1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5757/iraq-through-a-rebels-eyes/

Iraq Through a Rebel’s Eyes

October 16, 2006 by

The US government’s arm is tired, writes Andrew Greene. Even with one hundred and fifty thousand troops, a fortune in fuel and supplies, and the best weapons ever invented, all that power is having a rough ride. Humvees loaded with high-tech regulars are sitting targets for bits of plumbing packed with C-4, left at the side of the road. There are plenty of surprises from the front, but such news would only elicit a sad smile from Jefferson, and the same from his fellow insurgent, Madison. They knew that a well armed citizen militia can never be conquered by regular troops. Nor would they have cheered those who are attempting to conquer. FULL ARTICLE

{ 82 comments }

adi October 17, 2006 at 4:47 am

Machiavelli wrote in his book (The Prince) that citizen militia will be superior to regulars and mercenaries which foreign states employ, when militia is defending it’s own territory.

It was big surprise for him that spanish regular infantry employed by De Medici clan easily defeated forces of Florence and caused big losses.

Still partisan activity can force enemy to use frontline troops to guard strategic positions and thus hinder his ability to wage war (Wehrmacht had to use many units of frontline troops to wage war against partisans in Yugoslavia, Belarussia and Ukraine) though war is won by regular armies.

averros October 17, 2006 at 6:10 am

TGGP – states exist not because they can beat up their citizens (they cannot) but because the citizens believe in the idea of State. So _they_ beat the dissenters.

When that belief is shattered (at least the belief that the current form of State is a good idea), the small fraction of populace (20% or so) can easily remove even the mightiest State – the story of downfall of the Soviet Union offers a perfect example. Lots of good its mighty army and fearsome weapons did to help its rulers, heh.

Now, an army of a state may beat civilians of another in an armed conflict. However this does not directly translates into the victory for the invader – the wars are fought in order to achieve political objectives, and if fighting the war destroys the support of home populace for the particular ruling gang, the gang is losing the war. This is all too common motif, recurring over the ages.

CAITM October 17, 2006 at 8:40 am

Simon,

Yes, we are all bad bad men and I’m not going to defend us.

But this is truly a situation in which “it takes a thief to catch a thief.” Well, I’m a “thief” and I’m merely offering my advice, as such and suggesting that you consult other “thieves” that wish to steal no more.

I would also add, as one with a bachelor’s in history, that the founders were not angels. That doesn’t mean we discard their writings, but they must be seen in light on the nature of such darkly ambitious men as Hamilton.

CAITM October 17, 2006 at 8:51 am

Now back to the issue at hand. The generally accepted belief that trained professional troops are always superior to citizen soldiers rests on fallacies at least as old as Plato. I could write a book on why this is a fallacy, but not here.

Proper study of military sicience, context in which wars are fought and with which weapons will show that the good guys (i.e. people in arms defending their commonwealth from armed invasion can still win, even the the era of digital, “net-centric” warfare.

Roger M October 17, 2006 at 9:08 am

Sione:”In the case of the USA there has been the lesson of Vietnam; an utter rout, a defeat which severely damaged the reputation and safety of the USA and US citizens everywhere.”

That’s just ignorance about history. Have you read any book on Vietnam? The US military was never defeated in Vietnam. The NV came to the negotiating table in Paris because they were losing. We offered to quit bombing NV and pull out of SV if they would agree not to invade. Two or three years after the treaty was signed, the NV tore it up and invaded SV.

I can’t believe there is any argument about militias vs. standing armies. Why do people resort to militias instead of standing armies? Because they’re weak and can’t raise a standing army. Every militia in the world fights from an inferior, weaker position. They don’t expect to defeat the enemy militarily; they hope to wear the enemy down to the point that he leaves. Don’t you think that if they could, every militia in the world would buy tanks, bombers, and cruise missiles so they could defeat the standing army they oppose?

There are to many conspiracy theorists on this thread. Before long, someone is going to claim that they’ve seen Elvis and that UFO’s control the government. I’m outa here.

CAITM October 17, 2006 at 10:04 am

Roger M’s last comment is just such an example of the Platonic fallacy that professional soldiers or standing armies are the pinicle of military capability.

-Republican Rome’s citizen militia-style army defeated Phyrrus’Macedonian-style regular army in a protracted war, and Fabius’ indrect approach eventually vanquished Hannibal. This force persisted until Marius bastardized the Roman Army into a standing professional force more for internal political reasons than for outward need.

-The French army between 1789 and 1799 was a motley citizen’s rabble and yet bested the Prussians, British and Austrians, all with well-drilled proffessional armies. Napoleon proffessionalized it in order to make it an efficient tool for conquest.

-Tito’s Partisans in Yugoslavia virtually liberated vast tracts of that region and that doubtlessly helped successfully deter Soviet domination thereafter.

-Mao’s PLA was a guerilla force (though he argued it wasn’t) right up until 1949, they only used massed artillery as they captured it from the KMT. Chaing’s Mechanized KMT dissentigrated without popular support. Why did the PLA regularize? well, doctrinally, it didn’t until the 1980s.

the fact that regular armies form and were formed in the first place has to do more with the accepted norms of conventional warfare than with the outright superiority of a regular army

Francisco Torres October 17, 2006 at 3:10 pm

There is also an added fact about militias vs standing armies that should be mentioned: the fact that standing armies are trained to fight other standing armies with the same tactics, and that their logistical support is much more complicated and vurnerable inside a conquered land. When Germany launched its first spring offensive against the forces of the British Expeditionary Force in 1918, several divisions were routed and the soldiers retreated without knowing what to do – because they had been trained for trench warfare. Instead, militias do not suffer the cumbersomeness of such lockstep training and have thus more freedom to change tactics as expediency dictates. Also they have the support of the local population (as long as they do not try to impose some political doctrine a la Mao) and can parctically dissipate inside the local population. This is what goes on today in Afghanistan and Iraq. This means that their logistical lines are more flexible and thus less vulnerable, as found by the British during the Boer war, this being the reason why they resorted to the savagery of placing entire communities in concetration camps (in order to disrupt the Boers’ support base). It was a good thing for the British that the Boer men did not allow their women to arm themselves . . .

Obviously, if militias try to fight against a well-trained army on the same terms, the army will prevail. Instead, whenever the militia brings the armies to fight in the militia’s terms, the results are usually catastrophic for the trained army. The battle of the Cowpens is testimony to that.

JIMB October 17, 2006 at 3:36 pm

Vince – How do you know those arguments are accurate? The problem I see with history in general is what essential facts have been deleted? by the proponents of a claim? It’s pretty easy to “fact check” a lot of claims, really hard to find “deleted facts” which can change the entire viewpoint. In the end, what can really be known about the situation?

Not trying to argue complete ignorance, just that a “case” can be made for almost any view “according to history”.

Vince Daliessio October 17, 2006 at 3:47 pm

JIMB;

Fair question. History is often distorted or obscured. The best I can offer is that several attempts were made by the Japanese to sue for peace through contacts with Russia, among others. This is pretty well-documented. Most honest, decent historians will admit this.

The two conditions they placed on the offer of peace were; 1)to retain national sovreignty over the home islands, and; 2)to retain the emperor and exempt him from war crimes trial. Truman refused these overtures, bombed anyway, and in the end those conditions were met after all.

As a person who is anti-war, I see this refusal to meet these conditions prior to the bombings as evidence that peace was not the highest value held by Truman. Other historians opine that Truman wanted to use the atomic bombings to scare the Russians and Chinese and show them their place, a view that has some support in Truman’s later conduct toward Russia, China, and Korea, for example.

But more to the point, after the billions of dollars invested in the Manhattan Project, Truman was not about to allow the war to end without using the bomb. This immoral position is easy to see in retrospect – I mean, come on, what would the purpose of invading a prostrate Japan have been, anyway?

Doug October 17, 2006 at 4:07 pm

Tell me again, how many children did Jefferson blow up? Were there English civilians murdered and burned upside down? Did the colonialists set off bombs to kill everyone just in order to agitate?

Or perhaps “the cause” might have something to do with justification. Let’s see, on one hand is freedom and on the other is tyranny. To compare terrorists to Jefferson is the same as comparing the police to a street gang.

Thomas Paine October 17, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Thomas Paine October 17, 2006 at 8:38 pm

Jack sez:
The real terrorists are in the White House. The fact that so few libertarians can see this is both shocking and sad.

Well, perhaps that means that there really are very few libertarians in this world.

OTOH, anybody who knew the ABC of physics should easily see that the state’s ‘explanation’ for the WTC collapse is outrageous nonsense.

But we’re not living in Newton’s enlightment anymore. Rationalism is out of fashion. People have reverted to believing in government witchcraft. Fiat money and other nursery ryhmes.

Nick Bradley October 17, 2006 at 9:51 pm

Roger M, All,

“As a result, I favor an immediate pull-out of US troops from Iraq. The sooner we’re gone, the sooner the Kurds and Shia will end the insurgency, probably within 60 days.”,

I’m not so sure about that. I am currently deployed to Iraq, and my perspective has changed quite a bit since I’ve been here. I too believe it’s time to leave. The Kurds and Shia are indeed capable of rooting out the insurgencies, but only in their own neighborhoods. I don’t forsee the Kurdish Peshmerga invading Al-Anbar and rooting out Al-Qaida members anytime soon. Neither the Kurds nor the Shias will go into the Sunni jihadist cesspools of Ramadi and Fallujah; it isn’t going to happen.

However, I do believe that the best solution is division of the country into three or fours separate states, or one highly-decentralized state (as the Shias recently voted for). A Kurdish state, a Sunni state, a Shia state, and a city-state in and around Baghdad. The Kurds and Sunnis would quickly ramp up oil production and get their economies rolling and restore normalcy and prosperity to their people, and Baghdad would be a center of trade in the region, but what of the oil-less arab sunnis? That’s a real pickle.

I’ve talked to others stationed out here, and many agree with me: part of what the insurgency is doing is a natural reaction that any populace would have done. I.e. if the US was suddenly occupied by a benign foreign power, I am absolutely certain that Americans would take pot shots at troops and set up roadside bombs to take out their vehicles, regardless of the intentions or actions of the occupier. However, what Americans would NOT do is drive a 4-door sedan packed with artillery shells into a crowd and detonate it. We would not strap suicide belts on and blow up the churches of those who were not participating in our actions. We would not send our children, ill-equipped, at an occupation patrol with an AK-47 and hope he is killed for neighborhood propaganda. Americans would not behead those who agree with us. Americans would not be fighting to install a fascist state, whether it be National Socialist (Baathist) or Salafist (totalitarian Islamic governnance, or “Islamofascism” if you like the term) state in the Iraqi’s case.

We have had many opportunities to “exit” since the war began:

1. We could have toppled Saddam and left. Let the Iraqis sort their own affairs out.

2. We could have left after we were assured the Baathists would not come back to power anytime soon after capturing Saddam and killing his demented sons.

3. We could have left after the Iraqi Gov’t was stood up.

4. We could have left after the Constitution was approved.

I could go on and on. The fact is, Iraq is a better place then when we came in, and many of the problems here would go away when we leave. The US government did a great job doing the only thing its good at: commiting coercion and exercising force. The Baathist regime is gone. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. But now we are conducting what the government is decidedly AWFUL at: Institution-building and socio-economic planning, and I can’t figure it out why. I’ve explored the empire theory, but there’s a lack of evidence for the only logical motivation: dollar hegemony.

So perhaps it is time to pull back, let Iraq natually break up, set up shop in Kurdistan, and smack down any terror camps that develop in the Sunni cesspool.

Jon Robinson October 18, 2006 at 12:45 am

Great article. The US Government is doing many things that the Founders complained about in the Declaration of Independence.

I am wondering about the Washington quote at the end. It doesn’t seem like it fits the period. I read on this website: BogusFounderQuotes that it has never been confirmed as authentic.

Andrew Greene October 18, 2006 at 7:12 am

Thanks to all of you who have taken an interest in the article, from whatever point of view. Here are some comments about your comments, mainly in reverse order.

Jon Robinson is right: many Washington quotations are nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, some of the claims that quotations are bogus are as unreliable as the quotations themselves, and primary research is the only way out. I think the sentiments are close enough, based on the rest of the written record—if we can trust that, what with stories about cherry trees and all. History definitely is a subjective enterprise.

Nick Bradley’s is a strong piece of analysis and there is nothing I can add to it.

9-11 conspiracy theorists should remember Occam’s Razor. Yes, the government has used the event to its advantage, because subjective men act for their own benefit—as Austrian economics teaches us—but why stretch the matter any further?

Doug, Sologue, and others with similar comments are right: there is no moral equivalence between the insurgents and the Founders. Their views of property and the sovereign individual couldn’t be more opposite. The only similarity I see is tactical: guerilla warriors fighting the big government’s regulars; rebels trying to stick it to The Man.

The pacifists should know that liberty cannot favor pacifism or isolationism. We cannot hang onto our property if we sit indoors, disarmed and disengaged, in the vain hope that nobody will bother us. The government shouldn’t have the monopoly on our protection, and probably shouldn’t be protecting us at all (because that’s not its true purpose), but someone needs to do it. Don Robinson talks about civil responses to uncivil acts, but there is a thin line between that and surrender.

CAITM (great analysis), Francisco Torres, Mark Brabson, Leigh Jacobs, and even TGGP are asking the right questions. Can irregulars beat regulars? How much foreign help and money does it take? Were the colonials really guerrillas, or organized infantry? What level of resistance will force a governor to resort to annihilation—and therefore to lose? These questions matter because some day, maybe, we’ll try to use the answers. They are the same ones Madison used to ask, because he wanted to ensure that Federal troops could always be beaten—by us.

M E Hoffer October 18, 2006 at 8:39 am

Mr. Greene,

You posit:
“9-11 conspiracy theorists should remember Occam’s Razor. Yes, the government has used the event to its advantage, because subjective men act for their own benefit—as Austrian economics teaches us—but why stretch the matter any further?”

Who are the 9-11 “conspiracy theorists”?

What, indeed, would Occam’s Razor be “saying” to them?

“Yes, the government has used the event to its advantage,…” Which event(s), and in which way(s)?

“because subjective men act for their own benefit”

Who are these “subjective men”? And, How did “they” act? Better, Who “benefited”, and How?

“but why stretch the matter any further?”

Which is “the matter”, and How is it being “stretched”?

“but why stretch the matter any further?”

“The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda which we must now consider are, however, of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundation of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth.”(1) F.A. Hayek, 1944

Thomas Paine October 19, 2006 at 1:25 am

Mr Greene,

Your words

9-11 conspiracy theorists should remember Occam’s Razor.

are a bit cryptic. But it seems to me that you’re trying to smear people who speak the truth. So let me have another go at it :

It’s a FACT that the buildings in the WTC were destroyed using controlled demolition. This is physics. If you ask cui bono ?, then it seems that the criminals running the American state are indeed responsible. I don’t see anything ‘being streched’. Do you ?

Thomas Paine October 19, 2006 at 8:47 pm

TGGP

‘jack shit’ ? What’s that ? A new ‘actually scientific’ term ?

You sound a bit…scared ? Yes, that’s likely the case. You can’t stand truth because you ‘trust’ your government.

Do you consider that Mr Dutch’s rant is a serious debunking ?

By the way, what is, exactly, a conspiracy theorist ? Is that some sort of shortcut to easily suppress disenters, perhaps ?

Try thinking about this…Not so long ago, people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe were burnt alive…

And people like you were the ones doing the burning…People who blindly believe in the ‘official’ ‘science’(dogma of course).

So, again, controlled demolition is a far better explanation than the ad hoc theories of your government and its court intelectuals. Face it.

Thomas Paine October 19, 2006 at 11:06 pm


Your description of Dutch’s piece as a “rant” is laughable, considering the utter lack of evidence you’ve presented

I suggest you bother to read Reynolds article, wich you obiusly didn’t.

Thomas Paine October 19, 2006 at 11:37 pm

TGGP

Read what Reynolds says about free-falling. Then read the ‘debunking’ by Dutch. Realize that they are talking about different things.

The point is, you don’t think for yourself. You trust ‘scientists’…

I notice that you didn’t say anything about the popular mechanics debunking. Was that also a “rant”?

Sorry, Dutch is enough for me. And yes, I read the introductory page of PM and is indeed a politically correct rant.

cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts

Sounds like rant to me…

Thomas Paine October 19, 2006 at 11:37 pm

TGGP

Read what Reynolds says about free-falling. Then read the ‘debunking’ by Dutch. Realize that they are talking about different things.

The point is, you don’t think for yourself. You trust ‘scientists’…

I notice that you didn’t say anything about the popular mechanics debunking. Was that also a “rant”?

Sorry, Dutch is enough for me. And yes, I read the introductory page of PM and is indeed a politically correct rant.

cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts

Sounds like a rant to me…

Vince Daliessio October 20, 2006 at 1:48 pm

Tom Paine said;
“It’s a FACT that the buildings in the WTC were destroyed using controlled demolition. This is physics.”

That may indeed be the case (though I doubt it), but for it to be a FACT, versus a HYPOTHESIS, one would have to present some solid PROOF, which is, I submit, still rather lacking in both the case of the WTC towers;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

and The Pentagon;

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

I am willing to entertain your hypothesis, particularly in WTC #7 case, which is admittedly fishy (and had a large # of federal tenants).

But to the larger question of qui bono – it is not necessary to debunk an “official” explanation. The Bush Administration KNEW Bin Laden was going to strike in a big way;

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

They knew what the likely target(s) were;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

Really, no elaborate plot was necessary. Just keep troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, keep aiding Israel and Egypt militarily, keep starving Iraq and demonizing Iran, stand around, look bored, read “My Pet Goat” to schoolchildren…in short, just be your own, incompetent, evil selves, let Osama do the rest…

Mark Brabson October 20, 2006 at 2:40 pm

The one thing about 9/11 that has always bothered me and for which no one has provided sufficient explanation is the collapse of WTC-7. I have repeatedly watched the video’s from different angles, studied the debris field and examined the other evidence. My mind really wants to come to the conclusion that the building was dropped by pre-placed explosives. It is the only theory that really fits.

I think the government’s official version is bullsh*t to a great degree. I think some of the 9/11 so called conspiracy theorists are a little overboard too. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Perhaps the Mossad was involved.

In any event, it is a very healthy thing to question the government extensively on this and to probe deeply. If the government can prove its case, than good for them. And make no mistake, the burden falls on the government, not on the questioners.

Don October 20, 2006 at 3:15 pm

Am I even more tired than I think I am? Earlier, I could have sworn that there was an exhange between “Thomas Paine” and “TGGP”. Now the comments by “TGGP” seem to have been removed. If so, WHY? I recall his comments were somewhat rude, but so what?

It seems there are quite a few conspiracy theorists on this blog. I agree there is lot’s of circumstancial evidence that there could be a conspiracy behind 9/11, but that’s all it is: circumstancial. Circumstnacial evidence is not proof, and when posts that contest the evidence with links to well-written arguments are removed (I think they were anyway, maybe I am just crazy), I have to wonder what exactly is going on this site.

That said, if they were removed simply because of there degree of unpleasantness, I have no complaints.

Don October 20, 2006 at 3:17 pm

I meant “their” degree of unpleasantness, not “there”.

Thomas Paine October 20, 2006 at 7:35 pm

Yes, the posts from TGGP seem to have been removed. Perhaps because he called me an idiot ? I really don’t mind that…As a matter of fact, his losing his temper shows he’s not so sure about his position. Maybe the Administrator could put his posts back ?

Vincent, the way the twin towers collapsed strongly suggests that they were demolished. Look at point 7. in Jack’s post and this from Reynolds article :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse, if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed (“g” or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require “pulling” or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.

Vince Daliessio October 21, 2006 at 1:23 am

Tom, I’m not a tructural engineer, however I have spent a lot of time professionally looking at steel frame building construction. I know the WTC towers were built in a most unconventional manner, with way more “clear” space per floor than any other office building ever built, certainly more than any office tower ever crashed into by a plane.

Virtually the only support for the very long trusses and deck pans were small, relatively flimsy clips that tied them to the outer “monocoque” outer frame and the inner core, as opposed to your average 15-story office building which has many more intermediate columns between the core and the shell of the building. Most of the building’s concrete mass was contained in these relatively lightly-supported floors. I don’t have any problem believing the “official” explanation because I watched the buildings come down on TV thousands of times, and what occurred certainly looks consistent with the explanation offered on the NOVA program. The damage to the strucutal steel that was evident would support this mode of failure also.

But if one really insists that the WTC collapses were an inside job, it is counterproductive, I think, to maintain that somehow the planning and execution of such a plot could somehow be pulled off without anyone talking or otherwise slipping up. It just doesn’t pass the giggle test. It’s much more likely that if it were an inside job that it was done by intentional neglect of the potential threat and institutional incompetence, and not by controlled demolition, #7 WTC aside.

Ragnar October 21, 2006 at 3:30 am

TTGP is gone because of his uncivil tone, not because of his underlying arguments (which he only succeeded in undermining with his tirades). When you can make 9-11 conspiracy theorists sound sensible by comparison, it’s time to rethink your approach. The HAHAHA comment at the top didn’t deserve to survive either.

greg October 21, 2006 at 9:54 am

Tom Paine quoting http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

“Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed (“g” or 9.8 m/s2).”

Does it bother anyone that this guy (Reynolds) doesn’t know the difference between acceleration and velocity (speed)?

Jim Fedako October 21, 2006 at 2:01 pm

To assume the it was an inside job is to assume that government is omnipotent and omniscient. In addition, to assume that government could have protected us from any such terrorist is also to assume the same.

We sit painfully aware of the ills that government performs in front of our eyes on a daily basis (i.e., the fed, welfare, redistribution of wealth, etc.) without throwing the bums out on election day, so why do we believe that they feel the need to hatch some secret plan to increase their power.

By way of example: The Patriot Act is available for all to read, yet the average American quietly acquiesces to its interventions. Even the actions of FDR were available for all to read, yet the books by Flynn did not create a severe backlash.

Let’s face it, Bush did not need 9/11 to attack Iraq. He simply could have sold it to the public out in the open based solely on his democratization of the world crusade, and most would simply have gone along for the ride.

Thomas Paine October 21, 2006 at 3:03 pm

Greg, it doesn’t bother me though I admit it doesn’t sound good. Anyhow, I know that acceleration is the rate of change of speed, wich is the rate of change of position.

Vincent, I see three different issues.

1) If you believe that wtc7 was indeed a case of controlled demolition, then I ask, When were the explosives set up ? After the planes hit the towers ? In just a few hours ? Hmmm…

2) Whether the government is too incompetent to prevent leaks if they indeed were responsible is not something that can be known a-priori. The libertarian insight is only that govt. cannot produce goods efficiently. On the other hand, if you regard govt. as a criminal enterprise it follows that, for them to thrive, they must be an efficient enterprise in their line of bussiness…lying, robbing, killing.

Minorities too can sometimes conquer by means of superior military skill and can thus establish minority rule. But such an order of things cannot endure. If the victorious conquerors do not succeed in subsequently converting the system of rule by violence into a system of rule by ideological consent on the part of those ruled, they will succumb in new struggles – Mises – H.A.
In a word, it’s not so hard for the state to cover its tracks because people don’t really want to know…

3) What would convince me that I’m wrong with respect to the twin towers is this :

Were they specifically designed to collapse the way they did ? I believe they were designed NOT to collapse if hit by an airliner. But in the unlikely event of collapse, were some ‘failure mode’ purposedly built in into the structure ? Like glass breaking along predefined lines ?

I couldn’t find relevant information in your link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

Should I listen to Sunder’s interview ? I would rather prefer a page from the original contractors and designers explaining what happened to their buildings – as opposed to studies made by the state. (NIST)

Anyway, I don’t see how your description of the building’s structure disproves controlled demolition. The key point is that for all that mass to go down in an orderly way and at free fall speed, the material needs to be cut up in ‘small’ chunks. That applies to the core and to the outer shell. How was the cutting done ? Did it happen ‘spontaneously’ ? Why was floor 10 reduced to rubble an hour after the plane hit floor 90 ? Where did the energy to break things up come from ?

The lynchpin of physics is mass-energy conservation. So, was there enough energy in the planes to reduce the buildings to rubble ? Did the burning soften all the structure ? (obviously not). Was there enough potential energy in the rest of the structure so that it self-destroyed ? And it happened in an orderly fashion ?

J. Parker Chandler October 24, 2006 at 1:59 pm

The article caught my eye, but many of the comments caused them to roll. Especially those conspiracy theories. The government did it in a time and a culture wherein, highly classified secrets find their way into the hands of journalists dying for a story, on an almost daily basis. I doubt it. Yes, I really do believe fanatical Islamists want to subjugate me and my way of life.

However, the premise of the article makes for interesting consideration and debate.

While I find myself at odds with the war; I find it has more to do with the prosecution than the actual ‘war’ itself. By that, I mean, I find it to be a refusal to accept the fact that war is only won when the cost of resistance exceeds the cost of surrender. Not since WWII has the U.S. government been willing to prosecute a war with this in mind. Rather, politicians and political opinion, being prone to hyper emotional responses, and easily aroused to start the battle(s), they rarely have the fortitude to finish the job.
(consider this undeniable fact: Both political parties in both houses, nearly unanimously voted to authorize war in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
We can deny this with accusations of “lies” and other excuses by professional politicians, but the fact is: This country, its people and its politicians wanted to wage war. They just don’t want to see it through now that it has begun.
This is precisely why wars should not be so casually entered into.

To think any nation can wage limited war, with limited collateral damage is a fools mission. This is precisely why, despite the awesome power of the US military, a rag-tag group of part-time insurgents can stave off annihilation. Without the will to conquer and totally subjugate a nation, warfare is, indeed, a waste of resources; human and monetary.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: