Re: [Marxism] (no subject)

[Benjamin Morgan <foreverblaze89@xxxxxxxxx>]

Comrade Ben:
   
  (sigh) unity for the 9/11 truth movement. I will not take such a hard line 
stance as Mark. However, your assertions that the truth movement can subsume 
the anti-war movement are quite preposterous. As for all conspiracy theories 
from the (JFK assassination to the present) there have been massive splits in 
support. To believe that traditional Marxist-Leninist movements or the 
equivalent anti-war counterparts will accept this as there platform seems sort 
of Utopian. (When I went to Atlanta for the U.S Social Forum a tiny booth dis 
paying 9/11 truth was located behind a remote staircase in the outermost corner 
of the convention center. I watched several (leftist) pass the booth by as the 
hippie looking organizer attempted to gather support. intrigued by the response 
I approached the little table and engaged in a discussion with the guy. As I 
talked i noticed only a few out of every 10 leftist would approach the booth.) 
The point of my digression is to illustrate the divide
 in the left on this particular issue now I will attempt to debunk the more 
substantive debate.
   
  The 9/11 truth campaign raises several decent points which hardliners like 
Mark seem to over look with hasty generalizations. First, a number of survivors 
have given testimony's claiming that they heard explosions from the base of the 
buildings. The World Trade Center buildings were built to with stand plane 
crashes (note the reinforces steel structures) The fires that burned in the 
world trade centers were very smoky and gray indicative of a lack of oxygen or 
a incomplete burn which would make the collapse of the steel structure quite 
ridiculous. No only has fire never historically collapsed a steel structure 
before 9/11 the partial burning fire some how obliterated the fire retardant 
and proceeded to melt the steel to the point of collapse. Even if a few 
structural beams somehow collapsed the domino theory is crazy 4 or 5 stories 
couldn't bring down 43 non fire damaged ones in the blink of an eye; three 
times on the same day? Secondly, it is quite strange that the 9/11
 commission waited an awful long time to conduct its report (well after the 
structural steel was removed) Finally, No plane ever hit World Trade Center 
Building 7. Officials claim that the debris hit building 7 like a "volcanic 
eruption" and multiple fires caused it to collapse in the same fashion. 
Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane this is outlandish. Also, The majority of the 
debris wasn't flaming (I guess the melting structural beams did the damage) and 
several other buildings like the Verizon building were damaged but did not 
collapse. According to the scientific logic of the first two building building 
7 shouldn't have collapsed the EXACT SAME WAY. Plus Larry A. Silverstein who 
owned the properties seemed to have made a pretty penny off of September 11
   
  In conclusion, the 9/11 truth movement has a lot of valid points (i have 
outlined only a few) I do believe that it is a large possibility that the U.S 
has used the attacks as a method of threat construction. I also think that 
Osama could have still played a part in the attack (however I doubt his role 
was as big as he believes) I urge the advocates of the 9/11 truth to keep up 
the fight and comrades like Mark to become less pessimistic.
   
  Ben
   
   


?Whenever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has 
reached even one receptive ear and another hand reaches out to take up our 
arms.?
   
  ~ Ernesto "Che" Guevara
       
---------------------------------
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on 
Yahoo! TV.    
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism