Lumich

« In their execution and the nature of the threat they posed to America, the 9/11 attacks appeared sudden, new—but they did not arise overnight or without warning. They happened following decades of evolving terrorist tactics […] »

While there's zero mention in this article of the glaring inconsistencies and WTFs that are all over 9/11, as duely befits an infoctrination outlet called “The National Interest”, the one bit that is worth thinking about in this final paragraph is the time it took to plan and prepare the event – “decades”.

The complexity of the event was enormous, the rollout spectacular, the orchestration superb, and the manpower involved in planning and execution must have been many many thousands (who all got paid handsomely – for their service and their discretion).

There was a video† (now deleted) where you could hear and see 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey call it literally a “30 year conspiracy”.

† https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDfm3NroVG8 DELETED

In my opinion, it's not worth while giving them the benefit of the doubt and studying their “report” (narrative). They play dumb, and “OMG, we f*cked up so badly, it's simply unbelievable!” Well, it is, verbatim. And nobody should believe it, or them.

Here's an observation from my very brief 48h visit to NYC in mid-September 2000. Walking around lower Manhattan, on my way to Battery Park, I came past the WTC and saw, across an empty plaza, a queue of a few dozen people, probably to enter the building or the tourist elevator. The very fact that the queue “stood out” in the general void felt strange. So few people, on a busy and perfect picture postcard blue sky ~25°C late summer early afternoon. And all the streets down to Battery Park were empty. Zero street life. No cafés, no restaurants, no nothing. No one going for a coffee with a colleague or business partner. A total commercial and tourist wasteland.

And yet we're told there were 40 or 50,000 people working in the towers. To that I say bollocks. Rather, the number of people working in the towers must have been commensurate with the level of street life, which was zero. And from that everything can be explained easily.

Not to forget the money flow. The largest insurance case (and fraud) in human history. Made enough money to make thousands of millionaires.

Astonishing, baffling, very weird, of course. Like so many other aspects. The cartoonish cookie cutter way they cut the holes in the towers. My first thought was, “this looks like Hollywood!” (And it was.) The pancake demolition, wtf. The Shanksville non-sequitur, ridiculous. No plane at the Pentagone either. Not to forget WTC number 7. I mean, if it walks like a scam and talks like a scam and quacks like a scam, then … then what? Then you still believe it?

Prof. Maximilian Ruppert (Baustatiker) about the “collapse” (demolition), 27 minutes, in German, Nov 2023 — https://youtu.be/JZ6nL7TPmhc

It would be great to have a direct border with Russia, and finally get rid of US troops in Europe. Would solve lots of issues and drastically increase prosperity and well-being. There's never been a Russian threat in the first place. The sustained militarization of post-WW2 Europe, i.e. NATO, the arms race and the Cold War and its world-wide proxy wars, is the result of Britain and the US pursueing their strategy of tension. At every single step it was the US who escalated, divided and militarized Europe. This is a patently obvious fact of history. And it includes the current war using the Ukraine as ram against Russia.

« As a European I’m » – So what country do you hail from? I understand it's not Serbia. Just so this wild nonsense and wannabe satire can have proper geographic attribution. (Because despite there being a strong indidivual factor, the systems governing some countries do breed certain mental dispositions.)

As it sounds like you have some knowledge about these engines, from the article:

“These [combustion] gases spin the [turbine] disk, which is attached by a drive arm to its associated drive shaft. The shaft then transfers the turbine’s rotational energy forward to the corresponding compressor at the front of the engine.”

I'm probably misunderstanding, but it sounds like the disk is attached to the shaft by a single so-called “drive arm”, which could be imagined to span maybe 10° on the circumference. I would have thought there'd be at least 3 such arms at 120° intervals, if not a continuous full 360° connection, which then I wouldn't call an arm. Could you clarify this point?

« no sanctions against the US for its obviously reckless interference in other countries » – Definitely not enough, not even remotely. But there have been sanctions (though not labeled such) against the US under the guise of grounding the Boeing 737 MAX (21 months, sufficient to deal a blow to Boeing).

Allegedly this was in reaction to the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 on March 10, 2019, near Addis Abeba, killing all 157 people on board. The factuality of the incidence is, however, questionable. I haven't seen a single convincing photo of the crash site. The 737's large modern turbofan engines are said to have been buried in a crater 10 m deep, which is totally implausible and reminiscent of the Shanksville part of the 9/11 hoax. Well, it's just mirroring brazen US lies, basically any BS will do.

https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo-contest/202...

The story goes that a UN delegation was among the victims of the alleged crash. I read somewhere that this was, basically, “world leaders uniting in protest” against the wave of airline terrorism perpetrated by the US (CIA/NSA/wtf) via cyber attacks, one of which was GermanWings 9525 which was crashed into a mountain via remote cyber hijack (remote control system compromised, probably industrial espionnage) on March 24, 2015, shredding to pieces all 150 people on board, mostly from Germany and Spain. The perpetrators had the NYT announce it was “wilful pilot action”, which is factually correct, but they blamed it (via French investigative authorities) on Andreas Lubitz instead of on the CIA or whatever US agency was responsible.

Not sure to what extent US cyber terrorism has been “covered” by HN, probably close to zero, although it couldn't be more “on topic” for US “Hacker News”.

The EU does not serve Europe but US interests, origins go back to the “American Committee on United Europe”, where only one or two Europeans were represented (who were already aligned with “globalism”).

You might already know this, but as for US intentions in this war, here's the 2015 Friedman video about US involvement in the Ukraine and the “drumbeats of the future” (very unsavoury person, dishing out quite some lies to a naïve American audience, but also quite revealing):

George Friedman, "Europe: Destined for Conflict?" – Chicago Council on Global Affairs, February 2015

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc&t=43m46s

Yes, the increased effectiveness of cheap weapons is positive for the global underdogs. And the enormous military network the US entertains is costly. Which is why they have vassals (to foot the bills, at least in part). We'll see how this is going to develop – development of effective counter-measures shouldn't be ruled out.

If “nukes” existed many of these bases, being somewhat removed from human settlements, could be destroyed much more effectively and without much “collateral damage”. As the US and NATO hide behind Ukraine, other “players” could hide behind just any type of “terrorist”, just as the US/UK have done again and again.

« they're definitely afraid of other people's nukes » – They know 100 % no nukes work at all and never have anywhere.

« USA is afraid of other people's nukes » – And of extraterrestrians, too. It's all just propaganda playing back in people's minds.

« conspiracy theorist? » – The book I referenced has lots of hard empirical facts, notably the medical details, which the author is professionally qualified to assess.

« film footage » – Huge quantities of explosives, WWII production kept going. As for Japan, their gov had to collaborate somehow, and eventually resigned themselves to do so because the US wouldn't accept their capitulation and instead kept democratically napalming women and children.

« national self-interests … are widely reported » – What's “widely reported” by the propaganda apparatus is often at odds with “national interest”, which is at least something that makes sense, whereas “the self-interest of Europe” is a highly questionable concept. Still, cheap gas from Russia would fit the bill, expensive wars on behalf of the US and the UK do not. Rich people making lots of money from it does not equate to “national interest”.

« assassinations and sabotage in our countries » – They did assassinate a Georgian terrorist, murderer and war criminal in Berlin in 2019 (whom Germany refused to hand over to justice), and a Russian traitor in Spain, and maybe others I'm not aware of. Compare these to the mass murder via US cyber-attack (true one), on March 24, 2015, of 150 people (mostly from Germany and Spain) by crashing an airliner into a mountain, and then ridiculously claiming (via NYT) “pilot suicide” (as they did with Egypt Air 990 on Oct 31, 1999). I ignore the exact motive, but I suspect it had sth to do with Merkel's trips to Moscow earlier that year.

English is indeed not my first language, and yet I know exactly what “hypocrisy” means. You can see an example of it by looking at the top of your reply, where you slyly pretend not to understand that the US had ample motive to destroy the pipeline for geopolitical reasons. It is absolutely not meant as an insult, just an analysis of the rhetorics you're using. After all, such rhetorics and styles of twisted reasoning are often unconsciously absorbed and reproduced due to exposure to propaganda (“free press”).

So you're German?

« Imagine if the British had responded this way to the invasion of Poland in WW2. » – What exactly was the British “response” when the Soviet Union invaded “Eastern Poland” on Sep 17, 1939? And what was their “response” when confronted with reports of Polish atrocities against Germans in “Western/Northern Poland” during the August crisis?

« getting their own nuclear arsenals to deter Russia » – Stuck in the 20th century? Everyone can see that nukes don't work, else Russia would have used them in March '22, on military objects, and to draw a line; not “democratically” on women and children as the US did, of course (in truth the US used a kind of napalm, poison gas, pumpkin bombs, flash bombs, and coloured smoke bombs, see “Hiroshima revisited” by Michael Palmer). “Nukes” are just an elaborate deception created from 1945 through the 1950s, basically in maintenance mode ever since.

« Germany had already brought an end to it » – Wrong. And of course refusal to start pipeline operation and the ridiculous legal shenanigans (at EU level) were down to US pressure.

« It was, and is, in the self-interest of Europe » – Where are you talking from, geographically? What European languages do you speak so as to be able to know "the self-interest of Europe"?

There's quite a bit of smugness and hypocrisy in your response. Because I don't believe you're as dumb as your responses suggest.

« Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time. »

The US has around 900 military bases abroad. Far more than all other countries combined. These bases are a constant source of threats and bullying, deploying and projecting a GDP largely based on death and destruction. Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders?

« Ukrainians have the right to decide » – Well, they did decide, but the U.S. didn't appreciate, so overthrew their government back in 2014, remember? “The most blatant coup in history”, see Nuland/Pyatt intercept. Instead, the U.S. (and UK) decided there would be a war, as simple as that. Good for business (“make America great again”).

« getting nuked » – If that were a real possibility it would have happened in March '22 when the (not very sharp) Russian leadership understood they'd entered a bear trap and couldn't see a way to get out. This idea has always been a hoax, and if you read the propaganda that accompanied its introduction in 1945 (“Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists”) you can see it was linked to ideas of (literally) world government (because “too grave a danger” etc, mafioso posing as policeman). Russia is the only country still clinging to the idea because geopolitically they feel very insecure, so the illusion is “comforting” (a tranquilizer), but still dumb (like most tranquilizers), and not to be confounded with a stable framework of international order (there is none, chiefly due to the one particular actor who has several hundred military bases abroad).

« the point is not clear » – Yes it is. And it was, and had been before. I understand exactly what you're saying. I simply don't agree to such mechanistic, rigid “rules” for conversation.

Thanks for that YPM sketch. Incidentally, I think the “nuclear deterrant” story is total bogus from the get-go. But has worked great for decades as a framework to frighten people, or at least provide justifications and impose “global order”.

The trouble with drawing any sort of line is that when you're complicit and “aiding and abetting”, there's simply no motivation. And as long as the populace doesn't have a clue what's going on, their understanding being reduced to “evil Putin”, that's not even much of a problem.

« right in the face » — It's mainly Germany that's hit right in the face and where the Stockholm syndrome applies most closely. If we look at our dear neighbours, then we can see that some of them stand to profit from the Nord Stream bombings. Poland, of course, but also the honorable Norway (have a lot of gas) or the Netherlands (have the most important port). These two also happen to be more closely allied and aligned with the (F)UK/US complex, not directly “Five Eyes” (Anglo only), but “Nine Eyes” (plus France and Denmark). The war had been actively prepared since at least 2014 (military “#TrainToWin” etc), so there was enough time for scheming and dealing.

Guilt with a corollary of subservience to “Western values” having become the predominant ideology in Germany, strategic shortsightedness and failure to properly “relaunch” after 1990, also the occasional murder of more “promising” members of the political spectrum (sans doute at the hands of our dear “friends”), brain drain to the U.S., catastrophic “investments” like Chrysler or U.S. telcom, and barely anything of it ever raised to the threshold of public debate and intelligent reflection : a lot of things combine to explain the dismal state of affairs in modern Germany.

It cannot be ruled out that the German gov was complicit in the bombings; not wilfully, but passively, like someone too weak to resist for lack of self-esteem. Like chancellor Scholz on Feb 7, 2022, at the White House press conference where Biden threatened the pipeline:

▪ “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine, again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it.” ▫ “But how will you do that, exactly, since the project is within Germany’s control?” ▪ “We will… I promise you we will be able to do it.”

There was no reaction from Scholz. Just nothing. By the way, could be I'm wrong, but that part of the press conference seemed scripted/scheduled to me. Not the exact words, but the contents.

« When people mention 'third world', they are assumed to mean Sauvy's frame »

Well, that's what you're assuming. I had never heard of Sauvy and was totally unaware of his definition that had lost all meaning by the time I grew up (and I guess the same holds true for most other participants). But okay, learnt something in the process.

What I took issue with in floh's comment in the beginning was not some improper definition of a term but the arrogance implicit in his tone (learnt or rather osmotically received arrogance, instilled by propaganda), an irritation possibly accumulated from a series of prior comments he'd made and which I'd read as part of my feed (because I appreciate his tech comments).

Now I respectfully suggest that we leave it at that.

Spot on. Also, in 2003, the war on Iraq, still occupied. And the proxy war on Syria (stifling an unwelcome pipeline project). European “leaders” pretend to not comprehend how they're being screwed. Stockholm syndrome. Populations don't understand, propaganda (“free press”) working correctly.

« You cannot attribute to the speaker unproven intentions … explicitly forbidden »

As I said, I didn't intend to diss either Sauvy or you, first time I heard about this guy, and also asked some French contacts about whether he's still known in France, and the answer is « Pas la moindre idée de qui c'est ».

Also, in the article you linked, which I duely read in its entirety, he does talk about hunger and misery looming over the Third World, and he laments the misallocation of funds for more war and NATO (« pacte atlantique »). The bit about the origin of the expression and Sieyès is just the final note.

So I frankly don't think I insinuated (unterstellen) anything that was not in his text, and I was and am surprised for being reprimanded. If we are to assume good faith, then it must apply universally, not selectively.

« Why … omitting » – There was no ill intent. I saw you provided a third explanation for the term, but didn't want to analyze any deeper, so I focused on the part where Sauvy fit the notion I grew up with, the only one I was familiar with (and ignored the "superstition" part of your reply).

I respectfully read the Sauvy link you provided, but frankly, despite reading/listening to lots of French, I've never come across him anywhere, and I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before). Now I see that the German Wiki article has Sauvy right at the top. (Is that where you got it from?)

By the way, Sauvy "repudiated" his definition in 1989 (French Wiki):

Auteur de l'expression [« tiers monde »], [Sauvy] la désavoue à la fin de sa vie : « Que l'on permette au créateur de l'expression tiers-monde, il y a déjà près de quarante ans, de la répudier, tant elle fait oublier la diversité croissante des cas. Englober dans le même terme les pays d'Afrique noire et « les quatre dragons » ne peut mener bien loin. »

J'espère ne plus me faire sévèrement réprimander ici pour avoir commis des « grave base failure in the mandate from the guidelines here ». :)

This video is by graphics artist Neal Adams (who I just learnt passed away in 2022). He had a whole series of these videos on his Youtube. I was fascinated when I discovered them ~2008. He was passionate about Earth Expansion. But despite the assertive tone of the voice and the triumphant music, it cannot be properly seen in this sketchy representation how exactly the continents were supposed to fit together on a smaller globe. And the artistic approach he chose suggests that he cared more about the general idea and vision than about the details, which of course is perfectly legit for an artist.

« how science works » – It's a human activity and as such it not only bears all the hallmarks of human behaviour (certainly filtered/tempered, yes) but is also subject to overarching "ideological" issues that govern society, all the more so as its material/social existence is usually institutionalized and tied to things like salary, reputation and careers.

I've seen evidence of scientists behaving in ways that warrant just the terms I used, ostracism and heresy, when "dealing with" someone questioning/attacking "core tenets" (which, if successful, perhaps after decades, can lead to a "paradigm shift", like "continental drift").

That's not to say all scientists behave alike, of course; psychologically and statistically, average human behaviour should be expected, which typically means conformist and aligned behaviour (civility/restraint, but also "don't upset the applecart").

« probably not what they meant » – Right, he implied Earth is a “living organism”, which is an additional proposition on top of expansion. (Who knows, maybe it is.) The bit about “increased gravity” could mean that Earth may have gained mass (via some as yet unknown mechanism) at some point of her history, something Carey touches upon in the video I linked.

I wonder how people can be so certain that Earth first accreted from "constructive" collisions out of some dust cloud, but then, once her "correct" size attained (in accordance with "Laws of Nature"), did not suffer any further changes in size or mass, except for infinitesimal ± due to hydrogen escaping or collecting shooting stars. After all, there is zero direct evidence for that story/theory, just as the interior of the Earth continues to be empirically unknown to us beyond a depth of about 12 km.

What I think is that the idea of an expanding/growing Earth (“gotten drastically bigger” at some point in the not so distant geological past, a development which cannot be observed in the present) does not fit the overall science story (physics/cosmology, mass/matter/gravity) and hence is rejected despite the geological surface evidence (see Carey video).

« Highly recommend The Rise and Fall of Dinosaurs » (by Steve Brusatte)

This book fails to mention both Gideon Mantell (1790–1852) and Richard Owen (1804–92). It's through them that dinosaurs entered our modern, scientific world.

What he means is probably the idea of Earth Expansion. See Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, a disciple of Alfred Wegener, and more recently (but still a couple decades ago) Australian geologist Samuel Warren Carey. Here's a 1982 video featuring him on the topic of “Planet Earth: A Question of Expansion”:

https://youtu.be/Othb0xsvZb4 – 26 minutes

This view is kinda ostracized in geology and considered heresy.

« the countries not directly aligned to the "two blocks" are akin to the social "third state" as a worldwide class » — That's the economic (rather than political) definition right there in 1952. Les pays sous-développés … et aussi exploités … le Tiers État.

« quite literally » – Not what I remember, but okay, that may have been the original meaning before I "entered the chat". Then, it was associated with hunger, poverty, misery. I remember distinctly.

« Do you think the Soviets » – Right, that was silly. They had their own propaganda.

« Spain was a fascist dictatorship until the 1970s » – It seems the worst thing they ever did was aiding and abetting the U.S. Air Force. Certainly shameful, but then again "not a unique selling proposition" in Europe.