Blog

Orhan Cam/Shutterstock

The State of the Deep State

The monster in America’s closet
Wednesday, April 30, 2014, 9:43 AM

We’ve been hearing a lot about the so-called Deep State lately. What to make of this shadowy monster? Some observers link it to the paranoid fantasy called the New World Order, a staple of political talk radio (and a hobgoblin I don’t believe in). In popular movies such as the Jason Bourne epics and Mission Impossible, the Deep State launches hyper-complex schemes that work flawlessly and never fail. That is exactly why they have such high entertainment appeal. Viewers are thrilled by the precision, by the conceit of seeming infallibility. The Deep State definitely exists; it just doesn’t work the way it is depicted in the movies. 

I like to say that I’m allergic to conspiracy theories because human beings are generally too inept to carry out schemes at the grand scale, as well as being poor secret-keepers. Insider knowledge is almost always swapped around, even in secretive organizations, often recklessly so, because doling it out confers status, tactical advantage, and sometimes money for the doler-outer. But the Deep State isn’t a secret. It operates in plain sight.

Military

First, of course, is the Pentagon leviathan plus all of its suppliers, enablers, and lackeys — the beast that President Eisenhower warned his fellow citizens to beware of in his farewell address, calling it “the military-industrial complex.” It’s worse than ever, especially having engaged in two major fiascos on Asian soil the past decade, pointless escapades that cost the lives of 8,000 soldiers in action, many more maimed for life, and in suicides of servicemen returning home in despair to a spavined economy and the manifold indignities of a cruel and incompetent veterans’ bureaucracy completely unable to care for their needs. Iraq and Afghanistan proved the futility of America’s neurotic mission to try to control everything and every place in the world. In fact, the US military could not control the only two things that mattered in those faraway lands: the terrain and the behavior of the population. What else is there in a military campaign?

This did not stop President Obama from almost repeating the fiasco in Syria in 2013. Only some reality-testing by Vladimir Putin put the schnitz on that operation. For the moment, Putin has also juked Obama and his Secretary of State Kerry from further shenanigans in Ukraine, but the US looks like a sloppy drunk in a barroom at last call spoiling for a fight. We’d better hope we don’t find it. It’s one thing to fight a band of ragged Taliban in the Helmand highlands; it’s another thing to poke a country (Russia) with a thousand nukes targeting everything from Bangor to Bellingham.

Finance

Then there are the multiple vampire squids of Wall Street (shorthand for all of finance) engaged in funneling as much wealth out of the disintegrating middle class as possible, creaming off gargantuan transaction fees, premiums, and spreads from every transaction in the entire universe (especially in their carry-trade with the Federal Reserve), and buying off elected officials wholesale, by the hundredweight, to ensure that their swindling operations go unimpeded. Wall Street’s hired servelings now write the latest laws for financial regulation. It is nothing but racketeering on the grandest scale, plain and simple, and it is sponsored wholeheartedly by the Deep State. The Supreme Court has lent a hand in this by defining corporations as persons entitled to express political fellowship via unlimited cash contributions to election campaigns. Wall Street is assisted in turn by the thoroughly corrupt two major political parties. The fabled “revolving door” that shuffles Wall Street executives in and out of government now spins so fast that it is more like a turbine than a door. The degeneracy of Wall Street is covered sufficiently elsewhere in my writings to leave it at that for the purposes of this essay.

Security

Present worries over the Deep State are focused on its massive security apparatus, made up of a combination of venerable old institutions such as the CIA and the Defense Intelligence services with some newer ones such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Safety Agency (TSA), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the good ol' IRS, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and God knows how many out-of-sight “security” offices in the dark precincts of seemingly benign agencies like the National Parks Service and the Bureau of Weights and Measures. On top of all that, add the newly militarized local police all across this land with their camo-clad SWAT teams, bomb-proof Hummers, grenade-launchers, surveillance drones, 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs), military-grade helicopters, and in the case of one Arizona sheriff’s department, a pre-owned US Army tank.

The sheer multiplication of “security” officialdom ought to give a sentient citizen a case of the vapors. The work of these outfits is supposedly coordinated by the new umbrella entity, the National Security Agency (NSA), but that’s probably too slippery a description for the organized chaos it represents. The NSA can only pretend to manage all these posses of tech-drunk cowboys. The NSA is a pretense wrapped in a wish shrouded in techno-narcissism.

Grafted onto this armature of old and new bureaucracies is a matrix of private contractors who do much of the actual dirty work and heavy lifting for the official agencies. These private contractors are hugely overpaid (by taxpayers) and are subject to little oversight outside the agencies who hire them — who, in turn, have a keen interest in concealing any misbehavior perpetrated by their private contractors. Outside of that ring of techies, hit men, and errand boys is an asteroid belt of domestic spying infrastructure based in the internet, featuring companies that, willingly or not, funnel information about the myriad activities of individual citizens to the government. These include online retailers, Google and other search engines, banks, credit card companies, health care orgs, phone companies, universities, etc. Then, of course, there is the gigantic corps of lobbyists, public relations spinners, media pimps, corporate consultants, legislative staffers, and other enablers and fixers of Deep State operations. These highly-paid parasites are the ones largely responsible for Washington becoming the third-richest ranked metro area in the nation.

This ever-growing network has been constructed right out in the open with a long lead-up after World War Two, and then an exponential ramp-up following the attacks of 9/11/01 and the paranoia entailed by it. It is surely a remarkable thing that there have been no terror acts on the grand scale in America since 9/11. The 2013 Boston marathon “pressure cooker” bombs that killed 3 people and maimed over 250 others was a way smaller op than 9/11 and relatively amateurish, and the Deep State did not prevent the Chechen Tsarnaev brothers from pulling it off despite the fact that the elder brother, Tamerlan, had been on an FBI watch list for two years prior to the bombing. The Fort Hood massacre of 2009 (13 fatalities) was perpetrated by, of all things, an army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan. You’d think the army would have been onto this fellow… he being right under its nose… but what better illustration of basic institutional failure?

There has been surprisingly little else. Perhaps that is due to the diligent work of these bureaucracies. But I find it hard to believe that they had much to do with the absence of terror acts against the countless “soft targets” across the nation. For instance, a small squad of half a dozen jihadists might have entered any one of a thousand big regional shopping malls across America with enough ordnance in a duffle bag to kill a few hundred people. It hasn’t happened, but can anyone say it’s because the National Security apparatus prevented it? I’ve been in many malls the past thirteen years and none of them had any security screening at their doors whatsoever. Anyone could stroll in with an Uzi tucked under his London Fog and blast away. Yet, the known attempted dastardly deeds that were prevented by the Deep State — the 2010 Times Square car bomber, the airplane underwear bomber — you can count on the fingers of one hand.  Of course, the airplane shoe bomber wasn’t stopped until the very moment he tried (and failed) to light his Nikes. Lucky he was a klutz.

In any case, the monumental new combined security apparatus has been given carte blanche to elaborate itself, to grow ever more branches and buds so that it is now a kind of creeping, suffocating, parasitical vine entombing the edifice of the Republic behind a scrim of toxic administrative overgrowth. The remarkable thing all along has been the lack of protest from just about any quarter of the American polity, either the citizens themselves or their elected representatives. Now and again an elderly airline passenger will complain about being groped by an ardent TSA officer, but on the whole the broad public does not seem to care about having its privacy stripped away, even after Edward Snowden burst on the scene with his revelations of what should have been perfectly obvious to anyone who thought about it for half a minute — namely, that government agents could not possibly resist the temptation to harvest those bounteous crops of data accumulating in all the humming server farms all over the country.

It was really only a few weeks ago when one politician did offer a few yelps of objection. That would be Senator Diane Feinstein who, as chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was investigating torture carried out by the CIA following 9/11 and in the wars engendered by it. The CIA response to the committee’s requests for information was a 6.2 million-page data-dump of un-collated, un-indexed memos and cables — obviously designed to confound, impede, and delay any discovery of misconduct. On a number of occasions both the CIA and White House staff lied to the committee about the handling of documents, which, of course, distracted attention from the substance of what was in the documents: evidence of programmatic torture. It would be fair to say that CIA personnel jerked the committee around in every way possible to avoid providing coherent answers to straightforward questions and requests. CIA Director John Brennan repeatedly stonewalled Senator Feinstein’s letters, simply refusing to reply. As the tussle heated up, the CIA hacked the Senate committee staff’s computers. Then they went a step further and referred senate committee staffers to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution in mishandling secret documents. The CIA’s general counsel who made the referral was, in fact, a lawyer in the CIA’s counter-terrorism unit when the alleged tortures took place  — meaning, he had approved them — and his name appeared 1,600 times in the Senate committee’s report.

Senator Feinstein, formerly a dogged supporter of the CIA and its redundant cousin agencies, finally lost it. She held a press conference and pretty much denounced the whole wicked business as an attempt to intimidate the committee and obstruct constitutional oversight of the CIA’s activities.

Who Is Watching The Watchmen?

The affair raises very troubling questions, chiefly: has this vast “security” apparatus become by stealth a fourth branch of the United States Government?  Does it think itself to be more equal than the other branches? Does its existence undermine the rule of law in this nation? And what do we ordinary citizens of this republic do about it? (Assuming we are still a republic.) We’ll touch on these matters in Part 2: How To Oppose The Deep State

Click here to access Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

82 Comments

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 510
For fear of

sounding very tedious on the issue of 9/11. In addition to Mish Shedlock,do we now have Mr Kunstler denying the hard evidence pointing to direct Federal involvement in the terror attacks on 911. Come on James get your investigational head on and do a little due diligence.

 

http://www.killingauntiefilms.co.uk/

 

As for the Boston bombing...well its not all that it seems!

 

Wildlife Tracker's picture
Wildlife Tracker
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2012
Posts: 403
A lot of bad information in

A lot of bad information in that video. The team with the backpacks in the photos were members of the national guards civil support team.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTveoelF47RlD-_4gmHBARrXjbzUpmbnlrkj2sRVRi2ohCohUTbWQ

Craft International is a consulting and training service group. They are not private contractors.The reason the national guard member was wearing the Craft hat is likely because Craft Int. trains government personal and he probably attended a workshop.

The "unidentified device" in the photo is a radiation detector. Obviously the national guard member was testing for radiation after the explosion went off.

The rest of the video contained no logical or identifiable evidence despite claiming that it is showing it to you throughout the video... No thanks

SudburyHardRockMiner's picture
SudburyHardRockMiner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 1 2014
Posts: 7
"I like to say that I’m

"I like to say that I’m allergic to conspiracy theories because human beings are generally too inept to carry out schemes at the grand scale, as well as being poor secret-keepers. Insider knowledge is almost always swapped around, even in secretive organizations, often recklessly"

I disagree.  

How long has the NSA been spying on everyone's communications - decades?   How many hundreds of thousands of people have worked at the NSA while this was happening --- and would most definitely had know what was going on?

How many of these hundreds of thousands blew the whistle?   Uh.... one --- Edward Snowden.

It is very easy to understand how a sinister secret would remain secret - a few reasons:

- the government destroys whistle blowers

- the government pays people 'in the know' good salaries -- why rock the boat?

- if you rock the boat what is the upside?  ZERO.   Downside?  Career totally destroyed - life totally destroyed - reputation totally destroyed by the MSM

I would argue the exact opposite of what you say a secret is difficult to keep - it is VERY easy to keep.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 510
I cannot argue

against your comments, but I still cannot believe that the security apparatus had no hand in the proceedings after all IMHO that is one of reasons why America is in the condition that it is in. The number of false flag ops conducted by your so called own protectors is quite staggering.

These two guys it would appear were quite inept at what they did on that day in Boston, by placing bombs in an area swarming with security at a high profile event being filmed and broadcast to a sizeable audience. Would it not have been easier and more deadly to have bombed a packed out Macdonalds or shopping mall complex somewhere that is very busy but lacking in security cover, allowing an easier escape?

Just another set up in my opinion to enforce more of the fascist police state upon the masses.

Just my tuppence worth.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
An old Trooper.

A very long time ago in a land far, far away I was professional in an elite unit. Agent Provocateur is one job description, Terrorist is another.

Just like a pilot is a professional who gets training specific to his career so APs and Ts get theirs. Their training can be thorough. For instance the professional terrorist is taught to make use of the enemies media. His aims are not to bring a country to it's knees by destroying infrastructure but to destroy a country by destroying civil liberties by instilling fear. The more news-worthy their acts the better the effect.

But I digress. Every military operation is by necessity a conspiracy, planned in exquisite detail.

Agent Provocateur. So someone was shooting indiscriminately in the Ukraine? And the culprit was never found? And everyone is now willing to go to war with everyone else?

Bingo.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4624
snowden was #4

How many of these hundreds of thousands blew the whistle?   Uh.... one --- Edward Snowden.

Not exactly.  There have been three other whistleblowers, but Snowden was the only one to collect a mountain of evidence and release it to reporters.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way.

For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.

The NSA is a perfect example of a conspiracy that wasn't kept.  Its just that Snowden scampered off with about 50 smoking guns and they didn't.  But their lives were still ruined by what they did.  I recall reading about Binney perhaps 10 years ago.  I believed him, to me he was quite credible, and from that point on I assumed everything I said was being recorded by NSA.

I just think few others paid attention.

Wildlife Tracker's picture
Wildlife Tracker
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2012
Posts: 403
2013: A Silver Market in Review

For folks concerned about silver prices today, I finally finished my analysis this morning and I hope some of you may find this helpful...

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Silver

Awesome video, charts and analysis - thanks! My only question is why did this go under the Deep State article? Should be its own forum topic IMO!

Wildlife Tracker's picture
Wildlife Tracker
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2012
Posts: 403
I wanted people to see it I guess

I need to make back my $25 microphone investment! Maybe that's rude. I'll let the moderators decide if they want to delete this posting or not. Thanks for watching.

KeithM1116's picture
KeithM1116
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 10 2012
Posts: 77
How about Au?

Thanks for the analysis, WT! 

Now, how about a similar analysis on gold?

Best,

Keith

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 368
Video

I personally enjoyed watching your video Wildlife Tracker and as someone who doesn't obsess about gold and silver I never would have seen the video were it tucked away where ever gold and silver info goes. The video was short and informative, just the way they should be IMO.

AK Granny

RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
Good Spot
Farmer Brown wrote:

Awesome video, charts and analysis - thanks! My only question is why did this go under the Deep State article? Should be its own forum topic IMO!

 

I think it's a good spot for the chart under the context of how the "deep state" manipulates... everything.

I agree, it is provocative enough to earn its own topic!

 

RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
Where is my tin hat?

Well,

I have mentioned before that I am not a fan of JHK. But this time, his cutting snarky comments ring true with me. I see all of the issues he has brought to light. I live among members of the "military industrial complex." I see first hand the "chest thumping" and flag waving. How many bombs and guns do we need? For a small percentage of the deep state budget, we could really, really end hunger in this country. And, for a few pennies more, provide college education for all who want it.

 

I have labeled JHK a "grumpy old man" in the past, So, this time, I guess that makes me one too!

Wildlife Tracker's picture
Wildlife Tracker
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2012
Posts: 403
Moved the discussion to the Silver and Gold group!

Keith: Gold is something I probably will work on, but gold is less dependent on its industrial role (although still reflects production costs), so therefore this analysis would probably be less meaningful focused on gold. Gold is not as dependent on constant production because it's demand is almost entirely for hoarding and storing whereas silver is consumed and constant production is vital. Analysis on gold's monetary role is far more important and relevant. I still plan to take a look at it though.

Granny: Thank you. I am happy you found the information useful! Believe it or not, my past videos have been much shorter!

 

 

 

 

jcat3022's picture
jcat3022
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 9 2012
Posts: 78
On Point

if you want a glimpse at how well the folks in the NSA are doing (financially), look at the real estate in Howard County, MD.  It's minutes from NSA headquarters & boasts some of the highest per capita incomes in the US.  They are paid very handsomely for what they do & live like royalty in the old USSA.

Our good friends are both Federal Gov't employees.  They are taking home a combined income of probably $250-300k.  He can retire in 9 years at the age of 43 w/ a pension and lifetime benefits.  I have never had the heart to tell him that they are gouging the rest of us.  Even if I did, I highly doubt they would even understand.  They are very much entrenched in the deep state. 

 

SingleSpeak's picture
SingleSpeak
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 1 2008
Posts: 492
If You Do

mention it to them, please have a hidden camera running. The response would be enlightening I'm sure.

SS

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Excellent analysis Wildlife Tracker.

Give my regards to your teachers. They did a good job.

apismellifera's picture
apismellifera
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 8 2010
Posts: 57
Struck me as kind of shabby

The topic of the Deep State is of great interest to me, but this JHK piece seems rather dashed off and sloppy. One major gaffe:

The work of these outfits is supposedly coordinated by the new umbrella entity, the National Security Agency (NSA)

The NSA is anything but a "new umbrella entity."  It's been around for decades, gathering and decrypting data, (and suffering from a serious case of mission creep in the 21st century.)

I'd at least expect a factually correct taxonomy of the various entities, so this did not inspire confidence in the author's grasp of the topic, (as appropriate as the tone may be!)

jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
RE: Struck me as kind of shabby

One could also point out that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (which Kunstler mentions) ceased to exist by that name over a decade ago.

But Jim Kunstler is very intelligent, and I still value his analysis.  Also, Kunstler himself has said that he does not really view himself as a researcher or number-crunching analyst.  What he mostly tries to contribute are his skills as a writer -- a word-smith.  He takes dry facts about things like oil depletion and government bureaucracies and tries to weave them into powerful prose with emotional impact. 

In other words, his specialty is taking complex issues that the population is inclined to ignore (like the deep state), and framing them in a way that is powerful.  And he does an admirable job.  His quotes are memorable:

Quote:

[Paraphrasing] "The truth is that no combination of solar, wind, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry grease will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future.  We're going to have to do things very differently.   We cannot continue to run what we're running the way we're running it.  The age of the 3,000 mile Ceasar salad is coming to an end."

When I read or listen to Kunstler, I don't only listen to his analysis, I also pay attention to how he phrases things, because he demonstrates how to say things with impact.

And I consider this vitally important.  As Chris has said, most people run on emotion and beliefs, not facts.  If you want to learn how to move people, you don't only need to grasp the facts, you need to grasp how to speak and write with emotional impact.  And in my opinion Jim Kunstler teaches this art very well.
 

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 704
Bankers Slave wrote:In
Bankers Slave wrote:

In addition to Mish Shedlock,do we now have Mr Kunstler denying the hard evidence pointing to direct Federal involvement in the terror attacks on 911.

This topic goes well beyond believing that the global economy is sustainable.

A lot of otherwise rational people are deeply offended if you bring up the possibility that our government would engage in a terrorist act of this magnitude.

I don't think you can break through that barrier.  I stopped trying.  The argument frequently gets too personal and emotional for my taste.

I can't think of this topic without visualizing Dorothy finding the Wizard of OZ behind the curtain.  He is clearly visible for all to see.  People simply refuse to look because even the mention of the idea is offensive. 

I mentioned it to one of my daughters once.  Her earnest reply was that there are some things you just don't want to know.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 510
I am beginning to

now understand the magnitude of denial in many issues of a conspiratorial flavour.

Just the other day when I was handing out fliers regarding the AE911truth.org organization, I was approached by a husband and wife who were both 911 truthers. My eyes were starting to well up, having never met in person anyone that is willing to stride into the no mans land that is the faked war on terror. It is days like this that give me hope....or am I the one living in denial?

 

 

RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
LesPhelps wrote: Bankers
LesPhelps wrote:
Bankers Slave wrote:

In addition to Mish Shedlock,do we now have Mr Kunstler denying the hard evidence pointing to direct Federal involvement in the terror attacks on 911.

This topic goes well beyond believing that the global economy is sustainable.

A lot of otherwise rational people are deeply offended if you bring up the possibility that our government would engage in a terrorist act of this magnitude.

I don't think you can break through that barrier.  I stopped trying.  The argument frequently gets too personal and emotional for my taste.

I can't think of this topic without visualizing Dorothy finding the Wizard of OZ behind the curtain.  He is clearly visible for all to see.  People simply refuse to look because even the mention of the idea is offensive. 

I mentioned it to one of my daughters once.  Her earnest reply was that there are some things you just don't want to know.

I agree, I too believe there is something rotten in D.C. Notice that no one mentions Bldg. 7 very much? That looks like a truly planned "take down."

I still, to this moment, find it hard to stomach that the tin hat crowd may just be right on this one. Which leads me to agree with your daughter's sentiment. On this topic,  I don't want to know, what I want to know.

How does that movie line go? "You want to know the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5346
It's all about the belief systems

To confront something like bldg 7 is to confront a multitude of very deeply entrenched belief systems.  

The information, the science itself, is incontrovertible; the building came down at free fall speed for nearly 3 full seconds of its descent.  Therefore there was zero resistance during that time.  Therefore there could not have been any intact steel framing on any one of the four corners or at any place on any of the floors that occupy a vertical distance covered by 3 seconds of free fall.

Ergo it's not possible that the 'fire took it down' narrative put forth by the NIST to be even remotely among a set of plausible explanations.  The current 'explanation' violates science and physical laws.  The conservation of momentum, being one.

Once one has gone through this very simple intellectual exercise, however, what comes next is not so simple.  A whole constellation of belief systems get twanged.  Perhaps faith in authority, or the goodness of people.  Believing one narrative but then being confronted with the truth of another is always a jarring experience, as anybody who has had their trust violated by someone they thought they knew well understands.

We have a lot of very uncomfortable truths to confront on a whole wide range of issues and I actually have a lot of compassion for everybody who is not able to face them on their own terms.  Eventually they will have to face them on some other terms, and that's ;likely to be a rough time for them.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3097
Quote:Ergo it's not possible
Quote:

Ergo it's not possible that the 'fire took it down' narrative put forth by the NIST to be even remotely among a set of plausible explanations.  The current 'explanation' violates science and physical laws.  The conservation of momentum, being one.

Given your orientation to data backed evidence, do you have an explanation that is supported by the evidence?  Or is that in the realm left to conspiracy theorists?

Doug

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 510
Go to ae911truth.org

"You can successfully contradict NIST.But you will have a hard time doing that to Sir Isaac Newton"

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5346
Scientifically we can say....
Doug wrote:
Quote:

Ergo it's not possible that the 'fire took it down' narrative put forth by the NIST to be even remotely among a set of plausible explanations.  The current 'explanation' violates science and physical laws.  The conservation of momentum, being one.

Given your orientation to data backed evidence, do you have an explanation that is supported by the evidence?  Or is that in the realm left to conspiracy theorists?

Doug

Scientifically we can say, without any doubt and in conformance with the law of conservation of momentum, that there was no structural resistance during the free fall phase.

The only explanation that conforms to that is that the steel framing members were somehow removed or cut.

That much is certain.  

There aren't that many ways to remove structural steel effectively all at once, but there we have to begin to speculate, so I'll leave it at that.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Wisdom

so I'll leave it at that.

A good idea. I like this site too much for it to suddenly go off-line.

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Thanks to JHK for a great

Thanks to JHK for a great article. I agree with previous commentary that highlights not just his message, but the way the message is delivered. We need more of this hard hitting clarity to bring the attention to things that are meaningful- not just controversial.

 

I find it troubling this the majority of the commentary is focused on conspiracy theories, which although mentioned in Kunstler’s article, is really not his point.

 

To head down this rabbit hole may well be interesting to some, but this dilutes the larger point the Kunstler is making, and deflects us away from important and actionable conclusions- which is precisely what he is warning against.

The recent popularity of the term ‘Deep State’ springs forth from a series of essays and interviews promoted by Mike Lofgren, ex-Republican congressional staffer who has widely denounced the Republican Party. His recent interview on Bill Moyers' PBS program focused nearly exclusively on discussion of the so-called ‘Deep State’.

Largely because of Lofgren’s status as a “fallen angel”, his testimony has reached whistleblower status, and appears congruent with another emerging theme, which like a wave sweeping the public discourse, is gathering momentum. This emergent theme in the public consciousness is the slow realization that corporations are colluding with government to act in ways that undermine not only individual freedoms, but threaten the very foundation and basis of democracy.

While to some this might seem obvious, this is profoundly disturbing to much of the conservative narrative that clogs the mainstream media. The pre-packaged for consumption explanation for matters that concern declining liberties, government overreach, and free market debauchery is laid at the feet of what has been generally termed the “Crony Capitalist”. The Cronies are described as statistical outliers, a deviant form that is equal part sociopath and no-good villain, but nevertheless, an anomaly, a circus attraction or side show to the pursuit of all that is Good and Just in the free market.

But this narrative is sounding more and more shrill as the evidence is mounting that such matters are not the handiwork of statistical outliers, rather, they are intrinsic contradictions that are systemic and widespread through our political economy, and in fact are endemic to Capitalism.

The concept of the Deep State represents an evolution of this cronyist thinking, and implies that there is deep and incontrovertible linkage between Capital and the levers of governance. In short, government is at the very least influenced- and some would more correctly claim completely captured- by Capital.

If you’re a free market evangelist this is really bad news, and does not sit well. In response we see pages of conspiracy theories, with every single investment newsletter screaming ‘manipulation’ when the observable does not match the narrative. Like the much maligned comparisons to heliocentric theory, ever more complex schemes and explanations are required to try and explain something that is fundamentally based on conceptual error- with the schemes becoming more vivid and complex as new data continues to pile on refuting even basic assumptions. Easier to dream anew than scrap the narrative.

Kunstler does a great job taking this dry edifice of a proclamation and giving tangible and visible examples of how this manifests in our world to the casual observer. He cites the horrific architecture of strip malls, the bleak urbanscape of many of our neighborhoods, begging the unspoken question- is this the best we can do?  Is this evidence of an efficient market system? He references the collection of virtually all personal data- not just by government, but more to the point- by Capital. These are linked. If Google has your data- so does the NSA- and vise-versa.

 

Kunstler is framing the problem correctly, he has visualized the symptoms in a fashion the illustrates exactly what is going on. We may quibble that using new terms like ‘Deep State’ to define very old concepts is facile, but it tells the story, and it may help to move a decaying narrative towards something much more useful.

Thomas F. Finnell's picture
Thomas F. Finnell
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Posts: 2
Conspiracies - not theories

“human beings are generally too inept to carry out schemes at the grand scale, as well as being poor secret-keepers.”

The successful Manhattan Project puts the lie to that quote!

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5346
Not 'theories', science.
darbikrash wrote:

I find it troubling this the majority of the commentary is focused on conspiracy theories, which although mentioned in Kunstler’s article, is really not his point.

I understand your troubled experience because the implications are immense and therefore hard to emotionally digest.

However, the term you use, 'conspiracy theories', is regularly used to shut down conversations and is dismissive, and therefore I'd like to request we keep the conversation focused on data, science, and facts as much as possible.

In my case my focus was solely on matters of science.  Gravity, conservation of momentum and the like.  I do not consider these to be either theories or a matter of conspiracy.  If we cannot agree on basic science as a legitimate avenue for discussion and inquiry then I don't know quite what to do with this site.  If you have alternative scientific explanations for the observed event(s) then I am completely open-minded an curious.

To couple the science of the bldg 7 collapse to the idea of a deep state, I find them intimately linked.  After all, how much 'deep state' do you think is required to get a scientifically oriented institution like NIST to cobble together and publish a report that fails to conform to basic, high school level physics?

I'm  thinking 'quite a lot' is the answer.

Again, I know the topic is emotionally difficult, and probably dangerous to discuss in today's environment, and yet the science stands in the way of letting it go.  

There are numerous topics across all three E's to which that prior sentence applies.  How shall we approach such things around here?  Head on, sideways, or not at all?  So far we've been pretty delicate but perhaps the circumstances of the world call for a more direct set of declarations along the lines of the emperor has no clothes!

Wildlife Tracker's picture
Wildlife Tracker
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2012
Posts: 403
Bad Information

I think the hardest part of sifting through conspiracy ideas is that there is a lot of misinformation out there on top of a lot of complete nonsense. It's hard to find the real science and weed out the crap. Drawing the line is often very difficult.

 

 

 

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
World Trade Center

Chris - most of the time you analysis is at least close, however your comments on the trade center collapse are so far off as to be nonsensical and almost impossible to argue without starting from scratch and many others have done that quite well.

Sorry to be so disagreeable, but in my opinion, your conclusions are way off the mark

Jim

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5346
Classic!

Jim,

excellent display of avoidance there.

If you want to take the time to type out your alternative scientific explanation, feel free, I'm all ears, but please don't bother to simply say I'm off the mark and you don't have the time to set me/us straight.

The engineering and science behind my statements  is quite deep and I am 99% confident will stand any test.

However, in the interest of the 1% chance I've missed something I'm curious.  What's your explanation for achieving freefall with resistance or, alternatively, for how structural steel can suddenly become resistanceless across all four corners of a 47 story building that occupied a full city block.  

Use science and engineering principles please,  bearing in mind that I have the data for bldg 7 in terms of its construction, types of girders, and total mass in tonnage (framing elements only, I don't have any data on the furnishings and such, but assume those to be negligible for our purposes).

So that's the challenge.  Explain, freefall despite resistance.  Or how all four corners all lost 100% of their resistance at the same time.  Or how it's possible for structural steel to effectively offer zero resistance.  One of those three things

Remember, you have to account for the full 2.5 seconds of freefall which, starting from rest, means the building travelled in perfect free fall for a bit over 30 meters or 98 feet, which means you have to account for not one, but more than eight full stories of structural framing losing 100% of its resistance.  

Feel free to show your math.

:)

Seriously, this is just science, and I love science.  It works.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 510
There is

a large amount of evidence/proof and dozens of eyewitness accounts of what happened that day, with special regards to the emergency services, and most of it is of audio visual recording evidence. Its all on the internet.

I have my doubts that you have looked very far for this information.

  

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2362
Drawing the line...

Wildlife .... you hit on a very, very important point.  In some ways, the central point I think.  That is this;  It is essential that our society gets back to critical thinking... to the exercise of critical thinking skills.  This means that we all need, as much as possible, to become self-sufficient thinkers, across a broad range of topics.  One could make the case that many of our brethren have been lulled into a sort of intellectual malaise... a laziness.  A blind trust if you will.  Is there a vast conspiracy by the one world government, agenda 21 team to dumb down our education systematically in order to breed this laziness?  I am not sure... that is near where I draw my line.. sitting just to the far side of it for now. 

When we open our minds and put our beliefs aside, hard as that is to do, myself included...and get to the business of research and critical thinking, we still need to draw a line somewhere.  What I mean is this;  If you just say to yourself, "now I am a critical thinker", and you start reading every liberty/conspiracy site on the internet and assuming that it is true... you are not really being a critical thinker at all.  You have to draw a line somewhere... and it's HARD to do.  But it is your line, and it is important to draw it, because doing so means that you are doing the hard work of critical thinking.  Your line can change...and you should let it.. that does not make you dumb or wrong.. it only makes you a more evolved, more experienced critical thinker.  In a world of propaganda and misdirection... critical thinking is our only hope.     

It's fair to ask.. where do I draw my lines?  

1)  The mass media is captured by the fascist deep state machine and no longer is a source of effective investigative journalism, but is rather a megaphone for said deep state. 

OMG YES.  

2)  When you look up in the sky and see persistent plane trails criss-crossing the sky.. those are the signs of chemical spraying for some nefarious purpose (maybe HARP, or geo-engineering).  Chemtrails!

No way.  Are there a few planes around the world that can spray stuff?  I am sure they exist.  Is there mass spraying taking place everyday over the US?  No way.  This is preposterous on so many levels to my mind.

The latest swing in terms of my own critical thinking relates to the existence or non-existence of the phenomenon known as Cold Fusion, aka Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, aka Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions.  I was of the mind that these were chemical phenomena being mistaken for nuclear.. but after watching Peter Hagelstein of MIT teaching his course earlier this year (all on Youtube) .. I have had a change of mind.  Here's a great place to start if you are interested;

Thank you Arthur!           

 

   

ResilientTom's picture
ResilientTom
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 1
jpitre wrote: Chris - most of
jpitre wrote:

Chris - most of the time you analysis is at least close, however your comments on the trade center collapse are so far off as to be nonsensical and almost impossible to argue without starting from scratch and many others have done that quite well.

Sorry to be so disagreeable, but in my opinion, your conclusions are way off the mark

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

Might I suggest watching this short segment from the History channel on the momentum issue Chris is mentioning here. http://youtu.be/Zd65gK-mXR0?t=54s

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5346
About those contrails
Jim H wrote:

2)  When you look up in the sky and see persistent plane trails criss-crossing the sky.. those are the signs of chemical spraying for some nefarious purpose (maybe HARP, or geo-engineering).  Chemtrails!

No way.  Are there a few planes around the world that can spray stuff?  I am sure they exist.  Is there mass spraying taking place everyday over the US?  No way.  This is preposterous on so many levels to my mind.

 

I get asked about chemtrails all the time.  I have not come to any firm conclusions yet.  It would not surprise me in the least to discover that experiments with geoengineering were being conducted, but I seriously doubt they are happening everyday everywhere.

What bothers me is the proof would be trivial for someone who really wanted to know and yet nobody has bothered to gather it.

The idea is that various reflective substances are being sprayed in the upper atmosphere, presumably to increase albedo and reflect sunlight.  Things like barium and aluminum oxides have been fingered as the probable agents.

Okay.  

Regardless of what the actual substances are, the test is simple.

Take absorption spectra readings.  Sunlight has a perfectly well known light absorption 'fingerprint' and anything else that shouldn't be there will leave its fingerprints all over the reading.

If the worry is the concentration is not enough to give a good reading, just wait for a suspected chemtrail to cross the sun and take your reading.

This should be easy as pie and nobody has done it yet so I have my doubts about why not.

Wildlife Tracker's picture
Wildlife Tracker
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2012
Posts: 403
Chemtrails

1) When you get into the airplane math. Such as storage capacity, dispersal rate to provide "chemtrails," etc. the idea that these planes are producing chemtrails at any significant scale is crazy. Small scale albido "experiments" would make sense, but I doubt they would perform these experiments beyond a couple areas in the world, but I really have no idea.

2) Then consider chemical production. Where are they producing these chemicals and where are they receiving the precious minerals to waste at any significant scale? 

3) The biggest "forget about it" for me regarding chemtrails is that they link non-point source contaminants with chemtrails as evidence.

Coal burning is done everyday, THROUGHOUT the world. Coal burning releases aluminum, arsenic, and other heavy metals suggested to be linked with chemtrails as well as mercury. This occurs because fly ash is released through the smoke stacks of poorly filtered power plants as well as the smoke stacks of power plants that completely lack a filter.  Fly ash is then deposited via precipitation.

38% of power plants had a filter in 2008. Not all of them worked and to varying degrees. Knowing how useless the EPA is on this stuff, I'm sure that has not improved. Now imagine the rest of the world? 

Coal burning also participates in point-source pollution through coal ash disposal areas (waste that did not go up into the atmosphere) which are conveniently located above our vital aquifers. These may or may not have an adequate liners to prevent seepage. 

http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/disposal-ash-waste

What's the EPA for again? Maybe we can some quantitate easing funding for some new liners and filters for these companies that get away with murder?

 

 

RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
cmartenson wrote: darbikrash
cmartenson wrote:
darbikrash wrote:

I find it troubling this the majority of the commentary is focused on conspiracy theories, which although mentioned in Kunstler’s article, is really not his point.

I understand your troubled experience because the implications are immense and therefore hard to emotionally digest.

However, the term you use, 'conspiracy theories', is regularly used to shut down conversations and is dismissive, and therefore I'd like to request we keep the conversation focused on data, science, and facts as much as possible.

In my case my focus was solely on matters of science.  Gravity, conservation of momentum and the like.  I do not consider these to be either theories or a matter of conspiracy.  If we cannot agree on basic science as a legitimate avenue for discussion and inquiry then I don't know quite what to do with this site.  If you have alternative scientific explanations for the observed event(s) then I am completely open-minded an curious.

To couple the science of the bldg 7 collapse to the idea of a deep state, I find them intimately linked.  After all, how much 'deep state' do you think is required to get a scientifically oriented institution like NIST to cobble together and publish a report that fails to conform to basic, high school level physics?

I'm  thinking 'quite a lot' is the answer.

Again, I know the topic is emotionally difficult, and probably dangerous to discuss in today's environment, and yet the science stands in the way of letting it go.  

There are numerous topics across all three E's to which that prior sentence applies.  How shall we approach such things around here?  Head on, sideways, or not at all?  So far we've been pretty delicate but perhaps the circumstances of the world call for a more direct set of declarations along the lines of the emperor has no clothes!

Chris and all,

For the reasons you stated, (science) is exactly why I mentioned Bldg. 7 as opposed to the other events that occurred that day. When one's beliefs are questioned, and I mean questioned internally, questioned by one's own inner voice when presented with data and science that perhaps validate the feelings that things are not quite right, the grieving process begins. I hope, some day before I die, the truth comes out.

It is much easier to discuss manipulation of the stock market, oil, gold and other mineral prices because those things - (while they do in fact effect one's personal safety) are more abstract and in a way appear less threatening to one's personal safety than a ruthless direct physical attack.

The Deep State is both inept and cunning - incredibly inefficient and precise. It is these and other paradoxical behaviors that make the Deep State so dangerous. When it boils right down to it, which do you really, really fear the most - a banker that steals your wealth or a person with intent (and means) to take your life? It is that answer that makes one side (the 3 - E's) easier to talk about than the other (one's own government meaning to do physical harm to those they are sworn to protect).

 

I can't remember where it was discussed, but it may actually be the Deep State that "saves" us from the banking cabal. It has been said that the golden rule is - the man who owns the gold makes the rules, I say, that only holds true until the man with a gun comes along.

VeganDB12's picture
VeganDB12
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 714
Is it necessary to assign the same causes to 1,2 and 7?

I have a nagging question but not data. Simply an observation that many assume that the twin towers came down for the same reason that building 7 did. I think this is an error in inductive reasoning. Perhaps they came down for different reasons.  Hypothetically.......

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 760
Calling tree experts

Question:  How was the bark removed from this tree?

Could a Volvo hitting the tree head on have done this?  This is not a rhetorical question.  While it seems to me that bark is not removed from a tree in this manner by a head on collision, I would like to hear from other people.  In spite of the tree's location, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Dutch elm disease.  Here is the video clip from which this image is taken.

Cheers,

Hugh

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 647
Different proximate causes
VeganD wrote:

I have a nagging question but not data. Simply an observation that many assume that the twin towers came down for the same reason that building 7 did. I think this is an error in inductive reasoning. Perhaps they came down for different reasons.  Hypothetically.......

They may have come down for the same ultimate cause; i.e., planes flying into buildings, but they certainly did not come down for the same proximate causes. Bldg 7 came down because internal supports were cleanly and quickly broken without the building being hit by a plane. It is not clearly impossible that they could have broken for the reasons that were given by NIST, but it seems highly improbable that it could have collapsed so precisely like a well executed demolition.

The implications of the collapse of Bldg 7 being a deliberate demolition are monstrous and nearly unthinkable. Such a demolition would require planning and placement of explosives in advance of the plane attacks. Begin with motives. What would be the motive for such an act? Why would NIST cover it up? Why are no mainstream media interested in the story? Think I will check for monsters under the bed and pull the covers up over my head.

 

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Structural failure
cmartenson wrote:
darbikrash wrote:

I find it troubling this the majority of the commentary is focused on conspiracy theories, which although mentioned in Kunstler’s article, is really not his point.

I understand your troubled experience because the implications are immense and therefore hard to emotionally digest.

However, the term you use, 'conspiracy theories', is regularly used to shut down conversations and is dismissive, and therefore I'd like to request we keep the conversation focused on data, science, and facts as much as possible.

In my case my focus was solely on matters of science.  Gravity, conservation of momentum and the like.  I do not consider these to be either theories or a matter of conspiracy.  If we cannot agree on basic science as a legitimate avenue for discussion and inquiry then I don't know quite what to do with this site.  If you have alternative scientific explanations for the observed event(s) then I am completely open-minded an curious.

To couple the science of the bldg 7 collapse to the idea of a deep state, I find them intimately linked.  After all, how much 'deep state' do you think is required to get a scientifically oriented institution like NIST to cobble together and publish a report that fails to conform to basic, high school level physics?

I'm  thinking 'quite a lot' is the answer.

Again, I know the topic is emotionally difficult, and probably dangerous to discuss in today's environment, and yet the science stands in the way of letting it go.  

There are numerous topics across all three E's to which that prior sentence applies.  How shall we approach such things around here?  Head on, sideways, or not at all?  So far we've been pretty delicate but perhaps the circumstances of the world call for a more direct set of declarations along the lines of the emperor has no clothes!

 

I have to concede I have little interest in re-litigating the WTC collapse. I see no value to come from this, irrespective of the engineering outcomes.

 

For me the simple statement  “I do not trust my government” is quite sufficient to allow me to move on.

Accurate characterization of the principle failure modes of Bldg 7 does not change my position, nor should it change yours. Let us not forget it was your guest poster who brought up the topic of conspiracy theories, and did so in such a manner as to imply a lack of credibility from those who take these positions.

 

I agree with him.

 

But you seem quite invested in the idea that there are scientific (or more succinctly engineering) principles that are violated in the assignment of a catastrophic buckling failure to “a central load bearing column or support” as causation for the building collapse. I would be very surprised if there was any engineering justification to your concern.

 

Use science and engineering principles please,  bearing in mind that I have the data for bldg 7 in terms of its construction, types of girders, and total mass in tonnage (framing elements only, I don't have any data on the furnishings and such, but assume those to be negligible for our purposes).

So that's the challenge.  Explain, freefall despite resistance.  Or how all four corners all lost 100% of their resistance at the same time.  Or how it's possible for structural steel to effectively offer zero resistance.  One of those three things

Remember, you have to account for the full 2.5 seconds of freefall which, starting from rest, means the building travelled in perfect free fall for a bit over 30 meters or 98 feet, which means you have to account for not one, but more than eight full stories of structural framing losing 100% of its resistance.  

Feel free to show your math.

 

Full disclosure – I operate a firm that does engineering simulations, and a good bit of those are dynamic explicit loadcases that simulate failure mechanisms. I’ll tell you the same thing I tell any of the PhD mechanical engineers that come into my office at the beginning of a tricky non-linear study- start with a free body diagram and demonstrate to me, to a first order approximation- that we understand the problem and the physics that surround it.

 

To this end we might start with a simple back-of-the-napkin calc that examines the basic physics:

 

 

 

 

This simple equation governs the free fall of an object and depends on two key variables, the time domain and the drop height or fall distance.

To get a quick- and accurate validation as to whether or not any key principles of physics are violated, we can plug in the height of the building and the recorded event duration (timescale) and we can determine by solving this simple equation where we are from a first principles standpoint. Please note per Newtonian physics that the mass of the building (with or without furniture makes no difference) is not relevant in calculating free fall. So, we know the height (47 stories) what, exactly, is the event duration you are using? Can you provide this? If so, we can take a first step. I looked at some videos of the collapse, and I count 5, 6 7 seconds from some angles, 8-9 or seconds from others, yet you say it is three seconds? Can you provide a valid timescale event video so we can perform a simple calculation?

 

Upshot, any solution that shows a non-zero time descrepancy between the predicted free fall time duration and the actual recorded time duration (measured with some accuracy which should be straightforward given the vast amount of video footage) indicates- definitively- some non-zero resistance.  As someone who does this for a living every day I would not want to be taking the position that the time domain will represent perfect free fall, not very likely- but hey, let’s do the math.

 

Once we find out what the comparative numbers between predicted free fall and actual event duration are, then we set about to examine the realm of resistance that steel beams can provide given exposure to fire. We find that the material properties of structural steel of the type used in fire proofed buildings is decidedly non-linear when exposed to high heat. And not surprisingly, we find that structural steel gets quite soft when exposed to elevated heat ranges, in engineering terms we see a pronounced reduction not only in tensile strength, but more importantly, we see a dramatic drop off in tensile modulus (stiffness) as well. We can consider steel as exhibiting isotropic behavior, so we can safely interchange tensile strength and tensile modulus for compressive strength and compressive modulus. It is expected that the building collapse is primarily a combination of compressive and buckling failure.

 

Note the graphs below for fireproof structural steel, have a look at the effective modulus of steel at elevated temperatures, it is very close to zero. Look also at the yield strength at elevated temperatures. Not a pretty picture.

 

Material props:

 

Source:

We have another failure mode to address, that of column buckling. The NIST report mentions column buckling as a principal failure mode, so this obviously needs to be examined in some detail. Practitioners understand that buckling failures are inherently sudden and violent in their manifestation.

 

Compressive buckling is predominantly a geometric function, e.g. it is dependent principally on the dimensional attributes of the vertical column, length of the beam by section modulus, and the mechanical stiffness of the material (elastic modulus). We have seen above that modulus is negatively impacted by heat, so this property we can expect to degrade rapidly.

 

More on buckling failures, a vertical column in buckling failure undergoes a “snap through” or rapid, violent, lateral excursion wherein the beam deforms rapidly- and catastrophically out of plane. This can allow the load it supports to move downward, accelerating and creating cascading downstream failures as the dynamics of the load accelerating can and does impinge on other structural supports.

 

The acceleration of an overhead load acting on lower level support beams creates an amplification of carried mass, due to the inertial contribution.

 

The picture below shows a typical buckling failure of a large storage tank, note the snap through is evident as lateral damage, note also the asymmetric collapse pattern is caused by the feeder pipe acting as a constraining boundary condition.

 

So for me its back to the free body diagram. I have outlined above, briefly, well documented and established engineering principles that may adequately explain the collapse. A first check would be a concise review of a time stamped video that can give us a sense as to the event duration, from which we can ascertain the degree of mechanical resistance (if any) offered by whatever remains of the supporting structure, using engineering judgment and analytical modeling tools. If you can produce such a video, I would be happy to provide feedback, in strict engineering terms, as to the overlay of these data with possible failure modes.

 

 

 

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 834
jrf29 wrote:One could also

Deleted -- too snarky!

Wildlife Tracker's picture
Wildlife Tracker
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2012
Posts: 403
tree

Hugh, this is usually my thing. Natural history and natural interpretation is my passion.

First consider age. The bark of that tree was very freshly removed from that tree. We know this because the tree still has that mild yellow color that means the tree was quite healthy when the bark was removed. That yellow color gives you complete confidence that the event occurred within a year, but because of the rich color still present, I would argue weeks to months. It was a "recent" event.

Okay so now we have an idea of the age. What about causes?

So to remove tightly held and healthy bark from a tree is hard work. Mammals will expend their energy to remove healthy bark to extract the cambium layer of the tree which is the food/sugar transportation layer right underneath the bark. Eurasian beaver (if you have them?), voles (not nearly as high up the tree as pictured though), deer (characteristically messy and has a peeled look) will remove tightly held bark to eat the cambium. All of these mammals will leave incisor scrapings in one way or another. These are not present in this photo. Woodpeckers will remove tightly held bark to open trees up to infestation (their form of investing), and to let sap drip from the tree (to attract beetles, flies, etc.). Woodpecker damage does not look like what is pictured though. Small holes to small damage is typical of woodpeckers.

Disease? Diseases in North America kills trees, THEN tree bark starts to fall off. Like human infrastructure, when the energy to maintain the structural integrity is stopped, things start falling apart. 

Weather? Weather doesn't just rip bark off healthy trees. Unless weather propelled something into the tree, weather would be unrelated to this event. Lightning will explode bark off trees, but cracking and terrible damage is also present.

So to sum this post up, the only thing that could have done that damage to that tree is something propelling into that tree. Look at the height of the area where the most damage was incurred. It's the same height as the car. The other two scrapes could have been from any number of metal or plastic pieces misplaced by the damage. While bark is held tightly to the main structure of the tree, its subsequently to easiest part of the tree to "remove." The main structure of the tree was only mildly damaged.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2662
Bad office furnishings fire (my ass!)

This is an Apple. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nqbUkThGlCo

And if you listen closely, you can even hear the "office furnishings" going off between seconds 1 and 2 of the video.

 

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3097
tree damage

I am not a tree expert, but my daughter is. She is particularly interested in tree pathologies. Her opinion, just looking at the image (we couldn't get the vid to run) is that she knows of no disease process that would cause that kind of damage. It was apparently caused by some kind of violence, but trying to guess whether it was the result of a car accident, and what kind of impact, would just be guessing. My totally unprofessional opinion is that it looks like a car hit it.

Doug

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2362
Building 7

....Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill.....

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-b...

 

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 647
This may be of interest

This is not a time stamped video, but supposedly was produced by analysis of one (available here.). I believe that this includes the time period of interest to Chris.

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 834
cmartenson wrote:darbikrash
cmartenson wrote:
darbikrash wrote:

I find it troubling this the majority of the commentary is focused on conspiracy theories, which although mentioned in Kunstler’s article, is really not his point.

I understand your troubled experience because the implications are immense and therefore hard to emotionally digest.

However, the term you use, 'conspiracy theories', is regularly used to shut down conversations and is dismissive, and therefore I'd like to request we keep the conversation focused on data, science, and facts as much as possible.

In my case my focus was solely on matters of science.  Gravity, conservation of momentum and the like.  I do not consider these to be either theories or a matter of conspiracy.  If we cannot agree on basic science as a legitimate avenue for discussion and inquiry then I don't know quite what to do with this site.  If you have alternative scientific explanations for the observed event(s) then I am completely open-minded an curious.

To couple the science of the bldg 7 collapse to the idea of a deep state, I find them intimately linked.  After all, how much 'deep state' do you think is required to get a scientifically oriented institution like NIST to cobble together and publish a report that fails to conform to basic, high school level physics?

I'm  thinking 'quite a lot' is the answer.

Again, I know the topic is emotionally difficult, and probably dangerous to discuss in today's environment, and yet the science stands in the way of letting it go.  

There are numerous topics across all three E's to which that prior sentence applies.  How shall we approach such things around here?  Head on, sideways, or not at all?  So far we've been pretty delicate but perhaps the circumstances of the world call for a more direct set of declarations along the lines of the emperor has no clothes!

 

The 'pan caking' theory of collapse the overt govt used to explain the collapse of the twin towers was easily dismissed by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, an organization with approximately 2000 members. Beyond that, building 7, built using a completely different design plan, collapsed in an almost identical manner.  

The people who are the most resistant to considering the possibility of criminal conspiracy, with regards 911, are often those who are pretty far left, raised on the "systemic failure" model of govt, proposed by Noam Chomsky; champion of the left. Chomsky, basically a Bolsheviik, believes the magic bullet theory of the JFK assassination.

 He thinks the Kennedy sons as 'elitists' could not actually have been agitating for authentic change--that every baby American elitist is born a blank slate upon which his politics are written by class dictate.  The individual is completely and without exception unable to change his world view orientation.  In other words, very little free will. And when you reduce free will agency in favor of class preordination, in analysis of American domestic politics, you will not be able to apply the lessons learned in third world countries.

Chomsky is on YouTube at some conference stating that "congress would never have allowed an inside job, re 911". Wtf? Congress wouldn't have anything to do with the implementation. Would they try to cover it up after the fact... Obviously. I might if I were a pol and didn't want my control file pulled. He then goes on and states, "and even if they did, it wouldn't matter anyway!"  Again... Wtf?

Da Comrade, really?  That's nuts. 

Chomsky has almost single handedly split and weakened the Left, on this issue alone. 

 

Great discussion. Look forward to seeing more of the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments