here's some crazy conspiracy theories for you:

Arabs with boxcutters made the Twin Towers collapse.

The (bogus) threat of international Islamic terrorism.

The Israelis are only defending themselves.

CO2 will incinerate the planet.

Just to lighten things up, here's a joke: "Israel is a Democracy." (Audience laughter).

Okay, here's another joke: "The USA is a Democracy." (More audience laughter).

Why the Antifas don't Question Authority 11.Mar.2013 09:22

Antifas are Fascists

Notice how the Antifas always defer to the "wisdom" of the US Government and mainstream media Authorities about 9/11.

The False Flag 9/11 attacks served, and still serve, as the main excuse for the bogus War on Terrorism, which is actually a US/NATO war of aggression for control of resource-rich Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.

The Antifas are controlled opposition, gatekeepers for the US Government's bogus narrative of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism.

Antifas support US Imperialism 11.Mar.2013 09:27

US/NATO/Israel Axis of Evil

ura dolt wrote: "No the lynch-pin is that you are so stuck on isolationist politics that you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground."

There you have it. The Antifas support the bogus War on Terrorism and US Imperialism.

What's up with so-called Anarchists denouncing isolationism? 15.Mar.2013 20:26

?

What's up with so-called Anarchists denouncing isolationism?