“The Anatomy of the State,” Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard’s articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974): http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

———-

A truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower.

That piece of evidence isn’t merely a smoking gun: it’s a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like (“like” in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful indendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

“Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing,” CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten%20Metal%20from%20WTC.mpg

“Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting,” CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn’t molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government’s account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there’s nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see Steven E. Jones’s (Ph.D.; physicist and archaeometrist; former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University) below paper:

“Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?,” Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Completely%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20Center%20J24.pdf
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

See also:

“Experiments to test NIST ‘orange glow’ hypothesis,” Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glowhypothesis.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

“Experiments with Molten Aluminum,” Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

“A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel,” Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lifferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see “Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination” in World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 403, May 2002 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

“”
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. … No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
“”

And in the below paper it is conclusively proved via chemical analysis using wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS) that large quantities of thermite analogs (such as thermate) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

“Revisiting 9/11/2001–Applying the Scientific Method,” Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 11 (May 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

———-

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). This makes government itself the largest corporeal conspiracy to ever exist, or that could ever exist.

Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then *by definition* the U.S. government’s offical fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own non-combatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that’s only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel’s website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens–certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people’s very own government.

Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies–massive conspiracies, at that–but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite insignificant by comparison.

Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself terrorism), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control. In the below post by me is contained voluminous amounts of documentation which refutes the U.S. government’s lying, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks, as well documentation on many other government-staged acts of terrorism:

“Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism,” September 30, 2005 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth

In the below post by me, I provide massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including children and U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them–including homosexually anally raping them–and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government:

“Crushing Children’s Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom,” TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59&mforum=libertyandtruth

For more on the inherent incentive structure (i.e., the internal logic of the system) of government which makes it wholly unfit for protection of just property and insures that it will tend toward ever greater levels of usurpation and rapine, see my below article (published under my legal name):

“Government Causes the Crime,” James Redford, first published at Anti-State.com circa October 2001 http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/govcause.html

There are more, including one by the execrable Tom Palmer, but I won’t sully Mises.org by linking to it.

That was so scholarly..

http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/121451.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28872.html

Bailey also wrote this 2005 piece that recognizes that the war has gone far off the rails:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34082.html

That is the same extreme – and thus inaccurate – definition of an individualist that the Left uses in their arguments against individualism in general.”

You believe a crime was commited on 9/11 right?

To identify the crime first you must identify the victim, since there cant be a crime without a victim.

The victim of that attack was the people whose property, including their lives, were agressed against.

Not some abstract entity called the US, or the society, or some fellow named Joe living in LA and had nothing to do with World Trade center at that time, or me for that matter.

And after you identify the crime and the victim you try to identify the criminal and the pay back.

The criminals are the ones that hijacked the planes and died, and the people who ordered the crimeand knowingly helped in some way.

Also since the victims aren’t some abstract entity, the criminals arent some abstract entity called, muslims, or arabs or Iraqis or some other thing. They are also individuals with individual responsibilities.

Those ondividuals are the ones that has to compansate the victims and their families, and some other individuals remotely associated with the real criminals.

This is the libertarian law.

At exactly what point can you jump to collective abstaract entities like state, and call for actions that only a state can engage in like war?

And if you irrationally do at some point how can you call yourself an individualist let alone an anarchist.

Barnett is not an anarchist, and if he were at one point this is the denouncement.

How is this not simply might makes right?
Here is Sidney Parker’s review of the infamous “Might Is Right”. Parker deems it moralist.

“To hell with you! My rights in fact do NOT end where your nose begins!” says the Stirnerite.
The egoist doesn’t care for “rights”, he is concerned with property, his “eigentzum”. That can include your nose.

I read the link. So apparently, according to Egoism properly understood, if I call upon the state to compel your publications of Egoist philosophy to cease and desist – or in fact question your “right” (a “spook” of course) to speak about egoism in a forum such as a state park – then I’m simply taking of advantage of an archist situation I deem to be beneficial to me. Totally kosher.

How is this not simply might makes right? After all, even so called “property in one’s body” is an example of “clerico-libertarianism” is it not?

“To hell with you! My rights in fact do NOT end where your nose begins!” says the Stirnerite.

Market solutions for encroachment means what? Sounds nice in theory, but in real world practice market based solutions to military aggression are useless unless it is enacted very early on so as to keep the military power from ever getting to the point where it can pose a threat.

Not a good plan for national defense.

It didn’t seem to me that Randy thought the Constitution was legitimate. His writings said that it could only be legitimate without universal consent if it didn’t violate any rights. If you have the right not to be taxed, then even a government in accordance with the Constitution is illegitimate.

Since I don’t really believe in rights, I don’t have to worry about that stuff. You might be thinking “But aren’t you a Stirnerite, and they are never minarchists but anarchists like Saint Max, Ben Tucker and Tak Kak?”. However, Max never actually referred to himself as an anarchist, and Sidney Parker explains here and here that a Stirnerite egoist CANNOT be an anarchist!

Nowhere do we say that. That is a pacifist response. Rather, the pure libertarian will say that it is costly not to do so, and that solutions to problems of encroachment can be dealt with by the market.

That is the same extreme – and thus inaccurate – definition of an individualist that the Left uses in their arguments against individualism in general.

I’m no fan of Barnett, but I’ve always felt stuck somewhere in between on the war issue. The political machine’s reasoning for war is of course flawed and needs no new explanation here.

But ever since I first began reading into classical liberalism, I’ve always flinched at the issue of war.

From what I’ve seen and read, most libertarians would say that there is of course a place for actually defending the country. However, such military actions would only take place at the last possible second which history proves is a bad idea.

That’s not a blanket arugment for preemptive war, but at the same time, we shouldn’t be constrained in defense by a rigid set of “rules.” I whole heartedly want to live and let live, but if my neighbor is daily encroaching on my property, threatening my children, damaging my yard at the edges, et cetera, eventually I’m going to do something about it.

The Utopian response of the pure libertarian view is that if I just mind my own business, everyone else will mind theirs as well. But that’s just not realistic.

Now excuse me. . . I’m going to go stomp a mudhole in my neighbor. Not really, I have great neighbors.

Also there is no hyper-rationalistic way about Barnett. On the contrary he is very irrational.

Where does he jump from individual to the state during his apriori reasoning, then support some war the state starts?

9/11 wasnt an attack against “America”, at least not according to an indivualist which a libertarian must be.

It was an attack on the individuals who died and were directly hurt.

As I said if you are a statist libertarian you are bound to tlak nonsense more than once in a while.

Trying to make sense of a government action.

Give it up you can not.

I know because I was a statist libertarian.

You can not get rid of paradoxes while still clinging to the necessity of the state.

Libertarianism can only make sense or judgements of the actions of the individual. Not some organized crime outfit.

The way I see it, the state is coercion and aggression incarnate–it’s very existence as a consumer of coercively acquired wealth and monopolizer of ‘legitimate’ force is unjust. So it must be at least as (if not more) unjust for such an entity to initiate force against any person or group of people.

Well it’s pretty obvious that he does believe that the Constitution when properly interpreted reliably enforces individual rights, and thus is legitimate. He mentions the possibility that it doesn’t only to acknowledge the existence of a dispute.

And why would he argue, or leave open the possibility that, the admittedly failed Iraq War might be legitimate, even though it’s waged by a currently illegitimate state, to impose some Islamaphied constitution that is not even as good as our own illegitimate Constitution?

He doesn’t want to get kicked out of the Republican social clubs.

Well it’s pretty obvious that he does believe that the Constitution when properly interpreted reliably enforces individual rights, and thus is legitimate. He mentions the possibility that it doesn’t only to acknowledge the existence of a dispute.

And why would he argue, or leave open the possibility that, the admittedly failed Iraq War might be legitimate, even though it’s waged by a currently illegitimate state, to impose some Islamaphied constitution that is not even as good as our own illegitimate Constitution?

He doesn’t want to get kicked out of the Republican social clubs.