[Marxism] Re: WTC collapse
duaneroberts92804 at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 6 02:19:11 MDT 2005
Intense Red <intnsred at socialismonline.us> writes:
>> I agree with Don about one point. How you can
>> melt steel with furniture fires or jet fuel
>> stumps me.
> They're quick to note that it didn't "melt",
> but only heated enough to "weaken" it.
Do you mean it's not possible for a building to fall
apart and collapse if something that it was
constructed from was heated as opposed to being
> But of course they completely ignore the
> WTC's 1970s multi-floor fire which caused fire
> improvements to be added to the twin towers
> (and which did not cause the building to
> collapse). Similarly, the also ignore the
> British experiments on an older steel-framed
> building where the Brits deliberately heated
> the steel red hot and never saw any
> weakening (let alone collapse).
Do you know if "the Brits" happened to conduct any
experiments where the structural integrity of an
"older steel-framed building" was tested by hiring
somebody to fly a Boeing 767 directly into it to see
how well it managed to withstand the impact?
I'm quite sure the results of these "British
experiments" would've been a little different if they
had had the foresight to utilize a fast moving
passenger jet to see if whether or not the steel was
affected any differently.
> I'm also surprised at the number of people on the
> list who dismiss the possibility of the US gov't
> being involved in 9/11, but who readily assign
> the US fault/blame in other mischief around the
> world, mischief which also does not have definitive
> evidence of US gov't involvement.
To be quite frank with you, I'm of the belief that
good ol' Uncle Sam was "involved" in the destruction
of the "Twin Towers" in the exact same manner he was
"involved" in the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December
7th, 1941: both incidents basically reflect the
intense, sudden sharpening of imperialist rivalries
between capitalist states of different strengths after
they've been jockeying around with one another for a
couple of decades in an attempt to dominate and
control supplies of fossil fuels, raw materials, and
In the early 1940s, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, concerned with the growing influence that
Japan was having in Southeast Asia (especially when it
began to threaten U.S. and European business
interests), approved an order that cut off all U.S.
oil exports to that island nation. Given that about
80% of the petroleum that Japan consumed at that time
came Texas, what did Tokyo decide to do in response?
They bombed Pearl Harbor! Why did they do it? It was
the belief of the Japanese military that doing such
would completely destroy the U.S. Navy's ability to
help the Europeans repel an invasion of Indonesia
(then controlled by the Dutch) for the purpose of
seizing it's oil to replace those supplies that the
U.S. cut off.
In the 21st Century, we have Osama bin Laden, the
spokesperson for the rising class of Saudi Arabian
bankers, merchants, and manufacturers, who not too
long ago organized a group of upper class rich kids
called "Al Qaeda" with the intent of overthrowing the
Monarchy and kick out all the U.S. imperialists who,
he claims, have propped up the corrupt House of Saud
since 1945 to loot the Kingdom of all it's oil riches.
Osama and his capitalist friends don't like the fact
they have no input on how the Saudi Arabian monarchy
exploits that country's oil resources, so they finance
numerous operations that cause the destruction of U.S.
military compounds, naval vessels, embassies, and most
importantly, the World Trade Center and part of the
Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
> But this point, with the various holes in
> "official" stories, information which has
> been uncovered, and fingers pointing to sane
> conclusions, it's probably useless to try to
> convince someone unless they are disposed to at
> least seriously consider the possibility of US
> gov't complicity.
> In polls, half of NYC residents and a
> majority of Canadians do believe the US
> gov't was involved, but on this list it's a
> different matter.
So are you telling all the fine folks who peruse the
messages posted on the Marxmail listserv that if
somebody takes a poll reporting that a majority of
people "believe" something to be real, that the
"belief" itself makes it real?
According to a nationwide Gallup Poll that was
conducted in May 2004, it's estimated that a whopping
78% of all Americans "believe" in the existence of
"Angels", whereas only a meager 70% think "The Devil"
is lurking around somewhere.
See the following URL for more details:
Since it's clear a majority of Americans believe in
"Angels" and "The Devil," does that mean that us
Marxists must believe that they are real, too? Geez, I
really, really hope that "on this list it's a
different matter"! :)
Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804 at yahoo.com
> In solidarity.
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
More information about the Marxism