Chossudovsky discussed the dangers of nuclear war with Castro in 2010.
Fidel Castro Ruz was acutely aware of the mechanisms of media disinformation and war propaganda
I cannot think of a better way to commemorate the life of Fidel Castro than to share this post from Global Research’s Michel Chossudovsky, who had the incredible opportunity in 2010 to sit down with the Cuban leader in his home in Havana to discuss the dangers of nuclear war, global capitalism, and other subjects.—Craig McKee
By Michel Chossudovsky (Reprinted from Global Research)
Today, November 25, 2016 Fidel Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution has passed. His legacy will live forever.
The Cuban Revolution constitutes a fundamental landmark in the history of humanity, which challenges the legitimacy of global capitalism.
In all major regions of the World, the Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration in the relentless struggle against colonial domination and US imperialism.
Fidel Castro was the embodiment of these struggles against global capitalism, committed to a World of Peace, a World of truth, where people join hands, a World of understanding, a World of tolerance and respect.
Quoted from my 2010 introduction: “Fidel Castro was “a man of tremendous integrity, with an acute mind and sense of humor, committed in the minute detail of his speech to social progress and the advancement of humankind, conscious of the dangers of the US led war and the Worldwide crisis, with exceptional skills of analysis and understanding of his fellow human beings, with a true spirit of internationalism and a tremendous knowledge of history, economics and geopolitics.”
Fidel’s passing occurs at a time of crisis and upheaval of the World capitalist system.
The World is at a critical crossroads. At this juncture of our history, most progressive movements towards socialism have been destroyed and defeated through US led wars, military interventions, destabilization campaigns, coups d’etats.
The socialist project in Cuba prevails despite the US economic blockade, CIA intelligence ops and dirty politics.
Let us be under no illusions. Washington’s intent is not only to destroy and undermine the Cuban Revolution but also to erase the history of socialism.
Fidel Lives.
The battle against war and neoliberalism nonetheless prevails.
For the outright criminalization of America’s imperial wars,
For a World of Social Justice with a true “responsibility to protect” our fellow human beings, Long Live Fidel Castro.
Castro at the United Nations General Assembly in 1960.
To read the full text of the conversations click here
Conversations with Fidel Castro: The Dangers of a Nuclear War first published in November 2010
In October 2010, I had the opportunity of spending several days at Fidel Castro`s home in the suburbs of Havana. Our conversation and exchange which was subsequently published focused on the dangers of nuclear war.
I had read Fidel Castro and Che Guevara during my high school days in Geneva, Switzerland and later at university in Britain and the US. When meeting him in person, I discovered a man of tremendous integrity, with an acute mind and sense of humor, committed in the minute detail of his speech to social progress and the advancement of humankind, conscious of the dangers of the US-led war and the Worldwide crisis, with exceptional skills of analysis and understanding of his fellow human beings, with a true spirit of internationalism and a tremendous knowledge of history, economics and geopolitics.
On a daily basis, Fidel spends several hours reading a large number of detailed international press reports (As he mentioned to me with a smile, “I frequently consult articles from the Global Research website”…).
We focused in large part on the dangers of nuclear war. Fidel Castro has the knack of addressing political details while relating them to key concepts. We also covered numerous complex international issues, focusing on the role of prominent political personalities, heads of State, authors and intellectuals. On the first day, when I met Fidel at his home, he was reading Bob Woodward’s best-seller The Obama Wars which had just been released. (See picture below).
In this broad exchange of ideas, Fidel was invariably assertive in his views but at the same time respectful of those whom he condemned or criticized, particularly when discussing US presidential politics.
Fidel is acutely aware of the mechanisms of media disinformation and war propaganda and how they are used to undermine civil rights and social progress, not to mention the smear campaign directed against the Cuban revolution.
A central concept put forth by Fidel Castro in our discussions was the ‘Battle of Ideas”. The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching “Battle of Ideas” can change the course of World history.
In addressing and understanding this Worldwide crisis, commitment to the Truth and analysis of the lies and fabrications which sustain the corporate and financial elites is of utmost importance.
The overriding powers of the Truth can, under appropriate conditions, be used as a revolutionary instrument, as a catalyst to unseat the war criminals in high office, whose role and position is sustained by propaganda and media disinformation.
In relation to 9/11, Fidel had expressed his solidarity, on behalf of the Cuban people, with the victims of the tragic events of September 11 2001, while underscoring the lies and fabrications behind the official 9/11 narrative and how 9/11 has been used as a pretext to wage war.
Our focus was on nuclear war, which since our meeting last October [2010] has motivated me to write a book on the Dangers of Nuclear War. (Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a World War III Scenario. Global Research, Montreal, 2011)
The corporate media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Against this backdrop, Fidel’s message to the World must be heard; people across the land, nationally and internationally, should understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully at all levels of society to reverse the tide of war.
The “Battle of Ideas” is part of a revolutionary process. Against a barrage of media disinformation, Fidel Castro’s resolve is to spread the word far and wide, to inform world public opinion, to “make the impossible possible”, to thwart a military adventure which in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.
When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, a “responsibility to protect” condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.
Fidel Castro Ruz, October 15, 2010.
Fidel’s “Battle of Ideas” must be translated into a worldwide movement. People must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda.
This war can be prevented if people pressure their governments and elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens regarding the implications of a thermonuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.
What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.
In his October 15, 2010 speech, Fidel Castro warned the World on the dangers of nuclear war:
“There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people. In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”
The “Battle of Ideas” consists in confronting the war criminals in high office, in breaking the US-led consensus in favor of a global war, in changing the mindset of hundreds of millions of people, in abolishing nuclear weapons. In essence, the “Battle of Ideas” consists in restoring the truth and establishing the foundations of World peace.
“The Battle of Ideas” must be developed as a mass movement, nationally and internationally, waged by people across the land.
Fidel Castro Ruz has indelibly marked the history of both the Twentieth and Twenty-first centuries.
Below is the transcript and video of Fidel’s historic October 15, 2010 speech focusing on the dangers of a nuclear war, recorded by Global Research and Cuba Debate in his home in Havana in October 2010.
The American and European media in October 2010 decided in chorus not to acknowledge or even comment on Fidel Castro’s October 15, 2010 speech on the Dangers of Nuclear War. The evolving media consensus is that neither nuclear war nor nuclear energy constitute a threat to “the surrounding civilian population”.
* * *
Castro’s October 15, 2010 message on the dangers of nuclear war
The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.
Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.
Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.
The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.
Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.
There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.
In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!
Fidel Castro Ruz, October 15, 2010
The following pictures were taken after the filming of Fidel’s speech against Nuclear war, October 15, 2010 . Below is a Toast to World Peace.
Left to Right. Fidel Castro, Film Crew, Michel Chossudovsky, Randy Alonso Falcon.
From Right to Left: Fidel Castro Ruz, Dalia Soto del Valle, Michel Chossudovsky. A Toast for World Peace.
From Right to Left: Fidel Castro Ruz, Dalia Soto del Valle, Alexis Castro Soto del Valle, Randy Alonso Falcon and Michel Chossudovsky (Left).
Right to Left: Fidel Castro Ruz, Randy Alonso Falcon, Michel Chossudovsky, October 15, 2010. Copyright Global Research 2010.
Oh, my…Castro was himself an expert at disinformation and reported to the same elusive Masters as Obama & Trump. With all respect due to Chossudovsky as one of the very few scholars who have affirmed 9/11 for what it is, one essential missing element in his talk with Castro is how he decided to censor 9/11.
Love,
Would you please expand on that comment a little bit? I am not sure I understand what is implied here. Thank you.
I second David Hazan’s request. Can you please shed a light on who those “elusive Masters” are, and how you determined that Obama, Trump and Castro were all reporting to them? Who else is reporting to them? Perhaps more interestingly – who is not reporting to them, and how would you know that?
Also, with Cuba not being in the focus of my general interests, can you please expand on your assertion that Castro decided to censor 9/11? What aspects did he censor, and how do you know that he did?
Thanks for the inquiries. Fidel had means to gather information on seminal events like 9/11 that ordinary people do not have. He necessarily understood much better than any of us 9/11’s essence as a false flag. Had he explained the Twin Towers’ terrorist controlled demolition a few hours—or a few days, or even a few weeks—after it took place, he may have made 9/11 fall flat and deserved much more praise than is bestowed upon him in the article. Yet he did not even take the elementary step of discreetly notifying Cuban architects and engineers that they would face no retaliation if they signed AE911Truth’s petition (http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html).
The reverse truth is that 9/11’s Master conspirators realized, at the time they decided to televise live the Twin Towers’ terrorist controlled demolition to a worldwide audience, that Fidel could effortlessly nullify their work. Therefore, they sought assurances, at the inception of the 9/11 project, that Fidel would educate neither his captive Cuban audience nor his foreign admirers about 9/11, no matter how obvious the controlled demolition and how transparent its cover-up. Fidel faithfully delivered.
It bears remembering that the most frightening achievement of the 9/11 conspirators is neither the false flag—even though the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition is arguably the most brazen act of terrorism in history—nor its cover-up with Osama bin Laden’s aerial ballet and subsequent fraudulent investigations, but the remarkably effective censorship thereof by just about all anti-neoconservative mouthpieces who would apparently gain much from exposing it. 9/11 is much less a past neocon—or Zionist or whatever—job than an ongoing liberal, union, socialist, green, Muslim, and anti-war job. 9/11’s success is largely due to the permanent, worldwide, cross-disciplinary, tight and self-healing censorship that ostensibly anti-neocon opinion-makers have woven around humanity.
At the risk of reading the mind of our former resident 9/11 fanatic A. Wright, (s)he would have—correctly per her/his distorted worldview—observed that Fidel’s failure to promote 9/11 Truth was another indication that it had no merit.
Kindly find the context of the above at http://www.global-Platonic-theater.com, with the caveat that I wrote it.
Love,
Daniel,
you thank for the inquiries – plural, that should therefore include mine – and go on not responding to them. Not to mine, at least.
I asked questions:
1. Can you please shed a light on who those “elusive Masters” are?
2. and how you determined that Obama, Trump and Castro were all reporting to them?
3. Who else is reporting to them?
4. Perhaps more interestingly – who is not reporting to them,
5. and how would you know that?
6. Also, with Cuba not being in the focus of my general interests, can you please expand on your assertion that Castro decided to censor 9/11?
7. What aspects did he censor,
8. and how do you know that he did?
See, eight (8) questions, and you responded just to one (#6) – you expanded your story.
But you did not name the elusive masters.
You did not tell us who is NOT reporting to them – David picked up on that, too.
And you did not explain how you know all the things you claim in your expanded story.
So here is my comment: Cool story, bro’. You made it all up, didn’t you? That would be my question #9.
Most of your questions are irrelevant until #6 is fully treated. There are roughly three ways for Fidel to apparently “not understand” 9/11: ignorance, mental limitation, and hypocrisy. The hypothesis that Fidel was not exposed to the concept of the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition is difficult to sustain. He had sources of information independent from the noise machine known as the western media. His aides were capable of filtering objective data from the occasional western hit pieces against 9/11 dissidence. Cuba has engineers who understand how buildings can fail and who can readily identify the mechanism of the Twin Towers’ destruction.
The hypothesis that Fidel would be too mentally challenged to accept as a fact the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition after being explained it is also hard to sustain, since even people with an average intelligence can do so. So is the idea that he would not understand that this could become an argument against imperialism/capitalism/militarism that even his sworn gusano enemies in Florida could not intelligently refute.
The remaining hypothesis is that Fidel understands 9/11’s essence well and made the strategic decision to conceal it from the world. Cuban schoolchildren and western admirers of his tropical socialism have “learnt” just about all the evil the U.S. government is capable of, except its promotion of terrorism against U.S. people.
Fidel’s Cuba was AE911Truth’s natural birthplace. Some Cuban engineers have presumably signed AE911Truth’s petition, but they all are part of the diaspora. This gives credibility to the conspiracy theory that Cuban A&Es somehow would fear more retaliation if they signed it than their western colleagues.
Ironically, even the official myth of Building 7’s destruction allowed Fidel to score an ideological point against his above-mentioned enemies, without affirming a 9/11 conspiracy: “a pompous imperialist skyscraper can be completely disintegrated in just 7 seconds after just 7 hours of puny office fires.” He was smart enough to author a toned-down version of the elementary http://www.911BabyStep.com in 2008, expunging the doublespeak allusion to a grand conspiracy and coating it with scorn for his nemesis. But even that may have been too hot a potato for Fidel.
Love,
“Most of your questions are irrelevant until #6 is fully treated.”
#6 is vapid blabbering until #8 has been answered: “and how do you know [that he did]?”
Essentially, you expand your fantasy without recourse to any established fact, no source, just unconstraint imagination what “Fidel” (it is customary to refer to people not among your personal acquaintences by last name; I wonder what aire you hope to devise by using the homily first name) might be thinking in his head, and why. What all this is informing us about is the only the machinations within your own head, Dan; neither Castro’s nor any other brain is required to think like you imagine they would.
“The hypothesis that Fidel was not exposed to the concept of the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition is difficult to sustain.”
You are insinuating a positive claim here: That Castro was exposed to the concept of the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition”. Since you make that claim, you would have to present evidence. What you do present is speculation, mere examples of how you, Dan, think.
“He had sources of information independent from the noise machine known as the western media.”
This is a bare assertion. How do you know this? And how do you know Castro consulted these sources? What would have prompted him to do so?
“His aides were capable of filtering objective data from the occasional western hit pieces against 9/11 dissidence.”
Pretty vague – and trivial. How is that different from everybody in the world? The question is a) DID his aides actually filter that particular topic (why should they give a damn?) – and also b) was this relayed to Castro. You must claim both are true – but that would be a bare claim.
“Cuba has engineers who understand how buildings can fail and who can readily identify the mechanism of the Twin Towers’ destruction.”
I assume also that this is true – and am afraid there is a plausible possibility that you seem to overlook: That the able Cuban engineers come to conclusions different from yours.
“The hypothesis that Fidel would be too mentally challenged to accept as a fact the Twin Towers’ controlled demolition after being explained it is also hard to sustain, …”
Again you assume that Castro was “being explained it”. This is speculation.
“…since even people with an average intelligence can do so.”
People of average intelligence have been explained several mutually exluding alternative versions of the 9/11 events, and accepted them as fact. This sort of argument means nothing, it lacks intellectual rigor.
“So is the idea that he would not understand that this could become an argument against…”
Irrelevant speculation, as this depends on the unproven, speculative antecedent that he was “explained it” (and understood it the way you, Noel, personally think you understand it; I need to point out here that there are certain aspects of the 9/11 events where your understanding contradicts e.g. Craig McKee’s, and others where both your understandings contradict, e.g., James Fetzer’s – how can you reconcile these contradictions, except by concluding that, possibly, you are ALL mistaken?).
“The remaining hypothesis is that Fidel understands 9/11’s essence well and made the strategic decision to conceal it from the world.”
Again, you overlook another option: That Fidel understands 9/11 well – and it’s different from you personal understanding.
The following is pure, silly Sophism:
“Fidel’s Cuba was AE911Truth’s natural birthplace. Some Cuban engineers have presumably signed AE911Truth’s petition, but they all are part of the diaspora. This gives credibility to the conspiracy theory that Cuban A&Es somehow would fear more retaliation if they signed it than their western colleagues.”
Let’s parse this:
“Fidel’s Cuba was AE911Truth’s natural birthplace.”
AE911Truth was not, in fact, born in Cuba. It is, in fact, not it’s birthplace, neither natural nor otherwise. This is meaningless babble.
“Some Cuban engineers have presumably signed AE911Truth’s petition”
Presumably is just another word for “I, Dan Noel, hope this is so, but I have no evidence”.
Fact is, no engineer in Cuba has ever signed the AE911Truth petition. Nobody, not a single one. The list of signers is out there, it contains each signer’s country of residence. Look at it – no Cuba (or it’s ISO code “CU”) present. It’s conceivable that the odd exiled Cuban engineer may have signed (I count about 7 engineers in Florida with Latin names), but “they all are part of the diaspora” and thus do not tend to do Castro’s business. So this sentence means – again – nothing. Empty, sophistic rhetoric.
“This gives credibility to the conspiracy theory that Cuban A&Es somehow would fear more retaliation if they signed it than their western colleagues.”
This does not follow from the things you wrote before that – you made stuff out of thin air, and that gives credibility to anything? Hardly.
You ascribe a statement to Castro, and put it into quote marks, thus labeling it a verbatim quote:
“a pompous imperialist skyscraper can be completely disintegrated in just 7 seconds after just 7 hours of puny office fires.”
Alas, a Google search for that phrase comes up empty.
Then you claim that “He was smart enough to author a toned-down version of the elementary http://www.911BabyStep.com in 2008″ – but the sole reference you provide – a link to your own homepage, doesn’t have any of the following words: “Fidel”, “Castro”, “2008”, “Cuba”. I think you again made something up from whole cloth and stuck it on Castro’s deceased head.
Dan, can I ask this outright: Did you just invent this quote, and this unquoted, unreferenced 2008 remark, and hoped I would gullibly swallow it?
Dan Noel, you are caught time and again making stuff up out of nothing.
You need to start providing evidence for your bare assertions, and wrap your head around the fact that not every intelligent person thinks and ticks like you do – quite the contrary: Almost no intelligent person does think and tick like you do. So reference to your own sophism doesn’t constitute an argument anyone needs to take serious.
As for the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, Mr Castro wrote that the way the passenger jets crashed into the twin towers on September 11 and the data from the plane’s black boxes “do not correspond with the criteria of mathematicians, seismologists, and information and demolition specialists”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/12/cuba.september11
Thanks for the find! This somewhat contradicts Dan’s assertion that Castro censored the 9/11 false flag operation (this contradiction is already inherent in Dan’s own Tale). It does not, however, support Dan’s assertion that Castro made remarks about the fall of WTC7.
What??? You mean Daniel’s comment was one google search away from falling apart??? ;-}]
Thanks for digging that out, captivescientist…
So, why didn’t Fidel push the issue? Perhaps he feared leaving his beloved country to the consequences of Infinite Justice.
“When I think about the real or imagined parties involved in that bizarre holy war that is about to begin, I find it impossible to say on which side fanaticism is stronger.”
http://monthlyreview.org/castro/terrorism-and-the-war-crisis
Why didn’t he push the issue? Well maybe the good Cuban engineers intervened with Castro and explained to him that the issue really is not an issue after all. 😀
As far as I can tell he never retracted his statements.
Captivescientist and emaraite… I am a little confused…
I m curious to know what meaning you’re attributing to this statement that you feel it was something that needed to be retracted… Or, am I misreading or misunderstanding your comments about the Castro quote? Or is it the entire speech we are talking about? What part needed a retraction?
(I’m not trying to be coy… I really did not understand what ‘issue’ he did not push)
No problem David. The issue is the 9/11 false flag!
“Fidel Castro says U.S. fooled world over 9/11” Reuters
“Castro: U.S. misled public about 9/11 attacks” USA Today
“Castro says US lied about 9/11 attacks” UK Guardian
“Fidel Castro’s 9/11 conspiracy theory” AU Telegraph
His reasoning was based, in part, on expert opinion of the physical evidence at the Pentagon and WTC. Unfortunately we don’t have a full transcript, just a few quotes and a word count (4256!).
He apparently never retracted these statements, which is a problem for emaraite’s idea that he didn’t push the issue of 9/11 further because “good Cuban engineers intervened with Castro and explained to him that the issue really is not an issue after all”.
Thanks for that, captivescientist. I appreciate it.
At a time when practically entire world was silent about the lies the US was spewing onto the people to justify a decades long war on what was left of all the sovereign states, Castro was one of the most outspoken leaders among those who dared to comment on the emperor’s wardrobe… But, he certainly was no dummy… His priorities lied with his own, his people’s and the Cuban State’s survival. One could easily argue that, had he received support from other world leaders besides Ahmadinejad, Chavez and maybe the Taliban, he might have “pushed” further and harder. We all saw what happened to Chavez after he confronted the US and US interests, we all know how Ahmadinejad was marginalized and portrayed as a kook and a conspiracy theorist, and we all know what happened to the Taliban!!! While Castro is still standing tall even after his death, and the Cubans are still a sovereign state having managed to escape the claws of the CIA, the IMF and the social engineering of the mass corporate media and the internet.
I have to say I find the “good cuban engineers” argument a little silly. I am no expert on Cuba, but I guarantee you that there are no expert Cuban engineers who would be specialized in controlled demolition of high-rises or any other hi-tech military or industrial grade destruction techniques.. Having been there a couple of times, I can assure you that the only “demolishing” in Cuba is done by gravity, hurricanes and old age, and it is certainly not “controlled”. So, I don’t know where this notion of engineers talking-to Castro is coming from. If anything, if Castro received true expert opinion, it’d come from the Russians.
All I know is that he had the cojones to speak up when no one else would… And, as a statesman and a political leader, he probably kept a lot of what he knew (if he knew that is) or thought
to himself about the specifics of 9/11, and concentrated on the motives and the aftermath.
Thanks again for the clarification.
David Hazan wrote:
“Captivescientist and emaraite… I am a little confused…”
Some of that confusion should have been relaxed by taking note of the grinning smiley at the end of my recent post, indicating I was posting with tongue in cheek.
DH: “I m curious to know what meaning you’re attributing to this statement that you feel it was something that needed to be retracted… Or, am I misreading or misunderstanding your comments about the Castro quote?”
In my opinion, Castro’s statement was pure propaganda, and as such is free from considerations of whether or not to retract based on veracity. Note that I am not saying the entire statement (the 4000+ words) is wrong, just that it is propaganda, and as such playing loose with the entire reality of its subject topics. And also, issuing propaganda, from Castro’s position, is not necessarily a wrong or bad thing and as such needs no retraction.
captivescientist wrote:
“His reasoning was based, in part, on expert opinion of the physical evidence at the Pentagon and WTC.”
I dare you to provide evidence it was, in fact, based on “expert opinion”. Perhaps you want to define what an “expert” is, in your dictionary (enumerate the necessary conditions), and then show your evidence that these conditions hold true for the person(s) from whom Castro took his opinion. Note carefully that the part of Castro’s statement that the Guardian reproduced (I haven’t checked out the other sources yet) doesn’t even imply that Castro consulted anybody when forming his opinion. Quote: “…do not correspond with the criteria of mathematicians, seismologists, and information and demolition specialists”. With these, he ascribes an opinion to generic, not specific, specialists. These could be specialists that Castro imagines in his head.
cs: “He apparently never retracted these statements, which is a problem for emaraite’s idea that he didn’t push the issue of 9/11 further because “good Cuban engineers intervened with Castro and explained to him that the issue really is not an issue after all”.”
You, too, ought have noticed the grinning smiley at the end of my post. My speculation of what the good enginners of Cuba might have told Castro was a parody on Dan Noel’s speculation of the same. My idea doesn’t have a problem, as I don’t mean it awfully seriously. My point was: We can all make up stuff on the go – and to defend that “idea” in mock, I could have made up more stuff on the go. You need to grasp at some point that people like Daniel Noel are making up stuff on the go, taking vague input from somewhere and spinning it into speculative tales.
David Hazan: “At a time when practically entire world was silent about the lies the US was spewing onto the people”
Castro made those remarks in 2007, when the Abu Ghurabib scandal (revamped in 2006) was still present in the memory of the world. and criticism of the false and illegal foundations of the Guantanamo concentration camp were a hot issue worldwide. Many of the US lies leading to the illegal wars had been thoroughly exposed already, and it was common knowledge at least in Europe that they were lies. In 2005, Loose Change had gone viral and exploded into the world of conspiracy theories. For all we know, Castro may have been given internet access in early 2007 and he watched LC, then exclaimed what specialists’ opinion was – because Dylan Avery aid so.
DH: “We all saw what happened to Chavez after he confronted the US and US interests…”
What happened to him? He dies in office, not a bad achievement, if US power is so badly after you?!
DH: “Ahmadinejad was marginalized and portrayed as a kook and a conspiracy theorist”
Well he WAS a conspiracy theorist (I count holocaust denial as one that is thoroughly bunk), but in what way was he marginalized in any way that significantly differs from and exceeds the marginalization that the entire Iranian regime has suffered since 1979? He was re-elected as President in 2009, two years after Castro’s remarks, so I am at a loss to understand what relevance you assign Ahmadinejad’s experiences here.
DH: “… we all know what happened to the Taliban!!!”
Yes, they were ousted by hot war in 2001, which didn’t stop Castro from making these remarks in 2007, a time when they had already begun to resurge, showing that the US military can be successfully resisted. If anything, the Taliban experience ought to be reason for encouragement.
DH: “While Castro is still standing tall even after his death, and the Cubans are still a sovereign state having managed to escape the claws of the CIA, the IMF and the social engineering of the mass corporate media and the internet.”
Chavez’ vice president Maduro is still standing, Ahmadinejad has been replaced in a democratic process as have been GW Bush and now Obama, and the Khamenei is still standing strong. The Taliban are still a force to be reckonned with, at least as much as they were in 2007. All of them, as Cuba, are confronted by US services and propaganda (and the Taliban militarily), so I see no development after 2007 that should have concerned Castro enough to hold back from pushing the 9/11 issue.
So the question remains unasnwered: Why didn’t Castro push the issue after that one time in 2007? Two suggestions are on the table:
1. Yours – that Castro went tactically chicken after haveing stood up against the USA for decades, citing examples of other opposing world leaders who turn out not to have yielded to US power any further after 2007.
2. Mine – made tongue in cheek, but not entirely without plausibility: Actual experts talked Castro out of it, for he was only parroting non-experts like Dylan Avery. According to the Guardian article, Castro had said that a “projectile” (such as a missile) hit the Pentagon – a claim that Loose Change made in 2005. but retracted later in 2007 in the “Final Cut”. (This could give rise to a third suggestion; That Castro dropped the issue after he found out that even Loose Change wasn’t so sure anymore and has been debunked in so many details)
“I have to say I find the “good cuban engineers” argument a little silly.”
Both suggestions are purely speculative, but I am at least aware that mine is.
“I am no expert on Cuba, but I guarantee you that there are no expert Cuban engineers who would be specialized in controlled demolition of high-rises or any other hi-tech military or industrial grade destruction techniques.. Having been there a couple of times, I can assure you that the only “demolishing” in Cuba is done by gravity, hurricanes and old age, and it is certainly not “controlled”.”
Having been to Cuba once myself, I agree with this completely.
“So, I don’t know where this notion of engineers talking-to Castro is coming from.”
It’s coming from Daniel Noel, who first speculated about what Cuban engineers think, and what secret communications there were between them and Castro. He speculated that Castro would speak to them and they’d go silent in response. I offered the opposite speculation.
“If anything, if Castro received true expert opinion, it’d come from the Russians.”
Unlikely, as the Russians themselves do not trade in hypotheses of controlled demolition on 9/11.
In closing, I want to repeat what I actually think: Castro’s remarks were not meant as stating scientific results, they were instead part of some deliberate propaganda and as such not informed by engineers and scientists, but by vibes in the social fabric of those he addressed, and by political expediency.
Oh boy… We seem to need to untangle this, emaraite. I see now that replying to three different parties, you, captivescientist and DNoel in one single post was a mistake on my part, which seems to have caused you to get on the defensive, and a little bit on the offensive. My apologies.
First and foremost, although it was not clear to me what the “it” was that Castro was meant to push and he didn’t, it was clear as day that your comment was made toungue in cheek. So my remarks about the engineers and such were not directed to you.
Secondly… the Castro speech I was referring to was the one he made on September 22nd of 2001, which was 11 days after the “attacks”, where he clearly outlined what the US agenda was, and how dangerous it was for the entire world. His words were clearer and more daring than any other statesman at the time.
In regards to Taliban and Ahmadinejad and Chavez… You and I seem to have a different parsing of the western propaganda versus reality. Taliban’s objection to the 9/11 narrative was that the US had no proof that Bin Laden was involved in it and asked the US to provide evidence. Instead, they were shock-and-awed a few months later. As for Chavez and Venezuela, they were both marginalized by the propaganda machine, and Venezuela has been subjected to extreme sanctions and destabilization operations since then, and one does not need to go any further than the current news about the country to see the results.
And, Ahmadinejad… putting aside that most of his speeches and statements were purposefully mistranslated for propaganda purposes, a review of all of his speeches, especially those made at the UN, would show to have more truth in them than not, and your pointing out his holocaust stance and labeling him as a “denier” (favorite term of official narrative propagandists) shows me that this one subject is where you seem to draw the line about doubting the “official narrative” on any historical event. This one is a very sensitive and contentious issue, and I would like to avoid it if and when I can.
Regardless, these nations along with the now defunct Qaddafi regime and North Korea to a certain extent, were the only nations in the world that have not submitted to the claws of the world government in the shape of IMF, World Bank, economic hitmen, or assasination teams. Pointing out that their regimes are still live and well is not based on a realistic perspective.
As for why Castro did not “push” the 9/11 issue… let me turn the table around on you and ask you a “what would Jesus do” type of question then: If you were in his shoes, what do you think or feel you would have done? Or, if you are not keen to wear his shoes, what should he have done in your opinion?
But, I will have to say that drawing a connection between the 2007 comments of a man who has shown his intellectual and philosophical and ideological capacity over decades in countless speeches and books and articles, to having watched Loose Change is a bit of a stretch, if not entirely unfair. His dilemma was the same as most of ours: while a 9 year old can see the collapses were fake, none of us has managed to “prove” anything. And I hope you appreciate that making claims in a speech for a man like Castro is certainly not the same as what we do here or elsewhere on the internet, which is shooting our mouths off without knowing all of the details.
For what it’s worth, we seem to agree on your final conclusion that his speech(es) were mostly made for his own people’s ears for domestic expediency and to circle the wagons and strengthen the ideological walls in defense against the shitstorm that the US and the imperialist forces were about to unleash on the world. (Once again, talking about 2001… not 2007)
Ok, David,
with the perspective changed from 2007 to 2001, we are indeed in greater agreement. I’ll now respond to the things where I still differ – you may assume that I more or less agree to everything I do not respond to.
“Ahmadinejad… putting aside that most of his speeches and statements were purposefully mistranslated for propaganda purposes…”
The Persian language is no mystery, there are plenty of people who understand it, and I have access to native speakers. They agree that Ahmadinejad does indeed lean toward holocaust denialism. Don’t quote that as authoritative, I am speaking of friends where I can’t very well assess how closely they have actually studied the man – I guess not much beyond watching the occasional best-of-speaches, which poses the risk of having context misconstrued.
“a review of all of his speeches, especially those made at the UN, would show to have more truth in them than not”
I agree with that! I consider him to have been a very smart, wiley speaker!
“and your pointing out his holocaust stance and labeling him as a “denier” (favorite term of official narrative propagandists) shows me that this one subject is where you seem to draw the line about doubting the “official narrative” on any historical event.”
That’s overstating your case. The contention that you raised was whether he is a “conspiracy theorist”, and I pointed out by way of example that he supports at least one false conspiracy theory, one that revises the historical account of the holocaust (where “denier” is a favorite term of official narrative propagandists – whom in the case of the holocaust I call historians, “revisionist” is a favorite term of apologetic conspiracy theorists and anti-semites).
I do not commit the fallacy of generalization from one CT to all.
“This one is a very sensitive and contentious issue, and I would like to avoid it if and when I can.”
No problem.
“Pointing out that their regimes are still live and well is not based on a realistic perspective.”
I meant to point out only that they are alive and (compared to 2007) not considerably worse off. I didn’t mean to imply that they were well by any decent standard.
“If you were in his shoes, what do you think or feel you would have done? Or, if you are not keen to wear his shoes, what should he have done in your opinion?”
I don’t give much of a damn, I am not in the habit of counseling heads of state on individual issues. I was responding to Daniel, who told a tall tale, almost pretending he was best buddy with “Fidel”, trying to convince us he knows exactly how “Fidel” ticks, thinks and reasons.
“I will have to say that drawing a connection between the 2007 comments of a man who has shown his intellectual and philosophical and ideological capacity over decades in countless speeches and books and articles, to having watched Loose Change is a bit of a stretch, if not entirely unfair.”
Why? He declared in that 2007 speech that the hole was too small for a plane, that it must have been a projectile. I think that’s plain wrong, but it is the sort of thing you learn from Loose Change. No engineer or scientist would have told him that, as it’s false, so who did? I do not necessarily mean that Castro literally watched Loose Change in the solitude and leisure of his rocking chair. But his opinion must have been informed by sources like Dylan Avery. Even the greatest intellects (and I am not sure I consider Catro to have possessed one) sometimes are out of their league and form dumb opinions. A good explanation for why he “didn’t push” the issue could have been that he found out he was mistaken, and he decided to let grass grow over it, not?
“His dilemma was the same as most of ours: while a 9 year old can see the collapses were fake, none of us has managed to “prove” anything.”
This could indicate that the 9 year old’s intuition simply went wrong. A 415 m skyscraper behaves differently than the castles of sand and wood blocks that a 9 year old is familiar with. I’d excuse the kid if he was mistaken.
“And I hope you appreciate that making claims in a speech for a man like Castro is certainly not the same as what we do here or elsewhere on the internet, which is shooting our mouths off without knowing all of the details.”
No, I do not appreciate this. You seem now to assume, with Daniel Noel, that Castro knew “all of the details” – which I’d vehemently deny. I am, on the contrary, quite convinced that a man like Castro rather often shoots his mouth off – all politicians must and do frequently, as they are expected to have opinions on so many things they cannot be experts on.
Addendum: I just wrote “He declared in that 2007 speech that the hole was too small for a plane” – that would be the hole in the Pentagon.
I feel, at the very least, we now understand each other to a certain extent. So, I will stop belaboring certain points raised in our respective comments. But, since we are on a 9/11-centric website, I can’t resist asking:
From your comments about 9/11, the nine year old, the sandcastle and all that, am I to understand you have comfortably and conclusively ruled out the projectile option for pentagon, or the fact that the towers came down due to something other than the impact of two airliners?
“am I to understand you have comfortably and conclusively ruled out the projectile option for pentagon”
Definitely, yes.
“or the fact that the towers came down due to something other than the impact of two airliners?”
…and fires. There is no alternative hypothesis on the table, as far as I can see. Some vague suggestion of demolition, but no three people seem to agree on anything beyond that. Plenty of half-baked ideas floating around, but they diverge.
I am sure you agree with me that we can ignore without further ado James Fetzer’s nuclear bombs as well as Judy Wood’s directed energy weapons. I hope you agree with me that no conventional explosive CD was performed, as evidenced by the simple fact that the tell-tale loud and sharp sounds of numerous high explosives charges weren’t recorded at the time the collapses initiated. I hope you understand that high explosives of the sort used in conventional CDs can’t be made “silent” as the shockwave that cuts the steel is identical to the loud sound you hear – silent HE means non-steel-cutting HE. Then that would leave you with the problem to find a hypothesis involving non-conventional means of demolition that are consistent with plenty of constraints (of logistic, forensics, …). I haven’t seen one, anywhere, ever. It seems that all these ideas that, supposedly, thousands of engineers, architects and scientists have thrown into the ring, do not converge to a viable hypothesis that would survive even the most cursory testing.
In case this provokes your interest/opposition, perhaps we should find some other place to debate that, not the article on Castro. Suggestions?
My comments on this page were the first time I publicly discussed Castro, and it’s certainly somewhat of a discovery process for me. But the points you raise in regards to WTC and pentagon (what about WTC 7 by the way), which have been argued here and elsewhere ad nauseam, are not. Respectfully, I do not believe we would get anywhere on this page or any other, especially if we were to start from scratch from the argument that claims (or accepts) that plane impacts and the resulting fire having caused the collapses. And the fact that Fetzer or Wood may be wrong has no bearing on the huge body of scientific and forensic research that has gone into the matter.
Thanks for your reply, emaraite.
“…the points you raise in regards to WTC and pentagon […], which have been argued here and elsewhere ad nauseam…”
The main point I raise is that there exists no theory alternative to the incumbent “plane crashes and fires” ones that still are status quo in the relevant academic and professional journals etc. (as you certainly know well), and I believe that lack of alternative theory has not been discussed ad nauseam, I believe it has been ominously overlooked. And no, not getting a “new investigation” is no excuse for stating a theory, if it is true, as you claim, that there already a “huge body of scientific and forensic research”. As I said, that huge body of work apparently fails to converge, so there is something not quite right with it.
“(what about WTC 7 by the way)”
(yes, WTC7 the same)
“…if we were to start from scratch from the argument that claims (or accepts) that plane impacts and the resulting fire having caused the collapses.”
It’s the best theory that actually exists, as it explains quite a lot. It certainly isn’t perfect in terms of detail or support from observation, but since there exists no rival theory (you will not be able to refer me to one) that explains the total of observed reality better, I cannot but accept the incumbent – for the time being of course, as any scientific theory that has not been replaced by a better one.
(I wasn’t going to use Fetzer and Wood as strawmen, or to blame them on you, just making sure you are as clear as I am that they spread nonsense. Discussion for me is over when someone gives even residual credulity to either of these idiocies.)
The two of us seem to disagree more on the fundamental philosophical issues than the facts themselves, emaraite.
(Sorry to continue this discussion on this page as opposed to moving it elsewhere. I feel our previous exchanges provide invaluable context to your comments and mine.)
In order for you to rule out the official conspiracy theory, which itself is just as far from being proven via scientific method and evidentiary proof as any theory out there (including even those of Professor Fetzer’s and Judy Wood’s), you seem to require a working hypothesis that sufficiently explains the physical aspects of the destruction, a certain level of “convergence” or a consensus about this hypothesis, as well as the presentation of scientific and forensic evidence and perhaps experiments to back up the hypothesis. I would categorically denounce all of these notions as unreasonable and/or unrealistic. Reasons and reasoning below:
In spite of my desire to know what happened and how they pulled it off, I do not feel this piece of “knowledge” is absolutely essential to building a case against the perpetrators if this very improbable reinvestigation were to be held. I have, along with everyone, had the chance of tasting the pudding they have served us, observing the aftermath, who covered it up, and who stayed quiet, who asked questions and who did not, for the past fifteen years. The players are clear, the mission is clear, the orchestration is clear, the beneficiaries are crystal clear! And the propaganda machine herding the sheeple, the methods they employ and the tricks they play have been exposed to a great extent. There is more than enough evidence of foul play at so many levels that one could even fully accept the nineteen hijacker fairy tale and still have enough evidence to prosecute many high level officials… In a fair and lawful world, that is!
You also speak of a desire to see a convergence between the ideas and their propagators, which is a wish that I, probably along with many out there, share. Unfortunately, fifteen years after the fact, this has become an impossibility… The people or the organizations that are meant to converge have been scientifically, methodically and systematically infiltrated, coopted, coerced, divided and destabilized by the masterful and resourceful intelligence and propaganda arms of the “perpetrator entity”. Wells have been poisoned, gates have been assigned gatekeepers, blogs have trolls and handlers, and the battlefield is filled with turncoats, agents, agent provocateurs, controlled opposition, etc. And sadly, “they” were successful. Besides marginalizing people as conspiracy kooks as Craig has masterfully outlined in one of his recent articles, they have also managed to make genuine, well meaning truthers go at each other viciously because they did not agree on certain things. People started calling each other names, doubting everyone, fighting with everyone, calling each other out as shills, agents and trolls. Even if we were to assume they were right half of the time, the other half caused great, and sometimes irreparable fracturing in the fabric of the so-called “truth movement”.
Lastly… This ‘requirement” that any opposition to the official narrative needs to come fully loaded with scientific and forensic peer reviewed research, a hypothesis, evidentiary support, or any other type of “proof” is one of the biggest and most damaging red herrings dangled in front of the truth seekers, who, along with their critics, seem to swallow it hook line and sinker.
The true essence of the issue is not whether anyone has a better explanation than the official bullcrap, but the fact that the US government and its branches have categorically failed to investigate, analyze and prosecute this crime via real scientific methodology and time tested forensic approach, and come to conclusions that pass even the most rudimentary smell tests… It is really that simple! the rest is nothing but a distraction and a way to keep people busy for decades chasing legitimate as well as implanted theories, and do all this while having no access to evidence, no ability to subpoena witnesses or documents, and while being required to provide proof for their hypothesis… A quick visit to any JFK assasination related website can clearly demonstrate, more than four decades later, the staying power and the success rate of this distraction tactic, where people are still arguing about ballistics, evidence and proof.
I have said this on this blog before, and I apologize for the repetition:
One really does not need to know how exactly a magician cut his assistant in half to know that this is a trick, and the assistant is live actually live and well. Yes, we would all want to know how it was done, but even in the absence of this “knowledge”, it is by no means reasonable to believe the illusion until someone exposes the trick, let alone go along with a global war on terror to avenge the assistant’s death.
David, my reply will be much shorter this time.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference of philosophy here, and it concerns the philosophy of science.
The “science of 9/11” must have an object, and I declare this object can only be “what happened on 9/11, and how did it happen?”. It is clear that there were violent events in three places – downtown NYC, Arlington, and Shanksville that can be crudely described in laymen terms such as “impacts”, “explosions”, “fires”, “collapses” etc., in a way that virtually everybody agrees with. But right after that,”opinions” diverge. Opinions?? A better word is: Theories.
Treating the “science of 9/11” as a science, it’s goal has to be to find a theory that explains ALL that happened on that day.
A theory exists. It is not perfect. But it stands as long no better one comes around.
Now you:
“In spite of my desire to know what happened and how they pulled it off, I do not feel this piece of “knowledge” is absolutely essential to building a case against the perpetrators”
You deny that you need to understand (i.e. be able to explain with the guidance of a theory) what actually happened.
I ask you: What is the “it” that “they” pulled off?
“The players are clear, the mission is clear, the orchestration is clear, the beneficiaries are crystal clear!”
All that is so very clear, and yet no three truther can agree what the players did, how the orchestra played??
Reminds me of the year book classic, which (invariably false) attributes the following to the teacher it would fit the best: “Who did that?? I saw it clearly!”
You can’t call someone guilty when you don’t know the crime that was committed, can you? That would amount to a presumption of guilt. “Round up the usual suspects.”
I agree with you that stuff has been covered up, that investigations were incomplete and conducted under covert political guidance. But none of that implies that WTC7 was demolished or that a projectile hit the Pentagon. That would be false thinking, plain as that.
“This ‘requirement” that any opposition to the official narrative needs to come fully loaded with scientific and forensic peer reviewed research, a hypothesis, evidentiary support, or any other type of “proof” is one of the biggest and most damaging red herrings…”
Strawman. I didn’t require “fully loaded” (plus, you suggested that there already exists a pretty full load of research results). I didn’t require “peer reviewed”. I didn’t even require “proof” (going with the philosopher Karl Popper, I note that no scientific theory can ever be “proven” (verified) once and for all). I simply required and alternative narrative that is agreeably comprehensive and consistent with what we know already. There exists none. You haven’t even tried to deny this.
Your text at length illustrates my central claim: All the work and the claims of the truth movements diverge. You blame this on unseen, unknown agents, shills and the lot. Are you that sure “they” got so far even into YOUR brain that you are unable to think coherently and convergently?
There is a much simpler explanation: The claims diverge, because most of them are false. They were arrived at from some presumption, and are never tested rigorously against any theory. They are systematically shielded from falsification – often by means of direct and blatant censorship. The most potent shield against falsification however is not having a theory in the first place.
With the insistence on not formulating a theory that is specific enough to be falsifiable, 9/11 truth is anti-science.
I see we are now going in circles.
I do understand that the scope of your interest in 9/11 is from a narrow, scientific perspective and is focused on the destruction of the buildings. What I am trying to convey, seems like unsuccessfully, is that the crime is much much larger than that. In fact, at this point in history, now that the trauma of death and destruction it caused has subsided to a certain extent, it is a rather small part of the crime amongst all the treasonous acts it required to plan, execute and cover up the act, the subsequent war crimes committed causing millions of lives and the destruction of entire nations and peoples across the world, and the trillions (with a TR) that were stolen, siphoned and embezzled off the coffers of THE PEOPLE!!! Which translates to the further impoverishment, death and suffering of millions more, for generations to come.
So, you can analyze the physical destruction using good science, or bad science all you want… Explaining how the buildings were brought down adresses ABSOLUTELY NONE of the crimes committed before, during or after those two and a half hours on that day!!! So please spare me the “9/11 truth is anti science” nonsense… You are the one limiting it to science, and ruling it out because it doesn’t meet the stringent criteria you are applying to it. A level of scrutiny you seem to fail to apply to the nonsensical official science, by the way. I wouldn’t blame you a single bit for not buying into the “theories” out there, since I haven’t found one to buy into myself. But, I could say a lot about you buying into the two planes->three total destructions bullcrap. You can not have it both ways… If science is key to you, then use he same scientific standards for both sides please.
Just because I sense you’d call me out for not replying to your questions:
You deny that you need to understand (i.e. be able to explain with the guidance of a theory) what actually happened.
I ask you: What is the “it” that “they” pulled off?
I am not denying anything… After all, inquiring minds like yours need to know! I am simply stating that it is a waste of time, and a distraction. And I have 15 years of bullcrap that took place and its results to back up my opinion. And, the ‘it’ they pulled off is referring to causing total destruction of three buildings, two of which in about two hours, by crashing two planes into two buildings.
All that is so very clear, and yet no three truther can agree what the players did, how the orchestra played??
Either you don’t know more than two truthers, or you are not looking in the right places.
You can’t call someone guilty when you don’t know the crime that was committed, can you?
Once again, that’d be true only when you accept that the crime purely consists of the destruction of the buildings.
But none of that implies that WTC7 was demolished or that a projectile hit the Pentagon.
I am scared to ask, but too curious not to: what is your opinion about WTC “collapse”? (I am with you on the projectile issue)
There exists none. You haven’t even tried to deny this.
Why would I deny something I agree with? I don’t know how many different ways I can say this? I do not require an explanation of the physics of the distruction to advance my understanding of the greater crime of the 9/11 false flag and its cover up… I also do not believe that, countering this crime (not against 3000 people and some buildings, but a crime against humanity) as a civlization does not come in the shape of a reinvestigation, prosecution or any legally acceptable avenue.
Are you that sure “they” got so far even into YOUR brain that you are unable to think coherently and convergently?
I will try my best to be less patronizing than this rhetorical question in my reply:
I have a feeling that your heart is in the right place, Erich.. But you seem to still have a lot to learn about the ways of the world to be making a statement like that. And you will find this knowledge neither in science, nor the sp-called truth movement.
My brain is clear of ‘their’ control… Is yours?
Correction:
I also do not believe that, countering this crime… as a civlization comes in the shape of a reinvestigation, prosecution or any legally acceptable avenue….
David,
“I do understand that the scope of your interest in 9/11 is from a narrow, scientific perspective and is focused on the destruction of the buildings.”
It is somewhat wider than this, as “destruction of the buildings” wasn’t the only thing that happened on 9/11, nor was this the focal point of the crime anyway. What happened on 9/11 was a (obviously concerted) attack on 3 (or 4, if you count the twin towers separately) targets in the USA on one day. In the course, several buildings were destroyed and, more importantl, almost 3000 people were killed. The four coordinated attacks on 3/4 targets is the perspective I necessarily start from.
“that the crime is much much larger than that”
That must be a conclusion – or is it a presumption?
Granting for the moment that you are right, you still ought to be able to describe comprehensively (1) what they/who (2) did on 9/11 and how (3) and why (4). Seeing a larger scope doesn’t relieve you of the necessity to tie the events of the day into that wider scope consistently.
“…a rather small part of the crime amongst all the treasonous acts it required to plan, execute and cover up the act, the subsequent war crimes committed causing millions of lives…”
Plan what act? Execute what act? Cover up what act?
I agree, in general outline at least, that before and after 9/11, the policies and military operations of several, if not all, US administrations have included hostile and criminal acts against other nations and even against the American nation. Clearly, the shock of 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration (and several proxies like Tony Blair’s UK) to rouse Congress and the people into desastrous, illegal wars.
That does NOT prove that they also planned and executed the violent events of 9/11. You’d actually have to prove that they did – which remains a difficult task if you can’t even find a theory to explain just what happened on 9/11.
“Explaining how the buildings were brought down adresses ABSOLUTELY NONE of the crimes committed before, during or after those two and a half hours on that day!!!”
And vice versa. Which is why I stick to the narrower scope.
“…it doesn’t meet the stringent criteria you are applying to it. A level of scrutiny you seem to fail to apply to the nonsensical official science, by the way…”
Don’t be too sure of that – you haven’t tested that yet.
“I wouldn’t blame you a single bit for not buying into the “theories” out there, since I haven’t found one to buy into myself.”
I need to repeat, and put into bold face, my stronger contention. It’s not merely that I don’t “buy” into any alternative theory. I content that there exists no alternative comprehensive theory to buy into! That is why you haven’t found any! There exists none, and I believe there exists none (I repeated that three times to hammer the THERE EXISTS NO THEORY mantra into brains :D) because the many claims and ideas that 9/11 Truth has produced over more than a decade do not and cannot converge – they are all the result of systematically divergent thinking. In short: Wrong.
You probably have found partial theories, and it seems you found even the partial theories lacking.
“I could say a lot about you buying into the two planes->three total destructions bullcrap”
I am sure you could, but that “two planes->three destructions” itself is bullcrap. For starters, more than three buildings were destroyed. It doesn’t require a plane to destroy a building – and that should be glaringly obvious! So spare me the stupid memes on that Ken Dockery level.
“If science is key to you, then use he same scientific standards for both sides please.”
Yes. You’re welcome.
“the ‘it’ they pulled off is referring to causing total destruction of three buildings, two of which in about two hours, by crashing two planes into two buildings”
This is very strange – you count three destroyed buildings – I count closer to ten. You count two planes crashing, I count four. Your “it” is ominously incomplete and cannot ever grow to a comprehensive theory of the 9/11 attacks, unless you do a careful recount.
I truly find this astounding that, after 15 years, you get even the number of planes and buildings wrong.
Something seems very wrong with your perception of what happened on 9/11.
“Either you don’t know more than two truthers, or you are not looking in the right places.”
Point me to a right place! 🙂
(Obviously, the number “three” in “no three truthers” is slight hyperbole. I of course mean something like “more than just a small group of collaborators”)
“that’d be true only when you accept that the crime purely consists of the destruction of the buildings”
I disagree. If you blame the destruction of the buildings on anyone, you need to be able to tell what they did to destroy them, or you don’t have a case. That’s independent from any other crimes they may or may not have committed before or after those deeds.
“I am scared to ask, but too curious not to: what is your opinion about WTC “collapse”?”
There exists only one theory, doesn’t it? Or perhaps one class of closely related theories that differ on details.
Each of the three major collapses was a case of progressive collapse – with an initiating phase (can be slow, can be rapid), a rapid final phase, and perhaps some sort of transition between the two, depending on how you delimit the major mechanisms.
It is pretty clear that once the top part of an highrise has picked up “enough” monentum and/or kinetic energy, the structure below cannot arrest the collapse, and it follows that collapse must accelerate down. This is true regardless of how the collapse initiated. This is the “rapid final phase”. It is bullcrap to believe that there must be demolition devices all the way down to help that part of the collapse progression.
To wit: AE911Truth, in their latest brochure that they intend to mail to many AIA members…
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/AIA-Resolution-Mailer.pdf
…write this:
“the following statement made by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse:
“This is controlled demolition…. It’s been imploded. It’s a hired job, done by a team of experts…. It’s without a doubt a professional job””
This very same Danny Jowenko, in the very same interview that AE quote-mined, also said that the collapse started in the fire zone, that demolition devices could not have survived these fires, that instead it is plausible that fires caused the collapse, and that once the gravity of the many floors above the fire zone destroyed all the rest; and he concluded that the twin towers could not possibly have been a demolition.
I go with Jowenko – fires (possibly with the help of plane impact damage) initiated the collapse of the twin towers, gravity did the rest.
Jowenko of course did not know anything at all about WTC7 when he speculated on it in that interview. He did not know about the extent and location of the fires. Had he known all this, I doubt he would have maintained that this was controlled demolition.
Did NIST pin down the correct detailed collapse initiation sequence? I don’t know, possibly not – and NIST themselves apply words of caution, by calling their results probable. Perhaps their theory of some girder getting pushed of its seat by expanding beams (WTC7), or of heat-weakened sagging floor trusses pulling in exterior columns to the point of failure can be shown to be unlikely, even impossible; that would not at the same time prove that fires didn’t cause the collapses. It would only mean that we don’t know in detail how fires did it. However, it is well understood that fires DO bring steel frame structures down, and there WERE fires. In contrast to this, there is no evidence that there WERE demolition devices of any sort.
(A comprehensive theory of 9/11 of course needs to go further than that and explain the plane crashes – who, what, how, why. I have not seen any good theory on that, either, except for the conventional one that they were hijacked and flown by suicide terrorist. The “why” part that GWB told – “they hate us for our freedom” – obviously was false, the 9/11 Commission certainly didn’t make such a claim. I see some potential for the background of these hijackers not being what we are told it was.)
“I do not require an explanation of the physics of the distruction to advance my understanding of the greater crime of the 9/11 false flag and its cover up…”
I get that you don’t need this for an understanding of all the things outside of 9/11, but you need them to understand the events on 9/11. You apparently assume, without evidence (?) and understanding, that the government that abused the attacks as a pretext to execute terrible politics also engineered the events of 9/11. I fail to see the need for such an assumption.
“you will find this knowledge neither in science, nor the sp-called truth movement.”
Where else? Faith?
“My brain is clear of ‘their’ control… Is yours?”
I cannot truly know this. In fact, I am fairly sure that my brain is influenced by many sources and thus induced into thinking irrationally at times. I am definitely biased.
I do not believe one second that you would really claim to be different.
Now, if “they” cannot control your brain, what stops you from piecing together the puzzle and see a coherent, comprehensive picture of the 9/11 events?
I suspect that you are influenced unduly by a certain part of the opposition to “them”. There are lots of propaganda, lies, delusions and stupidity on “your” side, too, and you’d need a solid, reliable epistemology to cut through them. That epistemology, IMO, is provided by the scientific method, whereby you get closer to understanding reality by using falsifiable theories as your guide to approaching the multitude of observations you make. That applies not only to physical models but also to the workings of individuals and organizations.
Alright, emaraite. I think we have both said our peace. Thank you for the conversation. I appreciate it.
Well, Daniel, I certainly appreciate the love you extend at the end of your comments. But, I find your explanation a little too simplistic…
I do agree that the biggest accomplishment of not just 9/11 but any conspiracy that has stood the test of time, is the tremendous (and uninterrupted) organization and discipline it requires to cover up and censor information after the deed is done, for decades to come. And, every person or institution that participates in this process simply by not speaking up has very different reasons and motives. To lump them all together and conclude that they all answer to the same “masters” of the universe would be quite inaccurate, to say the least.
Fidel, with all his faults, was brave and smart enough to endure the tremendous strain and pressure U.S. and the U.S. controlled international interests have applied to his tiny island nation. You are right in your assertion that, being an “expert in disinformation” himself, and having been exposed to decades long Byzantine games played on Cuba, he certainly would have a better understanding of the conspiracies, as well as their aftermath, than your average conspiracy buff, or “truth”. But how do you imagine a marginalized revolutionary like him would have been able to come out and show the world what he knows without possession of a single piece of evidence? What would have been the reaction of the average American to his claims? I would argue that his quest for truth and exposure would have been dead at birth, and his bankrupt nation would have been subjected to even more pressure, and perhaps overt or covert military action. To put forward the case that this “dictator” of a small, rogue nation with no financial, military or technological power to speak of, would, should or could expose 9/11, or any other misdeeds, is nothing but delusional. Of all the leaders in the world, this man has written countless books and articles, given hundreds of speeches at home and around the world, and spoken out against the international imperialist cabal in a most powerful way, more than any other. You may choose to disagree with what he said or what he did, but I find it unfair for anyone to conclude that he is controlled by the masters due to his silence about the specifics of 9/11, or the fact that Cuban architects have not signed the AE911 petition.
With your logic, we would have to assume that, at least as of Sept 2001, (or even Nov 1963, if you wish) the entire world, including every single leader, politician, statesman like Ahmadinejad, Pope, Qaddafi, Assad, Chavez, Vatican, China, Russia, North Korea, Tibet, Venezuela, every intelligence operation of every nation in the world, the shiites, the sunnis, the catholics, (not including the jews in this list for obvious reasons), every secret society in the world, who are also “experts at disinformation” were (and still are) under the spell of “the same elusive masters,” which is demonstrably not the case… At least not yet.
Interesting conspiracy theory you have outlined. It may even be true. If so, it describes the process Fidel used to decide to censor 9/11.
You correctly extrapolate my point to Ahmadinejad et al.This is a legitimate line of inquiry and you are welcome to repeat on them your analysis of Fidel’s reasoning.
You may want to look for the analytical demonstration you allude to in your penultimate sentence. It would nullify my above-mentioned web, which is the de facto authority on the 9/11 censorship.
Love,
In one fell swoop, you commit so many logical leaps and fallacies in your replies that I can sense this conversation will not go anywhere.
Thanks for your reply, anyway.
I wonder if Dan Noel is still an official, sanctioned representative within RIchard Gage’s AE911Truth organization. If so, I think he is a risk and a liability to their credibility with this kind of anti-intellectual conduct.
I am not sure how A&E is structured, and whether or not the signatories necessarily have any involvement in the organization.
At face value, Daniel Noel’s comments seem fueled by this “everyone is in on it” approach, a commonly observed syndrome of overgeneralization and oversimplification. It explains “everything” and makes sense of “everything”… And it creates a false sense of knowing “everything”… Not unlike numerology, actually… Where one already knows the desired conclusion, and the rest is just adding numbers until it is reached…
But, at a closer look at the language of the comments, there is something more peculiar… Although it’s made out of long sentences, many big words and even bigger concepts, I am failing to see any content in them. They don’t really say much once you remove all of the innuendo, assumptions and presumptions. I’ve read and reread multiple times Daniel’s most recent reply to me. It looks like a reply, it sounds like he’s saying something, but… except for the “love” at the end, I don’t understand any of it!!! Well, come to think of it, I don’t really understand the “love” part either… (sorry, Daniel. I did try…)
I remembered having read that Dan Noel at some point had some formal role within AE911Truth, and indeed, using the Search function on their website, I find one for “Noel”, frrom September 2014: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/176-news-media-events-stan-beattie.html
Quote: “…Daniel Noel, AE911Truth’s Presenter Team leader.”
Makes you wonder if he was picked as leader of this particular “Presenter Team” so he could teach the AE presenters how not to say anything with lots of well-crafted words?
I like your comparison with Numerology a lot! From Dan’s style, one might wonder if he is an alternative family therapist, an esoteric psychologist, or has done too much coursework towards an undergrad degree in essentialist sociology. But he is – surprise – an electromechanical engineer, who got his Master summa cum laude! From his A&E bio: “Recognized for combining exceptional analytical skills with objective observation of physical phenomena and rigorous written communication.” Yeah, right.
What I found most telling is his dismissal of my 8 enumerated questions as “irrelevant”, save the one that asked him to expand on his tale. The others basically asked for specific details, for limits to the scope of his proposed universal conspiracy theory, and of course for evidence. All irrelevamt, says the leader of AE911Truth’s Presenter Team. Only the tale, unrestricted by the constraints of evidence, scope and specificity, counts.
But of course the question is still open whether he is still a team leader for Richard Gage. AE practically never announces when functionaries leave, as often, some kind of disagreement or dispute is the cause. Dan?
As I grow older, I’ve learned not to hold people’s shortcomings, like an inability to make a cohesive argument, against them, as I have many myself, and I am yet to meet a ‘perfect’ person… In that sense, what I value in people is not whether they are right or they write well or argue well, but whether or not the person is sincere…
So, if I had to pick one main question that is raised by the above exchange, it’d be whether his hollow wordsmithery truly reflect his opinion(s), or is it an intentional and purposeful linguistic belly dancing that is usually performed by agents with an agenda… In the context of his involvement in A&E911, I wouldn’t worry too much if it is the former. Their mission is not related to or aimed at the whodunit part of the 9/11 investigation, and is not affected by who knew about it or who censored it. But, needless to say, I’d find the latter possibility very very disturbing.
Daniel… I know you can hear us talking about you. Your input would be welcome.
At the same time, we are moving further and further away from the article’s subject matter. I certainly wouldn’t want the thread to become about DNoel. My apologies to Craig and Mr. Chossudovsky if they feel we have already done that.
On a sidenote, prompted by your comment, I visited the AE911Truth website, which I had not done for a long time. They seem to have had a major overhaul of their website. It looks very spiffy and well thought out for its functions, complete with a shop for ecommerce. I don’t mean to join the insinuation game, but I find the whole site a little too commercial, too corporate looking with its professionally photographed and retouched portraits of the ‘leaders’ and all… It might have been simply a case of the commissioned designers going in the direction of general web design trends in an effort to modernize their website. But, from a communication arts perspective, it certainly does not leave one with the impression that this is a place where serious architects and engineers got together to scientifically investigate and expose one of the biggest false flags in history. Similar to my above comment about sincerity, I’d be very interested to know if this was a design misjudgment of a sincere effort to revamp the website, or was it a conscious effort to look and act like an income generating corporate entity…