BBC.co.uk

Talk about Newsnight

Newsnight

On internet conspiracy theories

  • Newsnight
  • 18 Aug 06, 04:30 PM

roswell203152.jpgMost journalists use the phrase 'conspiracy theory' as an insult. Not because they're arch-rationalists who never entertain such notions in private but because if they publish something controversial and can't back it up, big trouble follows. You lot can say what you like about Diana and flying saucers and JFK, but hacks stick to the evidence, at least until they get down the pub.

But as the internet takes over the media mainstream, conspiracy theory (CT) journalism is getting a much wider airing than it ever used to, whereas the official version (OV) is no longer shifting copy like it did. So we present our net veteran Adam Livingstone's personal rule-of-thumb guide to believing CTs and OVs:

1 Journalists usually take government facts in good faith, albeit they're somewhat spun and edited. No-one ever got sacked for printing the OV, and, let's face it, challenging it takes a lot of graft for a busy reporter. So when they 're told that Iraq has chemical weapons, journalists tend to publish it . But for a reader or viewer, rule one is 'Don't believe the OV until you see proof. But assume it is true if you do see decent proof.' The September 11 CT that said 'Flight 93 was brought down by the airforce not the passengers' was once a widely held internet CT, but then decent taped evidence came along and undermined it among all but the most cynical.

2 Use Occam's Razor - which means that the best explanation of any event must make as few assumptions as possible. So just because you see a weird flying saucer and the OV claims it's marsh gas, don't assume it's therefore an alien spaceship. Favour the simplest explanation that fits the known evidence. Just because there are oddities in the photos from the moon landings, that doesn't mean that they were mocked up in the Nevada desert. Interpret the credible proof in the simplest way that works.

3 Who has the better background narrative - the CT or the OV? In other words who sets the more convincing dramatic backdrop to the events in question? The Diana CTs sold well because they had this enthralling background plot and cast that everyone was already familiar with, but the OV was also a credible story, just painfully prosaic. On the other hand the CT that the Iraq evidence was faked had a really consistent hinterland of elegantly intermeshing revelation and gossip, whereas the OV narrative always seemed to be changing or unravelling. But the background to the World Trade Centre attacks had an utterly compelling received wisdom, whereas the CTs just never remotely fitted with how any sensible person expects the world to behave.

So which CTs should you buy into? Well you'll just have to make your own minds up. I've got a mortgage to pay.


Digg this blog entry

Comments  Post your comment

Many conspiracy theories require a level of competence from the state that it just does not possess. But maybe that's just what THEY want us to believe...

My opnion is that conspiracy theories tend to miss the point. There's very rarely an actual, tangible "conspiracy", but rather an accumulation of mutual vested interests which, taken together, act as though there was a mythical conspiracy.

Noam Chomsky makes this point in "Understanding Power", when he says that his "propaganda model" of the mass media is actually the opposite of a conspiracy theory.

  • 3.
  • At 06:14 PM on 18 Aug 2006,
  • elkoolio wrote:

One of the most insidious things about postmodern democratic societies is the duplicity - the Straussian protectionism - that it is better for society if the general public are kept unaware of the horrifying truth... that they are a bunch of feckless suggestible morons incapable of offering statements up to the simplest tests of verisimilitude, let allow advanced levels of critical thought.

With the exponential growth of the need to suppress anything that may be deemed offensive, twinned with there being so many idiots to get offended by being informed of such, society is left, neigh provoked, into participate in endless idle prattle. Here about conspiracy theories.

We live in a world where the belief systems of many seem to accommodate the rejection of hobgoblins, Father Christmas, fairies, leprechauns, Greek mythology etc., but still accept alien abduction, ghosts, fatalism (NB not to be mistaken for determinism), creationism, magic, astrology, faith healing, spiritualism, theism, ad infinitum.

Of course some may argue that these beliefs are fideistic, but isn’t that de facto idiocy?

You should always look at who is using the phrase "conspiracy theory" and how important it is.

When used by an individual to look at some historical event, then you can see it is often just the work of an overactive mind making false assumptions.

But when used by those in powers to dismiss a fair investigation of a current event, then you should be suspicious. Avoid cutting yourself with Occam's razor!

The example (which was on the Media Guardian podcast today) of if it was a missile or a plane that was guided into the Pentagon is a favourite event to be described as a "conspiracy theory".

To my mind, if you study the evidence of this event, then there is a lot that is not known. Clearly there needs to be an open investigation into the exact events. It is not helpful to get involved in the speculation about it being a missile or a plane. A jet powered aeroplane with a reprogrammed GPS-guided control system is just the same to me.

There is a real matter, which is did the US government arrange 9/11 to happen to justify the changes they wanted to make to US society? If you apply Occam's razor to this, then it starts looking more interesting.

"How did two passenger planes collapse THREE World Trade Centre buildings" is another fair question.

"Did Bush and Blair" agree to invade Iraq long before parliament voted on it? Everyone knows that's true.

IMHO, the people working at the BBC have done one investigation ("The Power of Nightmares") into this subject and it can only be government pressure (after the Hutton whitewash) that stops further digging.

It's always the same. How often did Auntie Beeb accuse the police of being "institutionally racist" before the McPherson report?

Blair is a proven liar. Bush is a proven criminal ("US judge rules wiretaps illegal").

How long, dear Auntie, before you start supplying the truth and stop dismissing everything as a "conspiracy theory".

A lie often repeated does not become the truth.

  • 5.
  • At 06:36 PM on 18 Aug 2006,
  • The Fly wrote:

Today the interpretation of most events around the world are formed by those within the media, and people generally believe that interpreation as being the truth. It is, however, important to realise that the government and other organisations are incredibly complex systems and to believe that events involving such complex systems can be explained in a 3 minute insert on BBC news without missing any details is absurd.

The corporate media, including the BBC, have a vested interest to defend the ideologies or systems that allow them to excist and therefore will tend to have a vested interest in misinterpreting events. This usually leads to a limited range of interpretations, by selection, or a discrediting of those whose interpretations contradict or question the status quo.

You can see a simplified version of this in Question Time, where one event can have multiple and sometimes equally persuasive interpretations held by each panel member. If there are such differing interpretations between so few people then it is reasonable to assume that there will be a similar range of differing interpretations held by the vast numbers of people in the multiple systems that are involved in complex international events. Also, as is evident in question time and the media as a whole, the selection of those whose interpretation can be voiced is done in a way that ensures that their is no undermineing or questioning of the status quo. For example, in question time you are very unlikely to see on the panel a BNP member or a communist party member because their interpretations may actually question the consensus and result in a true debate outside of the general assumptions of the situation, just as you are unlikely to get a lebanese civilians' interpretation of events.




A classic case for Occam's Razor, Briantist.

"How did two passenger planes collapse THREE World Trade Centre buildings" you ask.

It is indeed a good question but there are several answers more simple than the one that says the government therefore conspired to demolish all the towers.

The point is that conspiracies do happen, but it's a lot easier to dismiss all of them them if there is no way to distinguish the credible from the incredible.

  • 7.
  • At 06:47 PM on 18 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Bravo Newsnight!! This should be very interesting. But how do we know this isn't just a ploy to lure those Who Know out into the light for easy identification and capture? Beware people, don't post anything...doh!

adamliv: cui bono?

I've looked at all the explanations and I can say that what I ask myself is "cui bono?, cui bono?".

The World Trade Center event on 9/11 was far too much the "conjuring trick" - smashing the planes into the top of the buildings using GPS-guided aeroplanes.

Go look at Brighton's West Pier. It's a stell structure and it's been on fire lots of times and rusted by the sea for 150 years. And it's still standing.

I can see a partial trail of evidence that suggests that the events of that day have not been explained properly.

So, to me the answer to "cui bono?" is Bush and the neocons.

If you dismiss THE question as a "conspiracy thoery" then you have your eyes closed and your brian off.

Briantist: Dismissing all CTs is as unintelligent as believing them all. There has to be a methodology to distinguish the ones that might be true from the ones that probably aren't. This is my test and the World Trade Centre CT fails it. What's your test 8-)

adamliv: I'm not disagreeing with you.

IMHO The events of 11th September 2001 are deserving of more attention than some of the other popular conspiracy theories (Diana, Roswell, etc) because it is used as fact by a section of the political society in the USA, "Old men in stripy trousers rules with world with plastic smiles", to justify their actions.

The problem with the WTC events is that the standard response to anyone who wants to ask proper questions and look for proper evidence has been dismissed as "unpatriotic".

As an atheist I pride myself on not believing anything. But as a rationalist I want to know exactly how a lightweight aircraft causes a building to collapse. For me, it starts there. I've studied United States history, and the current war-state is a travesty.

Everything from the Iraq war, the PATRIOT Act, the Zionist invasion of Lebanon to new Labour's perceived right-wing agenda are all based on something that is clearly not based on fact.

So it is very, very important to rake over these facts again and again and again. To me, it was a typical "conjuring trick". Crash two planes into the top of the two towers so all the world's attention is diverted from what is really going on.

And one day, be it on Newsnight or not, the truth will out.

Briantist: Reminds me of the GK Chesterton line - "When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

But if you don't believe anything, are you saying you don't believe in the CTs either? Or that 9/11 never even happened at all? Or that New York doesn't even exist? How far do you take your unbelief?

  • 12.
  • At 11:24 PM on 18 Aug 2006,
  • Jason wrote:

We have all been conditioned to associated the word conspiracy with theory.

A theory is a hypothesis and therefore just something that COULD happen. However, with some evidence - no matter how flimsy the evidence is - the hypothesis becomes a POSSIBILITY. The more evidence you collect, the more likely that possibility becomes and eventually it will be PROBABLE.

When we are told that there are terrorist conspiracies against the whole population, they are not described as theory but when they are reported to be forces within the government, they are theories!

Despite there being evidence, those who think 911 was an inside job are attacked as unpatriotic or lunatics(http://www.letsroll911.org/) but with no evidence we are expected to believe there is a threat to UK outbound flights... like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq maybe?

The Fly (5) makes some interesting points, which extends on Chomsky's argument about how the media's choice of particular linguistic phrases frames debate and discourse. The stigma attached to the phrase "conspiracy theory" does a lot to undermine the credibility of a certain perspective on events.

This concept of language - particularly the acccepted "forms" of language - is also applicable to religious discourse. Adamliv quotes GK Chesterton: "When a man stops believing in god he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything". The key word here is "stops" - Chesterton takes the view that men naturally believe in god from the outset, and therefore must make a conscious effort to disbelieve in him; rather than the other way around.

Adamliv's question to Briantist - "How far do you take your unbelief" - is misplaced. It's perfectly possible not to believe in anything, if one takes the relativist view that notions of truth and falsehood are human contrivances, not transcendental facts. We may think that an event has happened, but we do not "believe" this to be the case. Belief, in its proper sense, implies faith in something other-worldly.

SPL writes:
"It's perfectly possible not to believe in anything, if one takes the relativist view that notions of truth and falsehood are human contrivances, not transcendental facts."

True but is it logical not to believe in anything and then believe in conspiracy theories supported by weak evidence? Surley that declares an almost religious faith in one's pre-existing desires and beliefs.

BBC Newsnight should be congradulated for its article. Of course, certain truths that have been dismissed as conspiracy theories have come to light [including the fact that the Republican and Democrats in USA are using everything to stay in power and repress alternative political forces].

  • 16.
  • At 06:09 AM on 19 Aug 2006,
  • Jenny wrote:

It might be worth a blog entry or two for Newsnight staffers to keep us updated on which "controversial" stories they reserve for when they are "down the pub". Have any, in living memory, made the transition from the pub to air, as serious reports?

  • 17.
  • At 09:37 AM on 19 Aug 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

There are plenty of "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true. The Holocaust wasn't widely known about until after WWII. Under the Bush administration there have been a litany of conspiracies uncovered, generally suffixed with "gate" after the famous Watergate conspiracy that happened under Nixon. There's Enrongate, Plamegate, Abramoffgate, NSAgate (warrantless wiretapping) and of course Abu Ghraib. There are the stories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in Iraq and Afghanistan which were propounded with great hoopla by the Pentagon that turned out to be a pack of lies. Not to mention the whole WMD (or lack of them) issue. As for 9/11, I tend to overlook physical conspiracies (e.g. controlled demolition) and simply ask political and financial questions like: who paid the hijackers the $500,000 that the operation cost? Who are those people connected to financially and politically? Follow the money. (The most in-depth and factual look at 9/11 I've found is David Ray Griffin's book "New Pearl Harbor". Any TV network that serializes that will make a fortune, if they're ever allowed to publicize it...)

Well Jenny since you ask, the most worrying conspiracy theory of all which we're just dieing to tell you about is that [DELETED BY GOVERNMENT CENSOR]with a goat.

We'd just love to broadcast that if we could. Just as soon as we have the photos.

  • 19.
  • At 11:17 AM on 19 Aug 2006,
  • Sitting-Bull wrote:

Sometimes conspiracies do exist.

It's not longer a theory, if you can prove it.


We can prove that the official theory is a conspiracy theory, and far worse, one that conflicts law of physics, logic, and normal precedures.

And it stands alone without one single court-steady proof besides you take the Bush government word for real.


But inner circles in the US have the means, the opportunity and the possibility to create false flag self inflicted terror for their own goals.

Please read my timeline:

http://dirk-gerhardt.homepage.t-online.de/Bilder/Timeline3.pdf

This article is obviously in response to the September 11th Truth Movement that is making waves thoughout the world. The claims made are shocking, but unfortunately true. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts the offical theory. Investigate these "conspiracy theories" for yourself and make up your own mind after you've seen all the evidence.

If anyone is looking for a good resource to see the evidence behind the claims of the 9/11 truth movement, visit http://truth911.net

  • 21.
  • At 03:19 PM on 19 Aug 2006,
  • Philip wrote:

Conspiracy theories are one thing. The TRUTH is another!

It’s become a sad fact that today in 2006 certain ‘individuals’ that are hiding the truth from the masses control the mainstream media. The mainstream media has become one large propaganda tool to sell ‘events’ to the people. Most people now know this. To use the word conspiracy theory on certain subjects has just become a ‘cop out’ for the media and the journalists alike. The editor of the New York Times once said, “nothing of importance is ever reported in the mainstream media”
Most people are aware that the recent terror threat to blow up passenger aircraft over the Atlantic was pure propaganda and once again it was down to the media to sell this to us! It does not matter that all of the so-called terrorists did not posses any flight tickets. The day before a few million ‘put options’ were placed on British Airways stock. To most people those comments are another conspiracy theory. I am in a position to know its fact.
9/11 and 7/7 are branded conspiracy theories in order to stop the real and frightening truth from coming out and to keep the spin going in order to stop the 9/11 truth movement from gaining strength any further.
As for the ultimate story – “Flying Saucers” (for the BBC’s benefit, the real name is ETV). Yet again so much evidence, so much knowledge with regards to ETV’s yet the mainstream media refer to a very ‘dodgy’ report by the MOD claiming its “marsh gas” oh my aching sides!! ETV, UFO, flying saucers call them what you will is the ultimate conspiracy theory for the media. Under no certain terms is ANYTHING to be released regarding ETV’s. Why? Control and Power by the real and permanent government.

Journalists do have to pay their mortgage so must stick to the OV. Lets hope one day all journalists get the chance to report and broadcast the TRUTH!!

The next conspiracy theory to surface shall be the release of a nuclear or biological weapon on this planet and shall of course be blamed on Iran (right before the America mid-term elections in October, very clever!) hence the war with Iran shall then get under-way. Time is running out – 6 years left!!

adamliv: The GK Chesterton line reminds me of the joke about the dying agnostic, "God, if there is a God...".

To quote Douglas Adams' wit:

"My Universe is my eyes and my ears. Anything else is hearsay. I've never met all these people you speak of. An neither, I suspect, have you. They only exist in words we hear. It is folly to say you know what is happening to other people. Only they know, if they exist. They have their own Universes of their own eyes and ears. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man".

"Ah! You say The Lord. You belive in something!"

"My cat, I call him The Lord. I am kind to him"

"How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as kindness?"

"I don't" said the man with a smile, "I have no idea. It mearly pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. Do you belive any differently?"

---

When I say "I don't belive in anything", I mean that I accept information that comes my way, but I remember where it came from.

I just don't have an automatic buy-in to the conclusions that other people reach, or reach for.

Does New York exist? There seems to be a lot of evidence for it, and people write about the place and produce TV and films about the place, so it must do. But to some extent these are all opinions and "states of mind" because this is all media provided information, not something I have experienced directly myself. LA on the other hand...

To my way of thinking (as a rational athiest) you should always be aware of what information you have experienced yourself and which has come your way by means of instruction and media.

Returning to the idea of a "conspiracy", I bet EVERYTHING that you "know" about 9/11 came though the media. Every single little bit.

So, even if it all made sense, which it does not, you should keep in the back of your mind that it was not a direct experience but an indirect one.

I don't BELIEVE in any conspiracy anymore or any less than I do anything I see on Newsnight. All I can do is ask "is this rational" "does this make sense" "what does the psychology of the situation suggest" and so on.

When I have met people who work on Newsnight and heard their opinions directly, then they differ from what you have broadcast, for example. But that's another post entirey.

To illstrate the point about belief, I heard Newsnight's Kirsty Walk at an MGEITF talking about THAT Radio 4 report about the goverment knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion took place. And this was before Dr David Kelly "aparently" killed himself.

But I have never see her on Newsnight with the same forthright opinion about the situation.

Is there any better proof about "the medium is the message".

You said: "No-one ever got sacked for printing the OV, and, let’s face it, challenging it takes a lot of graft for a busy reporter."

So now we know. Even with all the resources a BBC reporter could possibly wish for, paid for by an unfair and undemocratic BBC poll tax, it’s just not enough - because “it takes a lot of graft to uncover the truth”. Too much like hard work is it? Maybe that explains the poor quality of reporting on Newsnight and the BBC in general.

It wasn't the mainstream media that resulted in Reuters photographer, Adnan Hajj, being sacked for doctoring images during the recent Israel/Lebanon conflict. UK blog, EU Referendum proved that the pictures had been doctored. So if bloggers, with nowhere near the amount of resources you people have can do it, why can't the BBC's reporters?

Pubs open are they? Maybe that explains why some of the poorest people in Britain, forced to pay the BBC poll tax even though they’re already struggling to buy shoes for their kids let alone visit a pub for a drink, resent the kind of unprofessional, lazy, and biased reports spewed out by some of its so-called journalists.


Brian wrote:
I bet EVERYTHING that you "know" about 9/11 came though the media. Every single little bit.

That's a bet you'd lose. After 9/11 I personally rang up every eye witness I could find to the United 93 crash to see if they could substantiate the rumour that the plane was on fire going into the crash.

Not one of them did so.

  • 26.
  • At 07:35 PM on 19 Aug 2006,
  • sandy wrote:

Did you phone the local coroner, who said he never saw a single body or even a single spot of blood at the supposed crash site too?

  • 27.
  • At 07:36 PM on 19 Aug 2006,
  • sandy wrote:

Did you phone the local coroner, who said he never saw a single body or even a single spot of blood at the supposed crash site too?

adamliv: wrote "That's a bet you'd lose. After 9/11 I personally rang up every eye witness I could find to the United 93 crash to see if they could substantiate the rumour that the plane was on fire going into the crash. "

If that is an admission about the extent of your "first hand" experience of the events of that day,then it certainly demonstrates that you asked questions.

I do not dispute that the United 93 may not have been on fire in a way that was apparent to eye-witnesses, but we all know that eye-witnesses have a phycholoical tendendy to tell interviewers what they expect to hear.

I suppose one point worth making is that if you go in for "belief" is that you tend to use politicians logic (cats have four legs, dogs have four legs therefore cats are dogs).

Because you have a "belief" about this one aspect, it has allowed you to extrapolate this into a "belief" about the official version of the whole events of that day.

I also wonder what your experience of aircraft fires and subsequent crashes is? Was the only question you asked "was the aircraft on fire?" Given that most jet aircraft can continue to fly properly with an engine on fire, how relevant is this question? How much do you get to see of plane that is flying at several hundred miles an hour?

Another good question is "where did you get a list of phone numbers to phone up witnesses from?"

  • 29.
  • At 08:20 PM on 19 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Dear Newsnight,

> Most journalists use the phrase
> 'conspiracy theory' as an insult.

Does that include government conspiracy theories? Oh dear, double standards! But I appreciate the point about paying the mortgage!

> Not because they're arch-rationalists
> who never entertain such notions

Arch-rationalism can lead in the other direction too! Where is the rationalism in believing our best brains in the government, military and intelligence services can't tell the difference between a British made weather balloon truck and a mobile chemical weapons laboratory? (see evidence used for Iraq War 2003)

> in private but because if they publish
> something controversial and can't back
> it up, big trouble follows.

you should be amongst Britain's, nay the World's, most highly trained investigative journalists. it's a given you wouldn't publish something you can't back up. But what stops you taking your first step on the road of investigation? Shouldn't there at least be a part of Newsnight dedicated every now and again to a global, geopolitical version of Rogue Traders?

Here's a suggestion: there's a long and honourable tradition of 'suppression of free energy devices' conspiracy theory. Before 2nd-Law-of-Thermodynamics Supporters Club members jump to the keyboard, I mean "free energy" in the sense of Coefficient of Performance > 100%. We've all (well, I have!) been waiting eagerly for news of Tom Bearden et al's patented Motionless Electromagnetic Generator to hit the shelves, but we wait in vain. You know, Tom Bearden, one of the current great hopes of the 'free energy' movement. If so, then why does Bearden's domain name cheniere.org list an address, 151 La Jolla, in Santa Barbara, also listed by two oil service companies? http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread9268.html - surely there can't be links? why would the oil industry share an office with a prominent figure in the 'free energy' movement, hmm......

Anyway, here's Newsnight's chance to cover a new 'free energy' story that's developing in Ireland right now - perhaps a trimonthly progress report from Ethical Man is needed?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/sc_nm/technology_energy_dc_1

http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx

If they really have a COP>100% clean energy technology, whooppee! We can leave Iran and Iraq to their worthless oil fields! And if you don't believe in conspriacy theories then - well, there's nothing to fear! The government can give them a DTI grant, and the oil industry can diversify into organic food farms. If it's a bogus claim, you'll still have some nice footage of top physicists blowing the claim apart and scoring one in the eye for arch-rationalism - James Randi would be proud, and anyway we need to inject a bit of action adventure into physics considering the latest A Level stats for this declining subject!

> Journalists usually take government facts
> in good faith, albeit they're somewhat spun
> and edited.

What happened to the fourth estate? Occasionally it's more than just spin and editing. e.g. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address. Joseph C. Wilson's reward for a no-spin, no-editing, truthful approach to his work...the illegal outing of his wife's employment by the CIA, very possibly by senior members of The White House (civil suit in progress). If so, a bona fide government conspiracy (using the US legal definition of conspiracy http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm).

> But the background to the World Trade Centre
> attacks had an utterly compelling received wisdom,
> whereas the CTs just never remotely fitted with
> how any sensible person expects the
> world to behave.

Are we living on different planets? What about PNAC's fundamental propositions, and talk of a long process of transformation...absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor ? What kind of background do you need to qualify as 'utterly compelling'?

> So which CTs should you buy into?

Beware of buying into any of them, unless Consumer Protection law applies! We should prioritise which ones are most important to investigate and start investigating, especially as when working in Public Service Broadcasting (this isn't to impugn what you already do - keep up the good work!)

Brian wrote:
I do not dispute that the United 93 may not have been on fire in a way that was apparent to eye-witnesses, but we all know that eye-witnesses have a phycholoical tendendy to tell interviewers what they expect to hear.

You are quite correct about eywitnesses - but at the time we were hoping to establish that the official version was wrong. I mean that's the only point of asking such questions, and people like 'The UK Daily Pundit' who think we're all bone idle establishment stooges don't always appreciate that at Newsnight we spend a lot of time checking stuff out that never sees the light of day, and that's why (I hope) our viewers trust us.

But in this case we didn't dent the OV. The OV could not be demonstrated to be false.

adamliv: I personally wouldn't haved watched Newsnight as often as possible if I didn't think that you tirelessly researched your facts.

You wrote: 'But in this case we didn't dent the OV. The OV could not be demonstrated to be false. '

I think I have two concerns. One is that if there was a conspiracy, it is possible that "they" may have 'played the man, not the ball'. If I knew how you researched your information, I could ensure beforehand that I would have answers for your pointed questions.

My second problem stems from that I do not understand where the "official version" came from in the case of U93.

I worked (did I say this before?) as project librarian on a military Global Positioning System project back in the late 1980s. So I learnt a lot about how missiles and aircraft use the system to fly by "waypoints".

Wasn't it the BBC's Kate Aidie who saw a missile come down a street and "turn a corner".

Most civiliant and military aircraft fly by their GPS systems these days, automatically flying from one waypoint to another.

As far as I can disern, the only way you can fly an aircraft at a few hundred miles an hour into anything as small as a building is to program in it's GPS co-ordinates into the flight control system.

When the systems (there are two, an accurate one for military use and a less accurate civilian one) were set up, the US congress knew they could be used to target the USA and allowed the President to order it to be switched off.

This means that most airline pilots do the take off and landing, but just have to hang around in the cockpit incase the GPS system shuts down. They can "fly" the plane in an emergency, but mostly they are "fly by wire".

Leaving aside the question of why someone didn't suggest the GW Bush that the system was switched off when the first plane hit, it seems to me that U93 falling from the Sky was probably because it was either already programmed to do that, or that the GPS system was switched off and it just flew into the ground because there was no pilot to take over when the computer stopped flying the plane.

So, there would be no fire required to bring the plane down. There must be a log of the GPS system upstate for 11/9/2001, so it would be possible to check the latter theory.

This isn't the OV of course, but your research would not have uncovered this, for example.

Given the amount of spyware and virus on the internet over the last two decades, it seems quite possible to me to reprogram a flight computer to have new, terrible, co-ordinates.

It is published fact that the M1 motorway was built with bombs in it (I think they may have been removed when it was widened). This would have allowed the motorway to be destroyed if the UK was ever invaded, which was required during the paranoia of the Cold War. It seems quite possible to me that the two main WTC buildings, also built during the cold war, could have been built with the same provision.

If I wish Newsnight could do one thing, it would be to build a true, scale reconstruction of the two big towers - and the third one that fell too - and smash a scale plane into it with the scale amount of fuel and see if they fell down in 90 minutes.

A computer similation can demonstrate anything you like (Star Wars films seem credible) but it's a shame that an organization with the resources of the BBC have never done this.

(I could bitch about there being virtually no science on the BBC, but I'll leave that for now).

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer

The truth about 9/11 is being increasingly accepted. According to a recent Scripps-Howard poll in the USA, over half of young adults believe the US government deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen in order to create public support for war in the Mideast.

A Republican congressman (Curt Weldon, PA 7th) has publicly praised a 9/11 truth video. And not just any 9/11 truth video, but the one by BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones which accuses the Bush administration of deliberately allowing 9/11 to happen and placing explosives in the three tallest World Trade Center buildings to make sure that they would be totally destroyed on 9/11. Unbelievable? Just have a look here:

http://republican.meetup.com/92/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1870074

The 9/11 truth video that opened Rep. Weldon's eyes can be seen here: http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html

A bombshell from the FBI: The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” For details, see http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Even the Presbyterian Church is waking up to the truth about 9/11:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/131/12.0.html

  • 33.
  • At 01:10 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Neil wrote:

The WTC towers were not small. They were 1360ft high and 208ft wide. It is not difficult to believe that it would not require a great deal of skill to fly a plane into them.

A common thing said by the CTists is that the fire would not have been hot enough to melt the steel supports. But steel weakens and loses a lot of its strength at much lower temperatures than its melting point. The plane impact itself had already severed many of the columns, forcing the load to be redistributed across the remaining columns. Computer simulations after the event showed that the impact and initial explosion were powerful enough to dislodge fireproofing from the supports and that once enough of the supports weakened, the part of the tower above the impact will start to fall. The falling piece then essentially became a wrecking ball gathering up the rest of the tower and developing a huge amount of kinetic energy. (see e.g. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm )

NIST has not yet released its report on the 7 WTC collapse. The FEMA report said that more research was needed, as it was uncertain what had caused the collapse. The central problem here for the CTists is a) why collapse 7 WTC? b) if somehow this can be tied in to the conspiracy, why not destroy it more plausibly? To the rest of us, it just goes to show that some things are not always immediately explainable, but we can still predict that a rational explanation will be possible. "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

  • 34.
  • At 01:23 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Please let's stop with these theories and counter-theories dealing in technical minutiae. The military, political and financial questions surrounding 9/11 are much more important.

  • 35.
  • At 03:40 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hi Neil (33),

> The central problem here for the CTists is
> a) why collapse 7 WTC?

Hypothesis: To destroy evidence of a Command & Control Center used for attacks and/or Secret Service case evidence

"The Tripod II drill became the command & control emergency response center on 9/11. The command center in WTC 7 was reportedly evacuated by 9:30 on 9/11, but Tripod II provided a new command center organized just as the original was."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

"All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran

> b) if somehow this can be tied in to the conspiracy,
> why not destroy it more plausibly?

How 'more plausibly' would you destroy your Command & Control center? Under this hypothesis, perhaps they meant for it to be destroyed shortly after it was evacuated, so it's collapse would co-incide more closely with the the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, but that something went wrong. Or maybe a collapse in the afternoon was perfectly acceptable.

> To the rest of us, it just goes to show that some
> things are not always immediately explainable
> but we can still predict that a rational explanation
> will be possible.

CTists do not rule out rational explanations, nor do they demand everything be immediately explainable. We just demand proper investigation.

> "Keep an open mind, but not so open that
> your brain falls out."

Don't close your mind too much either.

  • 36.
  • At 06:04 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

Newsnight said,

"But the background to the World Trade Centre attacks had an utterly compelling received wisdom, whereas the CTs just never remotely fitted with how any sensible person expects the world to behave."

Can you provide any details on that "utterly compelling received wisdom", just some basic facts, rather than general narrative, as to what happened on 9/11, who was behind it, and what was the purpose of it all, a rationale that meets any sensible person's expectations as to how the world should or should not behave.

When it comes to busy reporters, too busy to check on every intricate detail of any such story,

1 contact Andrew (29), Brian Butterworth (31) and Oleg (32);
2 apply a concept of "micro-journalism" proposed by one Little Richardjohn, post 60, in response to Peter Barron's "Redesign Newsnight's website", 17 Aug 06, 04:25 PM;
3 assign a viable budget to it.

I volunteer to clarify the difference between aliens and swamp gas.

Just to clarify, when I said the WTC towers were "small", I meant that for an aeroplane flying at 900km/h, a building that is only 63 meters wide represents the distance a plane travels in about a quater of a second.

Zoran wrote:

Can you provide any details on that "utterly compelling received wisdom", just some basic facts.

Sure - the OV said Bin Laden was behind it. Bin Laden then boasted that he had indeed organised it. What more do you need?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

There is a point about "internal consistency" too.

For example, a 747 weights about 435,000kg and inclduing 56,700 kg as fuel.

The two planes that crashed into the WTC buildings, which I estimate have a mass of 755,871 tons or 685714755kg.

So the building had a mass of 1570 times that of the aeroplane. In effect, it was like shooting a 1g feather at an 1.57kg iron bar secured deeply into the ground with concrete. Why not try this at home?

Secondly, the plane that hit the Pentagon causes almost no damage, but the ones that hit the WTC managed to completely destroy THREE buildings.

So, how long does it take 56,700 kg of fuel to vaporise? I think the real answer is "whoomph!" (like the Pentagon) not hours (like the WTC).

It is not possible for the Pentagon story to be true AND the WTC story to be true in the same universe.

Can I also say that I am pleased to see that the BBC are reshowing "The Power of Nightmares".

You might have a few more viewers for this excellent series if it was on BBC ONE at 9pm, not BBC TWO at 11:20pm.

  • 41.
  • At 09:33 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

adamliv wrote (38) "Sure - the OV said Bin Laden was behind it. Bin Laden then boasted that he had indeed organised it. What more do you need?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm"

Actually, Bin Laden was reported, just after the attacks, as denying any involvement. e.g.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

According to many versions of the CT, fake Bin Laden videos were released later to provide support for the OV. Check out the visuals for yourself;

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html

What more do you need to at least doubt the OV enough to investigate further? In the age of home-made Star Wars internet fan movies with light saber effects, producing fake videos would be a doddle.

Also, considering the hoohah about faked Lebanon photos, where's the hoohah for this?

http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/evidence-luton-cctv-image-is-fake.html

  • 42.
  • At 09:34 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

adamliv (38), that's precisely kind of epic narrative that I don't find compelling. Since when are selfincriminatory, if somewhat ambiguous, statements such as those you point to considered an evidence. Why did FBI took him of their list of suspects then?

Also, can you square anthrax in as well? Or is it a separate event only accidentally and superficially associated with 9/11 and war on terror in general? -

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1110/p09s02-coop.htm

in support of Brian Butterworth (37)

"Just to clarify, when I said the WTC towers were "small", I meant that for an aeroplane flying at 900km/h, a building that is only 63 meters wide represents the distance a plane travels in about a quater of a second."

Exactly. And then consider hitting a building as low as the Pentagon, head on, at over 500 miles per hour, that's quite a feat for any pilot, any aircraft.

  • 43.
  • At 09:39 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Sir Truth wrote:

This "jouranlist" is in the wrong profession if he can't put a dent in the myth of Flight 93. All one needs to do is read the transcript of the hijackers in the cockpit. Not 1 question or remark is made on how to fly the plain, if they are too high, low, velocity, on/off course, what switch/button does what, etc.

Also, we must take 9/11 as a whole, not just consider Flight 93, but all the other implausible things that happened befrore, during & after 9/11.

  • 44.
  • At 09:51 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Sarah Czepiel wrote:

Brian Butterworth wrote:

"Secondly, the plane that hit the Pentagon causes almost no damage, ..."

Almost no damage?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html

Feel free to read and review this entire site and look at the pictures.

  • 45.
  • At 09:53 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Just in case we think we're being cutting-edge here, by discussing 'paranoid conspiracy theories' in a Beeb forum, we've been beaten to it by Adam Hart-Davis, in the book of his BBC series, What the Tudors & Stuarts did for us;

'The passing centuries have cystallized the Gunpowder Plot in those rather simplistic terms; there is reason to believe, however, that Stuart spin doctors - primarily Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury and the King's Chief Minister - discovered the plot early on (or perhaps even fabricated it in the first place) and manipulated events to their advantage. We will probably never know the full truth.' - p.136

That was about 400 years ago! Nothing new under the sun, eh! Let's hope it's not another 400 years before something similar appears about 911!

Anyway, I like Zoran's suggestion (36) of being able to contribute in some way to a Newsnight investigation into 'internet conspiracy theories'. I'm up for it, if Peter Barron is.

It's a vast subject, of course. With regard to 911, which seems to be everyone's current favourite, I'm sure there's a format that would respect all points of view, and be up to Beeb standards, without shirking from investigating troubling questions. David Ray Griffin's 115 point list of ommissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report might be a good starting point.

Zoran wrote:
Since when are selfincriminatory, if somewhat ambiguous, statements such as those you point to considered an evidence.

Not much ambiguity about "we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice."

And unforced confessions are pretty good evidence where I come from.

  • 47.
  • At 10:57 PM on 20 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

adamliv (46),

yes, that particular quote is as good as this one:

"It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him."

or this one:

"In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul [...]

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon [in 1982], it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

or this one:

"I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere [...]

"The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child [...]"

I could go on and on, and eventually reprint the entire article... it still smacks of musings of a retired mujahadeen. Late Col. Philip J. Corso confessed that he personally "spearheaded the Army's reverse-engineering project that seeded alien technology at American companies". Does his unforced confession also qualifies as "an utterly compelling received wisdom"?

http://www.all-natural.com/corso.html

Zoran wrote:
Late Col. Philip J. Corso confessed that he personally "spearheaded the Army's reverse-engineering project that seeded alien technology at American companies". Does his unforced confession also qualifies as "an utterly compelling received wisdom"?

LOL good point. I suppose it would be compelling if the US army confirmed it as well.

I suppose you could argue that it suits Bin Laden to pretend to have done it. But Occam's Razor doesn't allow that. He said he did it. Everyone else said he did it. The evidence strongly suggests he did it. The simplest explanation is that he did it.

  • 49.
  • At 12:00 AM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Saying "Bin Laden did it" is somewhat simplistic. The FBI website does not mention 9/11 in Bin Laden's profile - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Also the apparent 9/11 "mastermind" -Khaled Sheikh Mohammed - is in custody in Pakistan. The people who transferred funds to the hijackers are also known about and do not include Bin Laden. He may have known about it in advance but that's not quite the same. Although I guess you can say that when you say "Bin Laden" you actually mean "Al Qaida". If so then let's ask what is Al Qaida?

  • 50.
  • At 12:07 AM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

adamliv (48),

I agree that [Bin Laden] "said he did it", and I agree that the simplest explanation is the best one, but only as long as it holds water, and I would not argue that "it suits Bin Laden to pretend to have done it". I would actually argue that it suits Dick Cheney.

"Everyone else said he did it", and "The evidence strongly suggests he did it" - that does not exactly hold water. I can only once again point to an article which says that FBI changed their mind about it. Instead of reposting the link, I suggest that BBC contacts the FBI and asks for a clarification - does all the evidence they collected over the past five years "strongly suggests he did it", or does it not. It should be simple enough even for a busy journalist. Ask them about that anthrax as well, since you're not addressing the question yourself, and it's under their jurisdiction anyway.

  • 51.
  • At 02:13 AM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

i have just watched the film ( http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html ) of Steven Jones lecture about 11th september, and the events both before and after, and IT is utterly compelling

watch the film

and BBC, please put it on tv


the website... http://www.911truthseekers.org ...sign the petition if you too see the compelling evidence that the OV is more BS than the "CT", surely the "CT" will one day be the OV ?

let's hope the internet remains at least as free as it currently is

  • 52.
  • At 04:47 AM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • B Clarke wrote:

BBC says:
But the background to the World Trade Centre attacks had an utterly compelling received wisdom, whereas the CTs just never remotely fitted with how any sensible person expects the world to behave./end quote

This is how I expect the world to
behave because we now know that it has behaved this way many times in the past. Two recent examples, not counting 911 itself:

Operation Northwoods
In the 60's Pentagnon Chiefs of staff produced plans to stage false flag terror attacks against US military and civilian assets and Cuban refugees which would likely involve loss of life and certainly bodily harm to civilian and military personnel. The idea was to blame Cuba and Castro and so justify an invastion of Cuba.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

Operation Gladio:
Right wing facists and far right organizations organized and facilitated by NATO and some West European intelligence agencies staged murderous terror attacks on European civilians. These terror attacks were blamed on far left radicals and communists in order to discredit the left and in the words of one participant in his sworn testimony to force the public to turn to the state for greater security. See:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO502B.html
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/08/massacre-of-innocents.html

In the days following 911 It became clear to me 911 was a black op/false flag attack designed along the lines of Gladio to instill fear and terror in the US populace. Note how on the mainstream US TV channels they played the shots of the towers collapsing over and over again for a period of days interespersing the shots of the falling towers only with the talking heads, retired generals and security analysts yammering away about the Osama and Al Quaida as being the likely perpetrators.

Yet today the FBI says they have no hard evidence connecting Osama to 911.
http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/15910/June_5_2006_FBI_says_No_hard_evidence_connecting_Bin_Laden_to_9_11

I guess Osama's phony "confession" video tape isn't good enough evidence for the FBI either.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Seemed at the time just like a giant brainwashing exercise to me, and the passage of time when we learnt about the information over the internet that is hardly ever covered in any depth at all by the mainstream media, e.g. claims of treasonous behavior in the FBI made by FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds (now under a government imposed gag order), the Pentagon hijacking excercises and war games on the day of 911 (conveniently causing confusion and delays in the military's response to the crisis), the neat collapse into its own footprint of the third WTC builiding, WTC 7, after the owner Larry Silverstein said they decided to "pull it", the apparent insider trading on the stocks affected by 911, the claims of the Kean Commission that they believed they were being deceived and lied to by Pentagon witnesses, the results of journalist Daniel Hopsicker's investigations into shady goings on and apparantly officially sanctioned drug smuggling operations at the terrorists' flight school in Venice, Florida ( See Hopsicker's site www.madcowprod.com ) has only increased my conviction that we were being intentionally misled by the government and the mainstream media was intentionally not doing its job and following up on the anomalies (e.g. see www.cooperativeresearch.org ) and unanswered questions.

Top 40 Reasons to doubt the Official story:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Testimony of Operation Gladio participant (see globalresearch.ca link above):

'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

  • 53.
  • At 10:04 AM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hi adamliv,

You raised the link to the Bin Laden video as utterly compelling evidence for the 'received wisdom'* about 911 (post 38), and invited response (on the assumption this is an open forum) with the question 'What more do you need?'

After I pointed you to an analysis of that video as being faked (41), you then continue to respond (46, 48) only to Zoran on the continued assumption the video is genuine.

"unforced confessions are pretty good evidence where I come from" (post 46)

"I suppose you could argue that it suits Bin Laden to pretend to have done it" (post 48)

Is this a case of you not reading all posts, not getting round to it yet, or of not being willing, or able, to engage in debate?

---
* your term 'received wisdom' underestimates, imho, how many people doubt the OV of 911. Are you aware of the results from the Aug 2004 Zogby Poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855) and others like it?

Andrew wrote:
Is this a case of you not reading all posts, not getting round to it yet, or of not being willing, or able, to engage in debate?

Number 3. I can't take seriously the notion that the NOvember 2004 video is fake based on that evidence.

  • 55.
  • At 10:50 AM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • J Last wrote:

If the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 turn out to be true, then after I have thrown a barrage of insults towards the administration concerned, I would have to take my hat off to President Bush for his acting capabillities.

If they are true, then the way he has fooled the world into thinking he is a blithering idiot has to be admired, and what about that performance he gave whilst sat on that chair in front of an audience of schoolchildren? .

The way he portrayed a man sinking deeper and deeper into a state of loneliness and despair, looking more and more overwhelmed with the news of each strike as he slowly realised the magnitude of the situation he now found himself in, and the way he finished his performance looking numb and dejected, and staring into a vacant space whilst conveying a look, much in keeping with his young audience, a look of "I want my Mommy!", must be given the proper recogntion it deserves through the means of an academy award.


  • 56.
  • At 11:16 AM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • sandy wrote:

Over 100 million people are now estimated to have watched Loose Change via the internet. I wonder how many of them now share your conviction, adamliv, that the official conspiracy theory provides an accurate depiction of the events of 9/11.....pretty few i would imagine.

The film is not perfect and is still a "work in progress" but it does provide a lot of news footage from the day of 9/11 which should surely would make you raise at least one eyebrow.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=recut

  • 57.
  • At 01:05 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

adamliv wrote (54): "I can't take seriously the notion that the November 2004 video is fake based on that evidence."

You are resting your case of the OV being 'utterly compelling' on the video evidence that a special effects industry expert says, "would be relatively easy for a skilled professional to fake"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,619188,00.html

Also, who benefited from that video?

"the most immediate political effect [of the Dec 2001 Bin Laden tape] will probably be a boost in support for President George W Bush. The commander-in-chief has been under intense pressure in recent weeks, accused of trampling on civil liberties in pursuit of terror suspects" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4630054.stm

'Utterly compelling' evidence cannot, imho, be evidence that is 'easy for a skilled professional to fake'. We are talking about global agendas for shaping the world. Budget is not a problem. Fake evidence wouldn't have to be done by the US govt. - it just has to be 'found' somewhere convincing, and the rest takes care of itself. In today's age of digital effects, it's a wonder audio and video, that cannot be supported by other means, is taken as evidence at all!

I find the current OV deeply suspicious because there's been no official investigation of the effects of the wargames Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian and Northern Vigilance on the US military's ability to defend against attack on the morning of 9/11. But we won't get a US official investigation into this whilst the Bush administration actively blocks and hinders 911 investigation of any type!

  • 58.
  • At 01:38 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

Many of these 9/11 CT’s arise from the poor maths, science and practical skills of the adherents. I did a bit of metal forging in school (age 12 or 13) and understand that steel becomes very soft and malleable when heated to temperatures well below melting point. This tiny bit of practical knowledge helps me to understand how the fires in the WTC collapsed the structures. In addition the chief designer of the WTC has explained in detail how the structural design lead to the collapse. When you understand a little bit about the relative strengths of light alloy airframes and large reinforced concrete building, you have no problem accepting that a plane flew into the Pentagon, not a missile. In addition the CT adherents don’t explain why this cabal of crazed evil geniuses can conspire and cover up such complex plots but then fail to take the next obvious step of planting WMD evidence in Iraq?

We need to round up these CT theorists in special science camps where they will be forced to learn the rudiments of math and science. They will also be given aversion therapy to make them gag when they read anything written by Noam Chomsky. This is cruel, but it is our only hope.

  • 59.
  • At 02:43 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

correction: apologies for posting 10/03/2006 BBC news story in connection to Dec 2001 tape. But my general point stands, e.g.;

31/10/2004
Bush takes a six-point lead after new bin Laden tape
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/31/wus31.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/31/ixnewstop.html

Sandy wrote:

Over 100 million people are now estimated to have watched Loose Change via the internet. I wonder how many of them now share your conviction, adamliv, that the official conspiracy theory provides an accurate depiction of the events of 9/11.....pretty few i would imagine.

I dunno. I watched it. It does make you think and it asks some interesting questions but I'm not convinced by the answers. Just because the government say it's marsh gas, doesn't mean the only other explanation is space aliens.

And I'm pretty sure I could make a documentary that convinced most viewers the earth was flat, given enough time and the right guests. In the end it's a matter of trust, I suppose. And that's true of our stuff too.

  • 61.
  • At 03:40 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Alan (post 58) wrote:
> "Many of these 9/11 CT’s arise from the poor
> maths, science and practical skills of the adherents.
> I did a bit of metal forging in school (age 12 or
> 13)...We need to round up these CT theorists in
> special science camps..."

Are the maths and science skills of Prof. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist, high enough for you (with your secondary school metal work experience) to engage in debate of the facts without using personal attacks?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Alan also wrote,
> In addition the CT adherents don’t explain why this
> cabal of crazed evil geniuses can conspire and cover
> up such complex plots but then fail to take the next
> obvious step of planting WMD evidence in Iraq?

Some have put forward explanations, it's just that you may not have come across them! e.g.
"the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002. The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network"
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/2005_11111118.php

I don't think all, or even most, CTists see 'conspirators' as "evil geniuses" (in the 'Hollywood' sense), or that they have complete control over everything and everyone - far from it! The system (government, police, intelligence services, military, etc.) can be seen as mostly innocent, doing honest work to abide by the rule of law - thank god! The 911 CTs can be explained easily by the activities of small, organised (but powerful) groups who can abuse the system.

  • 62.
  • At 03:46 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

Andrew (57), the tapes don't even have to be fakes themselves. Osama bin Laden could conceivably be a party to the plot, but his role is more a cameo like. Here is the rationale behind this notion:

once the war against Russians in Afghanistan was over, Osama, an old man with serious health problems, was ready for a retirement. However, he had some unresolved issues with the US government - see Yossef Bodansky's book "Bin Laden - The Man Who Declared War On America" - this book, published in 1999, is where I for the first time "learned" about "our way of living" and a threat that "militant islam" poses to it. Foreword, page vi:

"If there is one important message that this book conveys, it is that a campaign by radical, militant islam threatens our way of life".

Here, Dick Cheney kicks in and offers Osama a quiet retirement, and a martyrdom/ resistance hero status as a bonus, in exchange for a few videotaped statements. Knowing well that he can't seriously fight another war, against Americans this time around, which he knew was coming; and that he is therefore bound to become a forgotten hero of a forgotten war against Communism, Osama takes Dick's offer instead.

I emphesize, this is just a hypothesis in a nutshell, but it helps make sense of his VD statements, their timing, and the fact that none of it ever helped any criminal investigation into 9/11 at all, although the tapes do figure prominently in official War On Terror narratives.

Alan (58), with all due respect to your metal forging high school experience, at least some people who actually manufactured, tested and certified that steel we're talking about, don't seem to agree with you.

If you share some of that "little bit about the relative strengths of light alloy airframes and large reinforced concrete building", we can check it against our collective wisdom and knowledge, and see if we can learn something from it. Sound better to me than those "special science camps" you're proposing.

"In addition the CT adherents don’t explain why this cabal of crazed evil geniuses can conspire and cover up such complex plots but then fail to take the next obvious step of planting WMD evidence in Iraq?"

They couldn't just "plant" something, out of context. A feasible context was much more difficult to "plant" given that Hans Blix for one spent considerable time in Iraq and knew one and another about the country. Also, "they" expected to find some chemicals rotting around, scary TV images of neglect and depravation, dirty traces left by an evil regime. It didn't materialize, but noone cared - ultimately, the "evil geniuses" didn't expect that we'll be still discussing any of this five years later. They are old skool industrial age types, they don't dig the internet.

  • 63.
  • At 04:48 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#61 Andrew

“Are the maths and science skills of Prof. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist, high enough for you..”

No, I suspect he is a nutter. A cursory glance over this paper is enough to see that it is complete nonsense. The issue of the melting point of steel is a red herring. The collapse was started by the floor panel structures deforming due to the high temperatures. The floor panel structures where attached to the main structural frames by bolted plates. These plates failed due to the stresses created by the deformed floor panel structures (these stresses were not expected and were not designed for). The first floor panel to fail fell on the one below and caused it to fail in turn and set up a chain reaction. The building unzipped internally. The building’s designer said that they did consider a hit by a commercial jet in the design calculations but did not consider the effects of a near-full load of jet fuel. The failure mode is well understood.

“Some have put forward explanations, it's just that you may not have come across them! e.g.”

Plame wasn’t “targeted” by anyone. She was a CIA operative who arranged a boondoggle for her husband to spend a few days in Niger to get evidence in order to discredit Bush. Now there’s a conspiracy for you! Joe Wilson has been completely discredited; he was closely involved with MoveOn.org and the Kerry campaign and his assertions to the press were at odds with his testimony to Congress! If you ask why I should think my information is more credible that yours, just ask yourself this; how credible is it that Joe Wilson’s few days sipping Mint Juleps around the pool with his old friends in Niger would have any chance, whatsoever, of uncovering new information not know by the combined French, German and UK security services?


“The 911 CTs can be explained easily by the activities of small, organised (but powerful) groups”

Yes of course they can be explained easily in these terms but that doesn’t make the explanation any less fanciful. What is wrong with the more plausible explanation that after the failed WTC bombing in 1991, a group of Islamists learned to fly (but not land!) commercial aircraft and hijacked several planes and then flew them into the WTC?

  • 64.
  • At 05:34 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hi Zoran (62),

> "the tapes don't even have to be fakes themselves.
> Osama bin Laden could conceivably be a party to the
> plot, but his role is more a cameo like"

Thanks for the info. It's an interesting hypothesis. I'm not sure what Bin Laden's motivation would be in helping the US, though. Although there's the 80s CIA-ISI-MAK connection for the Afghan Jihad against Soviet occupation, he is (or was!) a militant Islamist who has been indicted for his (pre 9/11) murderous attacks against Americans in Saudi Arabia, Kenya and Tanzania (as well as suspected involvement in other terrorist attacks). I thought one of his goals after the 1991 Gulf War was to get the US military out of Saudi Arabia. He seems pretty anti-American. But I appreciate he could have hidden allegiances, or was forced in some way. I don't rule out him secretly working for US interests as a double agent - especially considering Le Figaro's article on the Bin Laden/CIA meeting in July 2001, and the preferential treatment the Bin Laden family got from the Bush administration, after the 911 attacks, in being allowed to fly out of the country! I wonder if he didn't die shortly after 911 from kidney failure, though. Also, not sure how anyone could pursue this line of enquiry further. But I do agree with you the OV of Bin Laden commanding a bunch of Arab guys with box cutters to pull off 911 has more holes than Tiger Woods' entire career - something has to give! Even in the scenario where Bin Laden did order Arab terrorists to hijack those planes, something paralyzed the military response.

> the "evil geniuses" didn't expect that we'll be still
> discussing any of this five years later.

:)

> They are old
> skool industrial age types, they don't dig the
> internet

let's hope there isn't a big clamp down of the net - I'd hate to be at the mercy of the OV-only regime again!

  • 65.
  • At 05:37 PM on 21 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#62 Zoran

“Alan (58), with all due respect to your metal forging high school experience, at least some people who actually manufactured, tested and certified that steel we're talking about, don't seem to agree with you.”

Well, OK. I do have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, so I don’t base my views entirely on high school metal shop. I do think high school metal shop was sufficient experience though. NO ONE WOULD DISAGREE that steel becomes progressively weaker at high temperatures well below melting point. The floor panels, deformed with the heat, ruptured the bolt plates that held them to the main frame and the whole structure collapsed like dominoes (except vertically). This is well understood.

“If you share some of that "little bit about the relative strengths of light alloy airframes and large reinforced concrete building", we can check it against our collective wisdom and knowledge, and see if we can learn something from it. Sound better to me than those "special science camps" you're proposing.”

I saw a video of a crash test done by the military. It involved crashing a fighter jet into a very large (house sized) solid reinforced concrete block. The impact was recorded with high-speed cameras. In the side-on view you could see the aircraft hit the block and simply vaporise. Nothing was left of the aircraft and the concrete suffered only minor damage. The fighter jet turned into a hot mist. This is what happens when the enormous kinetic energy of the flying jet is turned, almost instantaneously into heat. Aircraft are very strong when they are operated within their design parameters (e.g. flying) but very weak otherwise. They are mainly made of Aluminium (like beer cans - OK, the SR-71 Blackbird was made of Titanium.) Take a look at the B52 Stratofortress at the Duxford air museum. You can see the fuselage sagging and the metal skin wrinkling. Beer cans hold beer under enormous pressure but when empty they are easily crushed flat. Imagine a big empty beer can hitting a wall at 300mph.

For me most of these theories fall down because they assume a level of secrecy and technical competence from the players that they self-evidently cannot command. I'm always more inclined to only believe the CTs that involve really clumsy spinning followed by a cacophony of off-the-record briefing by unnamed officials that the OV is nonsense.

Anything else attributes a combined level of sophistication, organisation, intelligence and discipline within the conspiring authorities that I just don't see any evidence of.

  • 67.
  • At 12:57 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Wanabee wrote:

I've taken the time to read every post on this blog and I must say that I am disappointed in its outcome so far.

Adamliv, you obviously work for Newsnight - as an investigative journalist? However, I have seen no evidence to the contrary or in favour of either CT or OV view of events on 9/11. Have you looked into this or not Adam[?] and if so what were your findings? do you plan to make them public?

The time and effort that members of the public have given to make this work easier for you to do, should be at least rewarded by you taking an interest in the subject and giving clear and unambiguous replies to the points that have been raised.

So far I see a large proportion of comments here favourable to Conspiracy theories and only a few who regard the Official version as credible.

Short of a video confession from George W Bush himself saying that 911 was 'a put up job', what further evidence do you require to at least look into these claims further and make your findings public?

Bring on Jeremy Paxman to make comment here, that's what I say!

  • 68.
  • At 01:24 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

I wonder how many people - on both sides of the argument - have actually read the full 9/11 Commission report?
The OV may be vastly different from the nippets we read in the newspapers and soundbites on TV.

Congratulations to Newsnight for realising that they, like everyone else in this country - nay, the world - are at the behest of out of control state and corporate entities that will stop at nothing to prevent their own imminent demise in favour of something new and better for everyone except those whom have conspired to ruin things for all thus far. Top journalistic insight, well done Newsnight!

This is precisely why mainstream media is being rapidly replaced by the guerilla journalism of bloggers, youtube video productions and flickr photo collections.

Guess what, Newsnight? We all have rents and mortgages and taxes and bills to pay too. But we also have things that have far wider appeal than your self-interested commitments to arbitrary financial arrangements with the money-men, a couple of things that mainstream media journalists, writers and producers don't appear to have at all any more, namely intellectual honesty, integrity and a dedication to the truth, irrespective of what the truth may be.

Maybe the next point of cognition for journalists, especially the BBC with their annual TV owner's tax known as a 'Licence Fee', will be the fact that it is we, the people, who pay the very mortgages about which they are so precious.

--

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

- Bob Dylan, Masters of War

  • 70.
  • At 03:43 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Wanabee wrote:

I just thought I would post this video download link to the latest video interview with Prof. Steven Jones of Bingham Young University in the US.

His recent paper on the subject of WTC1 ,2 and 5 being brought down by controlled demolition has passed peer review in the US, so it has at least 'some' credibility I guess.

Here's the link:

http://tinyurl.com/fk4cx [173MB]

He says some interesting things that may or may not be true, just as the 9/11 report may or may not be true.

I found it interesting anyway and recommend giving it a look.

Perhaps the person who moderates this blog might explain the arbitary disappearance of some posts, mine included. Is it based on a 'complaint' being made, or 2 or 5?

What form of censorship is this blog under?

  • 72.
  • At 04:47 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

The blog disappearences !!!!!

Surely a conspiracy :)

vikingar

  • 73.
  • At 06:01 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

incredulity...that is my reaction...but not to [some of] the CTs

it is suggested above, that a reason to doubt our leaders are criminal geniuses (or is that genii), is in their incompetence, this is possibly the single most frightening thing i've ever read in the interbibble

so either, our leaders our too stupid or confused to plan sordid backroom coups of various kinds...so must be too idiotic to 'rule' us...

...or (think on this one) are so competent and cunning as to ensure that a slightly wobbly, cheeseburger and golf obsessed nixon-spiritual-successor fronts the whole show, and one who not only has trouble saying nuCLEAR (because that is how you say it george - not nu-cul-ar, homer simpson gets this one wrong too, and he also has the power to shower us all in high radiation, but at least he's confined within the tv), not only that, but he 'looks' and sounds like he's a wee bit tipsy sometimes

this doesn't fill me with confidence, nor does it make OVs particularly reassuring

  • 74.
  • At 06:11 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

hello fellow researchers and inquirers,

adamliv (66), I would not underestimate the authorities. After all, governments do run countries, economies, social policies, military, diplomacy, etc... Admittedly, there is little intelligence and sophistication there, but apparently, one does not need any of these qualities in huge quantities in order to run policies (or scums). Take the runup to Iraq war for example: the case for war wasn't argued very intelligently, or presented in a particularly sophisticated way. If you look back at it, you'll see that they "won" the argument by shear brute force rather than sophistication of any kind. By "brute force" I don't mean blunt physical violence; a hacker breaking a password by running, in a dull, mechanical fashion, all possible combinations until he/ she gets the right one is using a technique known as "brute force attack". Dull, stubborn persistence, and good old plain lying is how Blair "proved" his case for war. Did you personally find his arguments sophisticated? Do you actually think that he acted like an intelligent, responsible person back then? On the other hand, people pushing for the war did show a remarkable level of discipline, organization and coordination throughout, although - I'm convinced - Blair, Straw, Bush, Cheney, Scarlet, Powell, Greenstock, Wolfowitz... the list is lengthy, never sat together to conspire to invade Iraq. They didn't even have to be in complete agreement with each other on every detail in order to work together towards the same end.

From operational point of view, purely technically speaking, I can turn your argument around and say that the US Defence Intelligence Agency is - arguably - the only organization in the world with operational and material capacity to carry out such a large scale operation on US soil. Your line of thinking implies that the key institutions of modern Western governance are too dull and dumb to pull anything like 9/11, whereas a gang of know-how, may-do flyers from Tora Bora can do it as a matter of fact. What is it that Commander-General Muhammad Ataa ever knew or had, that the generals in the Pentagon didn't have or know?

Another key element here is fear, it helps to maintain a "secrecy". People are generally reluctant to question the authorities in times of danger, and the authorities do tend to exploit fear as a means of achieving and maintaining social cohesion. But most of all, it's the implications of all this that scares many people away from entertaining such thoughts, a realization that the answer to this questions might just as well be "Yes" is what is so frightening to many, from ordinary people, to journalists, judges, parliamentarians, and other sensible individuals - we would all prefer that it's not true.

Which brings us back to the core issue: sensible person's expectations as to how the world should behave. A sensible person would not expect to see millions of fellow humans dying like flies, daily, and for no reason. Technically, they are dying of numerous (preventable) diseases, of war and starvation... etc, but philosophically speaking, they are dying due to a complete lack of care and appreciation. That's certainly not sensible at all, but the reality of the world we live in is a net result of all our actual doings rather than sensible individuals' expectations. The world we live in appears to be stranger than that. Which is not to say that Dick Cheney did it. However, we should not discard this notion only because it violates our expectations about the world (and fellow earthlings).

---------------------

Alan (65), I would not dispute your experience and expertise, or that of 9/11 Commission, or that of Steven E. Jones, and many others. However, what it shows to me is that there is still a variety of opinions out there, all reasonably well argumented. In other words, not all seems to be that "well understood" just yet.

Aircraft are made mostly of duraluminium but that's a minor detail. The plane that hit the Pentagon actually pierced through the reinforced concrete walls of the building as it evaporated. That's somewhat puzzling. Does this photo resembles what you've seen on that crash-test video? -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~zoc/P-hole.htm

What strikes me personally the most is a high content of "against odds" elements in events that make up the 9/11. I would welcome any pilots out there, civilian and military, to give their opinion on what are the odds of amateur pilots hitting those buildings with such a precision, or navigating their way through New York air space without a guidance from air traffic control, relying entirely on their know-how and onboard radars. Further on, the collapse of three buildings was in many ways a rather unique event, that much is a matter of historical record. The crash site of the flight 93 was also a unique crash site, historically speaking, in terms of what was/ was not found there. And finding General Muhammad Ataa's passport, in plain sight at the ground zero, is not absolutely impossible neither, but it stretches the odds even further. These are just some technical oddities. There are many more involving money transactions, real estate dealings, the "what was housed" in WTC7, and so on. It is possible that any of these events could happen by chance alone, however small the odds. It is not entirely impossible that a number of these in itself "against odds" happenings then come together to form the very basic, constitutive elements of one large event ie the 9/11. It's only that I can't take it all for granted.

---------------------

Andrew (64), you're right, my "scenario" is not at all obvious or clean-cut. What I wanted to point out, in a somewhat caricatural way, is that the authenticity of the videos is not a big issue anyway. They can be made to fit any scenario, whether one assumes them to be forged or authentic. And, as you point out yourself, there are many shades of gray when it comes to a relationship between the US and the Afghan Jihad, the Bush and the Bin Laden families, never mind the CIA and the Saudis, all entangled in an intricate network of interests, both the mutual ones, and the conflicting ones. There are many roles for Bin Laden to play, other than just the official one, the State Enemy No1. Perhaps the most interesting is that the OV depends so heavily on those video tapes. Considering the latest revelations from the FBI one is left to wonder what is the OV now? Mullah Omar and the Taleban..?

I will attempt to repost a comment I made earlier and which disappeared with no explanation.

I notice some here such as vikingar who made similar comments on a previous thread Which Side Are You On? I replied then:

When two or more people plan to commit a crime, there exists by definition a 'conspiracy'.
Therefore, any theory about who did it, or how it was done, is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'.
The question is then not whether you are a conspiracy theorist, but for which conspiracy theory you find the evidence most compelling.

The idea that dissenters of any kind should fall into line because the world might not make sense if there is no common consent among the people is quite an unsatisfactory reason to denigrate 'conspiracy theorists'. Many commonly accepted facts about life and the universe were ridiculed as conspiracies when first proposed.

The separation of facts from theories generally depends on whether or not people are prepared to make the required shift in consciousness to risk having their familiar perceptions of the world altered. Therefore, conspiracy theories by no means provide the 'easy answer'.

The validity of any given theory should never be assumed to correlate with the level of agreement or opposition it might receive, or indeed the state of mind of its architects.

Ordinary people, who could be called 'citizen researchers', uncovered the facts about the Luton train time on 7/7/05 that John Reid announced to Parliament om 11/7/06 was erroneous in the 'narrative'. No investigative journalist touched this story, despite complaints to the BBC that these train times were incorrect.

The BBC's own flag-ship science programme, Horizon, quoted these train times.
http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/2005/11/complaint-to-bbc-re-horizon-271005.html

No evidence, to date, exists in the public domain that conclusively proves the guilt of the 4 young men alleged to have carried out these acts on 7/7/05.

  • 76.
  • At 06:30 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

PS - adamliv, I love the new photo accompanying the blog entry! This was meant to be a discussion on conspiracy theories in general, but it zeroed on 9/11 (all but inevitably); we shouldn't leave the aliens in the cold though - it wouldn't be a sensitive person's way to deal with a guest, would it?

Bridget wrote:

No evidence, to date, exists in the public domain that conclusively proves the guilt of the 4 young men alleged to have carried out these acts on 7/7/05.

What you mean apart from Mohammad Sidique Khan's suicide video? I suppose it depends how you define 'conclusively'

Khan's so-called 'martyrdom video' doesn't make any reference to these attacks though, neither does the conveniently timed Tanweer video. When Khan's video was first shown, his friends said it looked strange and sounded nothing like him. I do know that I've 'seen with my own eyes' Gene Kelly break-dancing to Singing in the Rain, but I guess it wasn't really him.

Adam Gadahn, white American 'convert' to Islam and grandson of an ADL board member, made an appearance in Tanweer's video which is interesting. He is apparantly Al'Qaida's propaganda mastermind and responsible for these videos. All from a cave with broadband in the Tora Bora mountains no doubt.

Why haven't we seen any of the hours and hours of CCTV from Luton car park, Luton station, Kings Cross, platforms etc? The so-called 'rehearsal' on the 28/6 has been shown, disingenuously by the BBC over it's narrative coverage on May 11th.

If only I had the BBC's resources to investigate!

  • 79.
  • At 08:47 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Thanks Zoran, Bridget and others for your interesting posts.

I propose Newsnight puts up a £15,000 prize for the most convincing fake Bin Laden video, where he talks about his surf days in California, and how wonderful the rides are at Universal Studios. Or better still, just commission one from ILM, to demonstrate how unreliable this kind of evidence is (by itself), despite the fact, as Bridget pointed out, we've already got Gene Kelly break dancing to Singing in the Rain, so we know anyway!

  • 80.
  • At 09:17 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

in addition to Zoran's comment (76) regarding the blog photo from 11-year old, discredited Roswell 'alien autopsy' film;

There's nothing like the famous BBC impartiality! They have to train for years to become so good.

  • 81.
  • At 09:26 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

I meant...photo from [recreation of] 11 year old... etc.

Bridget wrote:
Khan's so-called 'martyrdom video' doesn't make any reference to these attacks though

Well it's pretty general, but it's clearly a suicide video. And he was photographed that morning with Shehzad Tanweer, who was identified from body parts from the Aldgate explosion, and who also posted a suicide video.

Are you suggesting all that is fabricated?

Here's Khan's transcript for anyone interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206800.stm

Adamliv @ 82

'It's clearly a suicide video'... so therefore we must conclude from this that Khan was in London on 7/7/05?

Why haven't we seen any evidence for him being in London on 7/7/05?

Where are the so-called suicide videos of Hussain and Lindsay? Why did Hussain's own father tell the BBC that he had been shown no evidence of his son's guilt? Why doesn't the MSM ask the important questions?

The narrative claimed these 4 men took the 7.40 from Luton to KX despite this train being cancelled and the train that left at 7.42 arrived too late for them to catch the underground trains that exploded. This research was carried out by unpaid 'citizen researchers', not our fearless investigative journalists. Why is that? John Reid was impelled to announce that the narrative was erroneous to Parliament on the 11th May, due to erroneous witness statements. How comes? Why haven't the BBC questioned this inaccuracy?

Perhaps the next time that Peter Power of Visor Consultants, ex-Scotland Yard anti-terror officer, appears on Newsnight he could be asked about his company's exercise at 'precisely these locations' that morning.

What is wrong with questioning the OV of 7/7, is it because only the truth can stand up to rigorous investigation?

Bridget

I suspect this will be a case of the official version being slightly wrong and therefore people assuming a sinister cover up (marsh gas = aliens). Same thing happened over United 93 IIRC. But I don't really know so I'll shut up and find out more.

@ adamliv
I do find equating questioning the evidence for 7/7 with aliens & marsh gas insulting. This need to belittle and mix in nonsense as depicted in the picture that was added to the top of this blog only serves to obfuscate and distract.

The evidence for 7/7 does not exist in the public domain, yet.

Given the serious and major miscarriages of justice such as the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 and security services involvement in assasinations such as that of Pat Finucane should at the very least inform us that any OV requires a sceptical eye to say the least.

If the CT's are wrong over 7/7 or 9/11 then no harm is really done is it, but if we are proved right then that changes everything it seems to me.

@ adamliv
I do find equating questioning the evidence for 7/7 with aliens & marsh gas insulting. This need to belittle and mix in nonsense as depicted in the picture that was added to the top of this blog only serves to obfuscate and distract.

The evidence for 7/7 does not exist in the public domain, yet.

Given the serious and major miscarriages of justice such as the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 and security services involvement in assasinations such as that of Pat Finucane should at the very least inform us that any OV requires a sceptical eye to say the least.

If the CT's are wrong over 7/7 or 9/11 then no harm is really done is it, but if we are proved right then that changes everything it seems to me.

  • 87.
  • At 12:14 AM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Bridget – 86 - totally agree. What really amazes me is that if you analyze most discussions about 9/11 there are two camps:
1. the people who have had their eyes opened to what is really going on with the PTB and find it staring-them-in- the-face obvious that 9/11 has been created and used to further the US empire. These people, like myself, have spent maybe a couple of years, maybe more, studying all the evidence, mainstream and otherwise on this (and believe me there is a lot) and have reached a rational, intelligently considered conclusion.
2. People who (and I've observed this at close quarters) actually can't face the possibility of it really being true and so either refuse to look at the possibilities or else throw insults or obfuscate, anything rather than really investigate. it's human nature.
What is worse is that the real paid investigators, the journalists, write what they are told to write, and will not go off message.
But doesnt this fit perfectly with the theory that actually the media are part of the lie! They have to keep their mortgages going, it's true that it's not their fault. The only hope is that the internet, for the moment, and individual voices, will enable critical mass to be reached in terms of the facts being made known to the larger population.

  • 88.
  • At 12:22 AM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

some interesting reading on the alleged global hawk attack on the pentagon (might explain the lack of knackered football shaped engine wrecks rolling around outside, and little evidence of wing remnants - just where did those wings go ?)

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6636

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=3736

if it's all so silly, why not report it under "whew, what a bunch of loonies" ? i suspect viewers may respond with "tell us more"

so where did they plane go ? into the what ? i can't tell you


...p.s. why not replace that grey with a picture of bush - i don't think he's for real either

Bridget wrote:
I do find equating questioning the evidence for 7/7 with aliens & marsh gas insulting.

I don't mean to insult. It's a reference to the original article and Occam's razor, not a suggestion that you believe in martians (not that I want to insult people who believe in extra-terrestrial incursions - they're all license fee payers.)

Firstly, thanks to adamliv and Newsnight for opening up the subject and for various well-modulated interjections. In short, I trust you. Not that you're always right, of course. Not that you always cover the most important stories, or give them the right emphasis. But the method, the discipline, the honesty about the tricky judgment calls you have to make is right. That's why I still listen to the BBC.

I'm also an arch-sceptic. In all directions. For example, Brian Butterworth praises "The Power of Nightmares". But how about this from the maker, in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm


Cliff Babbs, Daventry: Do you believe it possible that the American Neo-Cons engineered the 9/11 atrocity as a catalyst for their program?

Adam Curtis: No.


Well said, Mr Curtis. Which of course means that I agree with his judgment on that.

But I was also convinced by J McMichael's pioneering "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!" Worth pointing to because it was written just forty days after 9-11, now at http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

I also agree with Melanie Phillips last month that Norman Baker's claims that David Kelly was murdered need to be taken seriously - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/columnists/archive.html?in_author_id=256&in_page_id=1772&in_article_id=397298

I also trust Canon Andrew White - the very brave, so-called Bishop of Baghdad - that his close friends in Iraq still believe that Saddam had WMDs right up to the invasion in 2003, because they worked on or knew directly about such programmes. I don't think that Canon White is being suckered there. He knows the people too well for that. He was against the war until after the main fighting was over. Then such old friends were able to tell him for the first time about their terrible torture under Saddam.

Messy picture, is it not?

Which set of people am I trusting that I shouldn't be? And vice versa?

The CT/OV distinction is really only a start. So is this one page of discussion. But, because it's the Beeb, I count it as significant. So thanks.

  • 91.
  • At 11:00 AM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • AndrewH wrote:

It's sad, but understandable, that discussion of very serious allegations of state terrorism is lumped in with "Internet Conspiracy Theories". Since the Internet is, up to now, the only forum available for researchers and interested people to share information of this type, and since that medium lacks the legitimacy of older forms of media (for myriad reasons), there is always a sense that there's something "not quite right" about "stuff on the Internet".

If the allegations about state involvement in 9/11 are true, then to me that is absolutely petrifying. The evidence put forward by thoughtful researchers (such as David Ray Griffin) is compelling, and deserves hearing out. As a long-time license payer, I would very much like to see a Newsnight special give these views an airing.

  • 92.
  • At 11:47 AM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#74 Zoran

“The plane that hit the Pentagon actually pierced through the reinforced concrete walls of the building as it evaporated. That's somewhat puzzling. Does this photo resembles what you've seen on that crash-test video?”

No it doesn’t. My post (#65) mentioned that they used a “house sized” block of reinforced concrete. Your picture shows a wall. The whole point of my post was to demonstrate that there could be enough kinetic energy in an aircraft flying at a sufficiently high speed, to vaporise the structure upon impact. The kinetic energy of the falling WTC produced pools of molten steel that persisted for weeks. Energy transfer works in many ways, including punching holes through walls. You are puzzled because you can’t imagine the enormous energy transfers involved in bringing a 400mph (or whatever the speed was) aircraft to a standing stop in a fraction of a second. Some of the energy was dissipated in punching a hole in the wall, some destroyed the fabric of the aircraft, and all of it ends up being dissipated as heat. You are not used to seeing aircraft almost completely disappear in crashes because they don’t normally hit solid walls and the kinetic energy is dissipated more gradually so more of the structure survives.

  • 93.
  • At 12:39 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Wanabee wrote:

#92

Alan: not being critical in the slightest about your post, but I think you'll find that the pools of molten metal found under WTC1,2 and 7 consisted of Iron - plus trace elements - and not molten construction steel.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

  • 94.
  • At 12:42 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Richard - 90 - I'm touched by your faith in the BBC, especially considering you're an arch-sceptic. I loved Power of Nightmares and found it a trigger to looking into all this stuff. However I'm not entirely convinced by Curtis's wide ranging and well researched answer to the question about 9/11. Maybe he needs to expand a little... and I don't see how you can agree with that and the 911 review article. If there is serious doubt that OBL did it (and let's face it, even the FBI have now admitted they have no evidence) there is only one other compelling possibility, which is that the US government, or elements thereof, did.

AndrewH, what exactly is the problem with "very serious allegations" of "thoughtful researchers" like David Ray Griffin being lumped in with "Internet Conspiracy Theories"?

Okay, I know. Many sneer, even before they listen to evidence for or against, the moment they hear the term.

But an unconvential explanation involving alleged, not widely considered, secret intentionality typically is called a CT. Those are the facts of our social intercourse in the English-speaking world.

The best way to go, I've believed for a while, is to remove the automatic stigma on the term.

Those who were arguing for twenty years that Roberto Calvi did not commit suicide under Blackfriars Bridge, but was murdered, were, it now seems, the sensible ones. In my view the CTs were always much more sane than the OV, in the form of the initial coroner's verdict. Let's start to tell the story honestly, start to distinguish considered from crackpot CTs (as best we can), let's at least admit the need for the adjectives.

Meantime, David Ray Griffin can look after himself, I'm sure. What a nice surprise to have an accomplished process theologian in the fray!

Although, like Griffin, I'm no civil engineer, I agree with him and many others about the physical improbability of the collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2 and (especially) 7. That clinched for me that something truly disturbing was going on that fateful day.

The massive questions then are:

1. how much the state was involved - and how much of the state was involved.

2. how much Al-Qaeda was, likewise.

If I follow anyone in such murky waters it's John Loftus, who speaks of rogue elements within US intelligence, going right back to the horrendous compromises in pardoning and using known Nazis after WWII. This also establishes historic links to Islamic radicalism that I believe that it is utterly foolish to downplay.

I realise that many Democrats will want to argue that all the main players in the Bush administration were knowingly involved - and of course none from Clinton's day.

For the moment, though, I suggest that mainstream news programmes like Newsnight should focus on the most basic levels of the evidence - the lack of convincing physical models (apart from controlled demolition) to explain the total collapse of all three buildings at almost free fall speeds.

That would be both bold and careful at the same time. So I'm not holding my breath! (It's too easy to include far too much, from too many hotheads, for sensationalist reasons and, inadvertantly perhaps, to discredit more careful CTs.)

  • 96.
  • At 01:02 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#93 Wanabee

What is the significance of this? I was making a point about the destructive forces that can arise when kinetic energy is tranformed into heat. Steel is just iron, carbon and trace elements. Is the iron significant in the CT?

  • 97.
  • At 01:24 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#92 Wanabee

OK, I glanced over STEVEN E. JONES write-up on the molten metal, so I see where your comments come from. Jones say’s “structural steel melts at about 1510 oC, far above that which could be attained from the fires, and several scientists and engineers confirm that the jet fuel (or other fires that day) could NOT have melted the steel.[1] Hence, the molten structural-steel hypothesis is ruled out.” .

What ASTOUNDS me about this is that Jones has completely neglected to consider the energy released by the collapse of the building itself. I am not going to attempt the maths here but any A-level mathematicians should be able to do some rough calculations. All you have to do is calculate the potential energy stored by the entire weight and height of the WTC (a vast amount!) and assume that a fairly large portion of this is transformed into heat held in the core of the pile. This happened in a VERY SHORT TIME, which means that extremely high localised temperatures would have been achieved, probably much higher than the 1510 oC degrees mentioned by Jones.

I don’t know what Jones’ qualifications are but the paper doesn’t describe him as a Professor at BYU. I do know that any A-Level physics teacher would have known that these high temperatures may have arisen from the energy of the collapse. I wouldn’t want Jones teaching my kids Physics!

Jayhawk wrote:

>I'm touched by your faith in the BBC, especially considering you're an arch-sceptic.

Faith is too strong. Hope and love, perhaps!


>I loved Power of Nightmares and found it a trigger to looking into all this stuff.

I was coming from a different place then. I thought that TPON was good in parts - particularly on Sayyid Qutb - but dangerously wrong in trying to argue for moral or methodolical equivalence between Al-Qaeda and "the neoconservatives". The use of the neocon label is ridiculously loose in the UK and TPON only made it worse. Its account of Cold War days was very unconvincing. Where was the seminal role of the Democract, Henry "Stoop" Jackson, with his idealistic and ultimately very effective campaign to stop appeasement of the Soviets until they had a better human rights record? Against the cynical realists like Henry Kissinger? That was the key formative phase for the likes of Richard Perle and others. Like them or not these days.


>However I'm not entirely convinced by Curtis's wide ranging and well researched answer to the question about 9/11. Maybe he needs to expand a little... and I don't see how you can agree with that and the 911 review article.

I admitted that it was a messy picture. I'm trying to follow the evidence. The collapse of the buildings now stands out like a sore thumb. I have to be honest about that. As I start to go into in my second contribution, I've been looking into the ideas of John Loftus as background for some of this.

>If there is serious doubt that OBL did it (and let's face it, even the FBI have now admitted they have no evidence)

I don't find the FBI page that big a deal. OBL didn't have a hands-on role. I hadn't thought so for a while. On the other hand I fully believe (and so do millions of Muslims, if you take care in looking) that he rejoiced about 9-11 and (perhaps later) boasted that he'd had some kind of role. There was even the tape where he admitted surprise of many of those guys that the towers came down. I know it's open for anyone to doubt any of this stuff but I've spoken to Muslims who are close friends from work and I've been to Speaker's Corner and spoken to a number of radicals there. I've also read various opinion polls, showing millions supporting OBL or at least Al-Qaeda precisely because they are thought to have done it. Just those pertaining to Pakistan are bad enough. I'd say that this gives the West - perhaps the UK more than anywhere - a genuine problem, of quite huge proportions. OBL's operational involvement in 9-11 is fairly marginal to all that.


>... there is only one other compelling possibility, which is that the US government, or elements thereof, did.

Not just one other possibility. Elements thereof, working with, perhaps manipulating, young Islamic extremists. That's a hypothesis I've been kicking around since last year.

I'd only add this. Anyone ruthless, clever and evil enough to be involved, who wasn't an Islamist, would also be fully aware of the propensity of many Muslims, even otherwise moderate ones, to believe in conspiracy theories of all kinds.

It looks to me like manipulation of the whole world, through trauma, with a dreadful payback wanted not just from a warlike US conservative incumbent but from a worldwide constituency already given to rampant paranoia and anti-semitism.

Not just messy ... not a pretty picture at all.

  • 99.
  • At 03:23 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Richard - 98 - I'm guessing you're a christian, in which case it's remarkable to come across one who actually takes this seriously instead of apparently swallowing the OV.
Richard said:
"It looks to me like manipulation of the whole world, through trauma, with a dreadful payback wanted not just from a warlike US conservative incumbent but from a worldwide constituency already given to rampant paranoia and anti-semitism."
This is really The Bigger Picture isn't it? There is a definite hint of approaching Armageddon about all this. Fear is the major factor in terms of control of the population, and the truth of endtime prophecy (to some) and even the myth (to most) has a strange power.
By the way:
"September 11th was a US conspiracy"
Has the probability figure gone up from 4%?

  • 100.
  • At 06:06 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Dear Bridget (71, 75, 78, 83, 85), I've just read through your blog entries at http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/, and I find your investigation to ascertain some simple facts about 7/7 extremely admirable. I think your original research over many months merits the commissioning of a Newsnight special, and I wish to god they'd have the courage to do something like that. As a license fee payer I want to see more than a couple of talking heads on Newsnight debating some 'within the paradigm' issue of the day. 'Citizen journalists' like Bridget have carried out deep, sustained investigation into an important issue, and have results worth communicating to the nation. But I can guess, from adamliv's comments, and others, that the OV may not be questioned seriously, however simple and straightforward the questions are. It seems that one or two videos or photos is enough evidence for most people not to question any further, whilst ignoring the fact, as Bridget points out in the case of 7/7, there should be masses of video and photos from any number of CCTV cameras (we're told it's not made public for reasons of national security, ongoing investigation, etc).

Adamliv points out (82) there's also forensic evidence in the case of Shehzad Tanweer (identification of body parts). Whilst it's not impossible to also fake forensic evidence and 'disappear' people, I agree with careful use of Occam's razor. To say, for example, that Shehzad Tanweer didn't do it, you have to believe the CCTV photo, video statement, and forensic evidence are irrelevant or faked and that he was 'disappeared' (or didn't exist in the first place, and his whole family are fictional! ;) - which I find much less probable than the OV. However, under the scenario of Tanweer and the other 3 being used as patsies, as part of the Visor Consultants simulation, the CCTV photo and forensic evidence could be accurate, just needing the video statement to be faked (although there are issues around the photo and train time, too). I'd believe more in video evidence if it were discovered in the house of the alleged bomber, or the house of a friend or relative, etc., rather than appearing via some 'Islamist website' - which means it could have come from anywhere.

  • 101.
  • At 07:11 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Richard Drake wrote (98);
> It looks to me like manipulation of the whole world,
> through trauma, with a dreadful payback wanted not
> just from a warlike US conservative incumbent but
>from a worldwide constituency already given to
> rampant paranoia and anti-semitism.
> Not just messy ... not a pretty picture at all.

I'd agree with this sentiment. It seems to me there's a force in the world deliberating fomenting war on a huge scale. This is why I think it's wrong to be a Muslim apologist, or to take the 'terrorists are innocent' CT seriously. Both sides are being whipped up to a frenzy. Maybe it is end-times nutters behind it. I think things will truly unravel once Iran is attacked (as seems inevitable). Several CTs say the end game is a new world war - (new) order through chaos; one that will see rich, Western leisure classes (such as those well fed and educated enough to discuss things on a forum like this, whatever their pov) eradicated.

So if Newsnight were, completely hypothetically, to do something on 7/7 conspiracy theories, what should we do? Just to make your answers realistic, take it as a given that we wouldn't do anything that remotely suggests the CTs are true.

Answers in 50 words or less please. Pretend it's a real pitch.

  • 103.
  • At 09:14 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

adamliv said:

take it as a given that we wouldn't do anything that remotely suggests the CTs are true.

What more is there to say? Adamliv, you have just proved the case of those who say that the media have a closed mind. Anything you define as a CT is not worth addressing seriously! Why would I waste my time trying to pitch on that premise?

"conspiracies do happen"
you said it.....
::sighs::

Jayhawk wrote:
Why would I waste my time trying to pitch on that premise?

Because I'm in no better position than you are to produce the evidence required to stand up these CTs (setting aside the issue of whether such evidence actually exists.) You may think we can wave our magic Newsnight wands and make the Men In Black confess on camera, but the truth is that my resources are a phone, a web connection and an oyster card. And you want us to turn an anomoly in a train timetable and a corporate training day into proof that the government is actually jam packed with criminal pychopaths who murdered 52 innocent people for propaganda purposes?

So given that's not going to happen, should we just ignore your views completely? Sounds like you'd prefer that.

  • 105.
  • At 11:59 PM on 23 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

surely it's ALL CT, at least from where i'm looking, the terrorism is conspiracy, and much of what is reported as fact is theory, seemingly from the lack of evidence at least

is it not possible to address the many issues raised in this film ?... http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html

the apparently faked osama tape, the doubt over the temperatures necessary to cause failure of the trusses in the towers ?...these two things for a start appear to be self evident reasons to probe, rather than CTs in of themselves

  • 106.
  • At 12:02 AM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

and are the issues raised by Bridget Dunne not worth looking into, from the point of view of innacurate details rather than CT particularly

This is not the pitch. It is over 50 words. But I do say that we should try to agree a pitch - or more than one. Tomorrow at the latest.

Meanwhile, wild allegations of my Christianity have not been substantiated by any evidence at all. Here's the most interesting piece that I can think of. On the day that news of the (alleged) multiple plane plot broke I was seen deep in conversation in rural Sussex on the place of Israel in Christian eschatology (theology of the end times) with an American evangelical leader who had just made the front page of the New York Times for his startling idea, for Americans at least, called "The Myth of the Christian Nation" (now a book).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?ex=1154836800&en=66046c9d043af045&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Here's a serious plea. Don't even think of me as a Christian until you've read something of Greg Boyd's attack on the damage done to the cause of One we call Prince of Peace by a loud-mouthed, judgmental church with way way too close an alliance with the Caesar of its day.

This kind of alternative, unaligned faith in the Jesus who cried out to forgive those that crucified him is the only one that will have anything to offer given the deep threats we face. And "end time nutters" is right, Andrew. Greg, I and thankfully many other thinking Christians opt out of that whole ghastly, fatalistic, superstitious mess too, for what we feel are rock solid, scriptural reasons. But this isn't the time or the place for all that.

Lastly, Adam is dead right about this:

>And you want us to turn an anomoly in a train timetable and a corporate training day into proof that the government is actually jam packed with criminal pychopaths who murdered 52 innocent people for propaganda purposes?

I haven't looked at the claimed anomalies on 7-7 for more than about five minutes but nothing seemed anything like as important or as hard to explain as the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. The question of keeping one's eye on the ball is crucial. Certain UK Muslims are dying (forgive the phrase) for the BBC to even appear to give credence to such theories, and thus to let them all off the hook, bin Laden and all, and frame instead the demonic duo of Blair and Bush (who, whatever their grave personal weaknesses, have been elected according to the rules our two societies have evolved and that good men have given their lives for).

So, we've got to be extremely careful.

We've also got to be extremely honest and clear-headed, about the differences in the nature of the evidence re 9-11 and 7-7.

At least, that's the way I see it. I remain willing to learn. The priority being to uncover the very best non-conspiratorial explanation of the WTC collapses. The problem being that, so far, I've not seen anything in line with the OV that even vaguely does the job, for WTC 7 especially. But it may be out there.

I'd prefer it to be so.

In my opinion we should be examining the evidence for these 4 young men carrying out the attacks in London on 7/7/05 rather than expecting people to have evidence that they didn't.

After all it is the State's job to prove guilt not ours to prove innocence.

Adamliv: As for your statement:
"And you want us to turn an anomoly in a train timetable and a corporate training day into proof that the government is actually jam packed with criminal pychopaths who murdered 52 innocent people for propaganda purposes?"

Are you referring to the same people that are responsible for the slaughter of innocent men women and children in Iraq?

State terrorism isn't necessarily carried out by a countries own forces, either. There is strong evidence that the attacks on the Paris metro in 1995 were part of the Algerian government's 'dirty war' on its opponents, and was blamed on 'Islamic terrorists'.

  • 109.
  • At 05:39 AM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • Ian Neal wrote:

My response to Adamliv's invitation to hypothetically pitch in 50 words or less is...

A report on the questions surrounding the type of explosive used OR

HOW the official narrative could get the train time wrong given that police allegedly interviewed witnesses on the train OR

The connections of Haroon Aswat to J7 and the opinions of John Loftus

Any of those would fill 15 minutes of air time very easily if properly investigated and analysed. If you think the questions that surround 7/7 come down to the Peter Power exercise and wrong train time, you need to do some more research.

If you are serious about doing something on 9/11 for the 5th anniversary perhaps you would like to interview David Ray Griffin, one of the leading US campaigners as I'm sure even the BBC is aware.

He will be speaking in London on the Sept 9. Let me know if you want a ticket. Further details here

www.nineeleven.co.uk

Ian Neal

  • 110.
  • At 10:48 AM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

With reference to my previous post #97, here is some math to illuminate why molten metal was found in the WTC pile. (I thought I'd better give it a shot since no one else took up the challenge).

Approx weight of WTC 500,000t = 500,000,000 kg
Height = 411m above ground plus 21 m below ground = 432m from base.

Approx Potential Energy (PE) of whole building (assume all weight at half the height, the centre of gravity, for simplicity) is given by:

PE = M * g * H where M is the mass in kg , g = gravitational constant and H = height in meters, therefore

PE = 500,000,000 * 9.8 * 216 = 1,059,480,000,000 Joules.

This is about 100th of the energy released by the atomic bomb in Horoshima.

Looking at it another way, this energy was released in about 10 second (collapse time) this is equivalent to an energy release rate of:

105,948,000,000 Watts or 105,948 Mega Watts.

This is equivalent to about 100 large electrical generating stations pumping all their electrical output into the WTC pile for 10 seconds.

These numbers are of course very rough but they do give an idea of the magnitude of the energy released. Some of this energy would have been released to the atmosphere but a lot would have been held in the pile with the potential for some extremely hot spots to develop. The insulation of the concrete dust and fine debris would have been responsible for trapping the heat for weeks.

If you want to understand more about the WTC collapse, see the link below. I especially liked the quote by Lord Kelvin at the end of the piece:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Also note the references include MIT, National Fire Protection Association, U.of Sydney et al..

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

  • 111.
  • At 11:22 AM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran Novakovic wrote:

adamliv (102), completely hypothetically, organize a broad, robust, televised public debate; ban the phrases such as "conspiracy theories", "criminal pychopaths", etc, and discuss just facts; have Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed on the panel:

http://nafeez.mediamonitors.net

I'll try reposting one of my comments which didn't make it on here, presumably for the same unexplained reason that some of my comments are removed.

adamliv @ post 102:

Take your pick:

1. Is the one cctv image of the 4 accused, taken outside Luton station 30 miles from London, with 3 of the 4 faces unidentifiable, enough evidence to prove their guilt?

2. The official report into the London bombings is riddled with inconsitencies, anomalies and unanswered questions. Why? Should the authorities now release the evidence to conclusively support it's conclusions?

3. Was 7/7/05 the UK's 'Reichstag Fire' and are we moving inexorably towards a police state on the basis of it?

4. Why have there been no further arrests for the events in London on 7/7/05, compared to the 43 arrested and 17 charged for the 21/7/05 when no one was killed or injured?

5. Haroon Rashid Aswat was identified in early reports as the ring leader for 7/7/05, he left the UK on 6th July. John Loftus claims Aswat is an asset of MI6 and is protected by them. What is Aswat's connection to these events.

Or you could take a look at the Mind the Gaps section of the July 7th Truth Campaign website:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-2.html

  • 113.
  • At 05:02 PM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • Optical wrote:

As someone who has studied intelligence agencies,both CT's and OV' I find most of the above amusing.

But I'm intrested in the WMD argument and Iraq.

I've actually read in full the Iraqi Survey Groups findings,the Butler Report findings, plus a long list of books on the subject (including Mr Paxman's book with Robert Harris), dating back to the Strath Report in the 1950's.

I've also read many CT's.

Both ISG and Butler have never said there were no WMD-only they could not find them.

It's more complex than the mantra that "There were no WMD=Bush and Blair lied".

Intelligence is an esoteric subject-how can one nation know FULLY another nations warplanning and warfighting is impossible, they are a nations most secure secret,therfore have the most protection in the form of counter-intelligence.

So to say we went to war on "lies" is missing the point-Intelligence no matter how it is obtained in NEVER accurate.

Think of Chinese whispers and you get a basic idea of how the intelligence process works.

In most of the public's mind when we think WMD we imagine those old USSR Mayday marches...very big missiles.

But the opposite is true,and with modern technology the Aum sect managed to make Sarin from non-Government sources.

So it is conceivable that there are still active WMD's in Iraq or they have been moved outside.

We simply don't know, and that's the danger with CT and OV-more often than not we fill in blanks when we have no answers.

But in this day of Mcworld V Jihad myths become fact and fact myths.

My suggestion to people-read as much as you can,both for and against arguments, talk to others and make your own mind up.

In other words be your own intelligence officer.

  • 114.
  • At 05:50 PM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

With reference to my previous post #97, here is some math to illuminate why molten metal was found in the WTC pile. (I thought I'd better give it a shot since no one else took up the challenge).

Approx weight of WTC 500,000t = 500,000,000 kg
Height = 411m above ground plus 21 m below ground = 432m from base.

Approx Potential Energy (PE) of whole building (assume all weight at half the height, the centre of gravity, for simplicity) is given by:

PE = M * g * H where M is the mass in kg , g = gravitational constant and H = height in meters, therefore

PE = 500,000,000 * 9.81 * 216 = 1,059,480,000,000 Joules.

This is about 100th of the energy released by the atomic bomb in Hiroshima.

Looking at it another way, this energy was released in about 10 second (collapse time) this is equivalent to an energy release rate of:

105,948,000,000 Watts or 105,948 Mega Watts.

This is equivalent to about 100 large electrical generating stations pumping all their electrical output into the WTC pile for 10 seconds.

These numbers are of course very rough but they do give an idea of the magnitude of the energy released. Some of this energy would have been released to the atmosphere but a lot would have been held in the pile with the potential for some extremely hot spots to develop. The insulation of the concrete dust and fine debris would have been responsible for trapping the heat for weeks.

If you want to understand more about the WTC collapse, see the link below. I especially liked the quote by Lord Kelvin at the end of the piece:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Also note the references include MIT, National Fire Protection Association, U.of Sydney et al..

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

  • 115.
  • At 06:57 PM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Optical (110) wrote;
> Intelligence is an esoteric
> subject-how can one nation know
> FULLY another nations warplanning
> and warfighting is impossible

I don't think anyone is arguing for an ideal here. A 'clear and present danger' sounds about right to me for launching a pre-emptive war. Otherwise, we'd be launching dozens of wars on the above basis!

> So to say we went to war on "lies"
> is missing the point-Intelligence
> no matter how it is obtained in
> NEVER accurate
> Think of Chinese whispers and you
> get a basic idea of how the
> intelligence process works.

If the world works in the way you're suggesting, we can view the Bush administration as victims of 'chinese whispers', going to war in good faith on the intelligence they received. Unfortunately, this view is at odds with what has been reported.

For example, the National Intelligence Council, according to The Washington Post, produced a Jan 2003 memo in reply to a Pentagon request, unequivocally stating that "the Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest." The memo was sent immediately to Bush and his advisors.

It's a long article about the Niger document 'intelligence' process, but well worth reading;
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02

Bush used the story anyway a few days later in his State of the Union Address to call for war. They marketed a war to us, using forged evidence - a war that certain people had wanted for a long time, and which 911 had given them the excuse to launch.

> My suggestion to people-read as
> much as you can,both for and
> against arguments, talk to others
> and make your own mind up.

It's what we're (hopefully) already doing!

@adamliv#102: "So if Newsnight were, completely hypothetically, to do something on 7/7 conspiracy theories, what should we do? Just to make your answers realistic, take it as a given that we wouldn't do anything that remotely suggests the CTs are true. Answers in 50 words or less please. Pretend it's a real pitch."

Fifty words?

It only takes four; four words which once constituted the basis of the British justice system:

"Innocent until proven guilty."

  • 117.
  • At 10:25 PM on 24 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hi Alan (63),
Sorry for the delay in replying to your very interesting post, as I've been travelling. You gave me a good laugh in suspecting Prof. S.E. Jones is a nutter. Anyway;

> Plame wasn’t “targeted” by anyone.
> She was a CIA operative who
> arranged a boondoggle for her
> husband to spend a few days in
> Niger to get evidence in order to
> discredit Bush. Now there’s a
> conspiracy for you!

Boondoggle is a pejorative term, implying his trip to Niger was a waste of time and money. I don't argue that he supported Kerry, or that he, and others, were intentionally trying to discredit Bush and undermine the arguments for the Iraq 2003 war - as were millions of other people at the time! Wilson has publicly stated he supported a strategy of containment backed up by the threat of military action. If the Wayne Madsen report I referred to earlier (61) has any truth to it, no wonder Wilson was trying to stop the Bush administration.

> Joe Wilson has been completely
> discredited; he was closely
> involved with MoveOn.org and the
> Kerry campaign and his assertions
> to the press were at odds with his
> testimony to Congress!

One doesn't undermine the casus belli of The President's Men without consequences!

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/07/bush_ordered_cheney_to_discred.html

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/23907.html

> how credible is it that Joe Wilson’s
> few days sipping Mint Juleps
> around the pool with his old
> friends in Niger would have any
> chance, whatsoever, of uncovering
> new information not know by the
> combined French, German and UK
> security services?

It seems the French and British were just recycling the SISMI report anyway, rather than doing any investigation of their own. http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02

I've read Wilson's account of his trip to Niger, and it seems quite rational and effective for the scope of this trip: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm - and it seems reasonable to me.
btw: I've never had a Mint Julep, thanks for mentioning them, I'll try one out! (Wilson described drinking 'sweet mint tea', though - is it a euphemism for something stronger?)

> What is wrong with the more
> plausible explanation that after the
> failed WTC bombing in 1991, a
> group of Islamists learned to fly
> (but not land!) commercial aircraft
> and hijacked several planes and
> then flew them into the WTC?

This is a big question, not to mentioning a loaded one ('...the more plausible explanation...'). Just the assumption that 'a group of Islamists learned to fly' colours the question. There are many articles on the web, questioning the ability of a Top Gun pilot to pull off the Flight 77 maneuvers, let alone Hani Hanjour, a cessna flight school dropout!

There isn't really space on this blog for me to give a full answer, but I'd mention; the WTC attacks black-box coverup http://arcticbeacon.com/3-Dec-2004.html , the living hijackers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm (stolen identities?) , the magic crash-proof passport http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html , the list goes on and on - just read any good 911 website for a few hours, and beware that some is undoubtedly disinformation. The main issue for me is the lack of response from the military. The given timelines just don't add up. And why scramble from Langley AFB when Andrews Air Force base was tasked with protecting Washington DC? Even with Langley AFB, the times don't add up, unless the fighters were at half speed or less. The OV has lots of holes in it. The information is out there, so I won't repeat it again here.

Ok, here's my pitch. Sorry about the 50 word limit.

In an ideal world Newsnight would separate the following concerns within the general War on Terror area:

1. 7-7 CTs

2. 9-11 CTs

3. David Kelly CTs

4. Iraq CTs (including Oil for Food and WMDs)

5. Muslim CTs (not least confronting the key issue of anti-semitism)

6. Fundamentalist CTs (ie cross monotheisms)

But Adam asked about 7-7 specifically. Here's what I'd do with that.

A debate around the proposition: "Conspiracy theories are sometimes necessary" against the proposition "Conspiracy theories are always harmful."

In the initial report, present the idea that CTs are thought by some to be necessary either

a) to get closer to the truth or

b) to expose some secret dealings so that they will not bear fruit with such harmful intensity in the future.

(See the "Preventative Journalism" of Claud Cockburn in http://clublet.com/why?ClivedenSet for a pioneering proponent of the latter.)

In the area of truth-seeking, CTs may be necessary either to explain substantive anomalies or to do justice to testimony, often confidential, of political or intelligence "insiders".

A key example of a substantive anomaly, the one on which Newsnight should focus in this case, is the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9-11, a physical phenomenon apparently unprecedented in the history of fires in steel-framed buildings.

THERE IS NO SUCH ANOMALY TO MY MIND WITH 7-7. That point should I think also be made, loud and clear.

What there is with 7-7 is the testimony of John Loftus concerning MI6 (and Al-Qaeda) running Haroon Aswat as a double-agent prior to 7-7, and the disputes that arose between UK and US intelligence services as a result. (See the much-referenced http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm - you don't have to accept anything else on this site for the transcript from FOX to be genuine. But there is one key problem. As I hear it, John Loftus only says that Aswat WAS a British double-agent, not that he IS one as of August 2005. It's not a small matter of semantics, given that 7-7 has already happened, with Aswat widely refered to throughout the UK media as the controller or mastermind of the four bombers who died.)

Here are some ideas on the panel for discussion

David Ray Griffin has certainly written on the subject of the WTC collapses but I feel that he may not be ideal to present the salient technical points accurately but in a way the layman (or even Paxo) can understand.

John Loftus could usefully explain why his knowledge of US and other intelligence circles is to be prefered in the area of 7-7 to other peoples'. What is to stop him being used by the unscrupulous?

Rachel North has more than earned the right to represent the voice of reason against the 7-7 conspiracy nutters that have hounded her in such a heartless way since she endured the reality of UK Islamist terrorism first hand.

Lastly, someone like Daniel Pipes, Chip Berlet or David Aaronovich would make a useful general sceptic on CTs.

Hey, it was worth a try. The issues of presentation of the WTC collapse phenomena would be worth some more interaction, if interest there be.

If this forum stays open tomorrow, I may list some suggestions for panellists in the other cases. Even more hypothetically, no doubt.


  • 119.
  • At 10:48 AM on 25 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

adamliv wrote (102);
> we wouldn't do anything that
> remotely suggests the CTs are true

and therein lies the key to understanding mainstream media. it's as if we were back in the early seventeenth century, with the Church allowing discussion of Copernican theory as long as no one remotely suggests the earth orbiting the sun is reality. Also, trying to equate CT with the idea "the government is...jam packed with criminal pychopaths" (104) assumes UK government involvement (which isn't obligatory for a CT - Innocent Until Proven Guilty applies as much to government as to anyone else) and obscures how few people would need to be involved. The idea "government is jam packed with good people doing their jobs to the best of their ability" can be perfectly consistent with CT!

> Answers in 50 words or less
> please. Pretend it's a real pitch

OK, to allow keeping within your 'can't suggest [non-OV] CT is remotely true' constraint, you could push the 'hidden al-Qaeda controllers' theme, allowing you to step into new territory, but under the safety of the official paradigm. (e.g. along the lines of http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=was-it-suicide---name_page.html )

So my <=50 words pitch would be: Were the 7/7 London bombers duped into killing themselves by al-Qaeda controllers who used the cover of a corporate training exercise to pull off the deadly attacks? [optional] Were the same tactics used, but with wargames as cover, in pulling off the attacks of 9/11? [end optional]

---
I can understand your dilemma in even pursuing research into such matters, as other areas of the establishment would make mincemeat of you once they found out the tack being taken. But when they shout angrily that it's your job to report the news, not 'create' it, the response should be it's your job to find out the truth, and not just accept things on faith. Surely it's suspicious, even to the most hardened, cynical journalist, that the corporate training involved bombs at exactly the same locations as the real ones? This, as a standalone fact, is surely worthy of investigation? I'm not suggesting for one second that Visor Consultants are in on it, at all - I suspect neither they, nor even their client are involved - but that someone with the necessary inside knowledge used the training day as cover for a real attack. We are not in possession of enough facts to know - and much investigation would be needed into the corporate training day - which may not even be possible, considering the resistance there would be to any investigation. There would be corporate reputation at stake simply by the implication their training day could be abused so seriously by terrorists. I doubt you'd even get such a pitch OK'd by legal who, if my experience is anyting to go by, are increasingly risk-averse corporate types who couldn't give a damn about exposing the truth.

Critics will point to the video evidence, of course, as a reason why it's already 'case closed' - which is why someone needs to make and release a 100% convincing spoof video on the internet, to demonstrate how unreliable this kind of evidence is, by itself. If the OV stands up to scrutiny after proper investigation of the false-flag-op line of inquiry, I have no problem whatsoever in subscribing to it.

Thanks Richard - that's very interesting. 50 words is a good professional discipline but doesn't really matter as long as it's focused.

  • 121.
  • At 11:20 AM on 25 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

[second attempt to post a response to you - hopefully this will be approved!]
Hi Alan (63),
Sorry for the delay in replying to your very interesting post. You gave me a good laugh in suspecting Prof. S.E. Jones is a nutter. Anyway;

> Plame wasn’t “targeted” by anyone.
> She was a CIA operative who
> arranged a boondoggle for her
> husband to spend a few days in
> Niger to get evidence in order to
> discredit Bush. Now there’s a
> conspiracy for you!

As you know, Boondoggle is a pejorative term, implying his trip to Niger was a waste of time and money - it's a term used all the time in American politics to describe things across the political spectrum. I've read Wilson's account of his trip to Niger, and it seems quite rational and effective to me, for the scope of this trip:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

I don't argue that he supported Kerry, or that he, and others, were intentionally trying to discredit Bush and undermine the arguments for the Iraq 2003 war - as were millions of other people at the time! Wilson has publicly stated he supported a strategy of containment backed up by the threat of military action. If the Wayne Madsen report I referred to earlier (61) has any truth to it, no wonder Wilson was trying to stop the Bush administration.

> Joe Wilson has been completely
> discredited; he was closely
> involved with MoveOn.org and the
> Kerry campaign and his assertions
> to the press were at odds with his
> testimony to Congress!

One doesn't undermine the casus belli of The President's Men without consequences!

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/07/bush_ordered_cheney_to_discred.html

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/23907.html

> how credible is it that Joe Wilson’s
> few days sipping Mint Juleps
> around the pool with his old
> friends in Niger would have any
> chance, whatsoever, of uncovering
> new information not know by the
> combined French, German and UK
> security services?

It seems (and this is admittedly a very murky subject) the French and British were just recycling the SISMI 'intelligence' anyway, rather than doing any investigation of their own.
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02

btw: I've never had a Mint Julep, thanks for mentioning them, I'll try one out! (Wilson described drinking 'sweet mint tea', though - is it a euphemism for something stronger?)

> What is wrong with the more
> plausible explanation that after the
> failed WTC bombing in 1991, a
> group of Islamists learned to fly
> (but not land!) commercial aircraft
> and hijacked several planes and
> then flew them into the WTC?

This is a big question, not to mention a loaded one ('...the more plausible explanation...'). Just the assumption that 'a group of Islamists learned to fly' colours the question. There are many articles on the web, questioning the ability of a Top Gun pilot to pull off the Flight 77 maneuvers, let alone Hani Hanjour, a cessna flight school dropout!

There isn't really space on this blog for me to give a full answer, but I'd mention; the WTC attacks black-box coverup http://arcticbeacon.com/3-Dec-2004.html , the living hijackers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm (stolen
identities?) , the south tower firefighters tape describing much smaller fires than we were led to believe http://www.prisonplanet.com/multimedia_priorknowledge_firefighterstape.html , the magic crash-proof passport http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html , the list goes on and on - just read any good 911 website for a few hours (days, or years!), and be aware that some is undoubtedly disinformation (especially beware 'straw man' CTs designed to ridicule serious ones). The main issues for me are; the continual blocking of proper investigation by the Bush administration (what have they got to hide?), and the almost overwhelming heap of lies upon lies in so many details of the story (why should we believe their hole-riddled, contradictory conspiracy theory that demands a level of incredulity difficult for an adult to supply!) How can anyone not challenge Bush on his own admission of seeing the first plane hit on "TV"? Or that he sat and did nothing when his country was under attack? (when the secret service should have whisked him away to safety as his location was publicly known). Yet it fits perfectly and rationally with the idea they delayed reaction long enough for the attacks to play out - new Pearl Harbour. Their given timelines for the response just don't add up. And why scramble from Langley AFB when Andrews AFB was tasked with protecting Washington DC? Where were the surface-to-air missles protecting the Pentagon and White House restricted fly-zones? Even with Langley AFB, the times don't add up, unless the fighters were at half speed or less. The OV has so many holes in it. The information is out there, so I won't repeat it all again here.

No problem. Now, if I can only get that Mossad-implanted microchip out of my brain it could be a good day.

  • 123.
  • At 11:54 AM on 25 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hi adaminliv; please don't post this message to the board.

If you're approving my posts, please accept the one I wrote this morning (in reply to Alan), not the almost identical one I posted last night, as this morning's post is an improved version.
thanks, Andrew

  • 124.
  • At 08:02 PM on 25 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

Alan (111), I appreciate that you did a reality check on your own proposals. Take this admittedly somewhat corrosive analysis of it as a further expression of my appreciation. We are here to learn something first, and only then, and highly unlikely, to resolve any of the questions under consideration.

Your model and the accompanying maths are valid for a solid body of a given mass falling freely in a vacuum. The actual event we are discussing is a collapse of a structure, not a mass in a free fall.

The mass of collapsing WTC buildings was dispersed widely in huge clouds of dust, tons and tons of it. In fact, a substantial portion of those 500.000 tons was converted to fine dust - you can find out how much exactly and adjust your calculations accordingly. All these tiny particles, trillions and trillions of them, delivered energy upon falling on the ground albeit in a rather miniscule discrete packages, as the dust was settling down. This process of overall matter/ energy distribution took considerably longer than 10 sec - another thing for you to consider while you're fine tuning your model. Never mind that they didn't actually reach the ground in a free fall but were rather swirling around in the air, colliding with each other, before falling and settling down.

A substantial portion of sum-total amount of potential kinetic energy that you have calculated, was therefore dissipated just as far and wide from the actual footsteps of the towers and any steel to melt. Additionally, another part of it was converted to, and further dispersed by sound waves, noise and rumble that all could hear. Not all kinetic energy turns into heat, the least that of a blunt strike. Consider a case of large, heavy dictionary, 20 pounds or so, falling freely on the floor. From how high one has to drop it before your model would require a synthetic carpet on which it falls to start burning? Or at least to get smoldered? People usually don't try to start a fire by hitting hard on a log of wood. They will rather try to apply sustained friction pinpointed to a very small area, if kinetic energy is the only means available. Your model lacks some such (energy) focusing mechanism.

The main culprit when it comes to conversion and distribution of energy of larger chunks and blocks that did reach the ground in a more or less free fall, would be the seismic waves caused by the collapse. People standing miles away from ground zero could feel the tremors, and instruments sensitive enough did register them from far away. That's, in my opinion, where most of that energy went. I doubt that much of it was actually converted into heat, let alone it being "held in the pile with the potential for some extremely hot spots to develop". If potential energy contained in structural collapse of a building, controlled or otherwise, is being converted and distributed as your model suggests, then "hot spots" and exceedingly high temperatures in general, accompanied by pools of molten metal (not necessarily steel) and/ or plastic, incinerated woodworks, etc, these would all be common features of every controlled demolition/ accidental collapse involving an office building, or a large housing block for example.

Additionally, if you subscribe to the "pancake theory" ie floor panels collapsing floor by floor, "unzipping" the WTC in the process, as you apparently do (post 65), then you can not base your energy calculations on the assumption of a free fall collapse. These two propositions are mutually exclusive. And if you try to calculate energy distribution within the "pancake" model framework, oh well, if your intuition tells you it still holds water, give it a go.

Here is a nice quote on theory modeling from Sir Roger Penrose:

"He [Steven Weinberg] is right [in] what he's saying, that there are models which will fit in with the observations, direct cosmological observations. But these models are pretty artificial looking and they are not things that most cosmologists would take seriously [...] You're quite right to say that they would fit the data, but they don't do much else. They don't do anything else. [You see] you want a model which will somehow fit in with the rest of physics and which gives you an overall picture which is kind of coherent."

If you like the quote, here is a link to Sir Roger HardTalk interview which is where it comes from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/06/hardtalk/penrose18jan.ram

Hi Andrew

I don't have anything to do with the moderation.

Sorry

A

Ricahrd wrote:
No problem. Now, if I can only get that Mossad-implanted microchip out of my brain it could be a good day.

D'oh (slaps head in dispair)

  • 127.
  • At 05:05 AM on 26 Aug 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Investigation v Conspiracy

Does it solely depend on the assayers viewpoint/bias …….

Came across recent development ref coverage of alleged Israeli 'war crimes' in Lebanon [1]

- famous pic of alleged rocket attack on Red Cross ambulance
- supposedly injured medical personnel.
- other incidents

You decide, thought at the time that hole looked a bit too round to be true (housed a ventilation unit)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

  • 128.
  • At 02:01 PM on 26 Aug 2006,
  • Steve wrote:

Its odd how the facts get distorted over time. I remember watching the news bulletins on 11 September and it was on one of these, the BBC I believe, which first mentioned the shooting down of Flight 93. The reporter cited as proof the two impact zones; the first being the debris from the missile hit and the second being the general aircraft wreckage.

I was a little surprised therefore to here the OV of some kind of airborne posse huntin down the bad guys.

  • 129.
  • At 02:33 PM on 26 Aug 2006,
  • Springgrove wrote:

Alan, at post No. 111 on the 24th August, pointed us to a link which purported to prove the maths behind the falling twin towers.

From this analysis it seems that there is a 2 second difference between the towers falling 'domino effect' and 'free fall' and thus, because they fell in nearly 10 secs., it must be the former.

Relevant quote from the link; " This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h."

So, the dabate is about 2 seconds then......

  • 130.
  • At 11:50 PM on 26 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#120 Zoran

The energy calculation is a valid expression of the potential energy of the WTC structure regardless of the environment, vacuum or whatever. My point was to give an idea of the magnitude of the energy released. Once the dust had settled all this energy would have degraded to heat, this is the nature of entropy. In my view the amount released outside of the pile would have been small compared to the amount generated within the pile. This seems fairly clear to me because the major bulk of the debris landed in the pile (as far as I am aware). The energy transfers involved were of course hugely complicated so we can’t really estimate these proportions. I think we can agree that a huge amount of energy was absorbed in the pile though.

I think you are missing some of the basics of energy transfer. Your example of the heavy dictionary doesn’t really work because of terminal velocity, although if you started it in the upper atmosphere you could probably get a nice burn going before it reached the ground. You log hitting idea would work if you hit the log fast enough. Anyone who has seen a Tom and Gerry cartoon knows that if you do something fast enough it bursts into flames. A better analogy would be cold forging or pressing of steel. This operation forms metal by pressing or hammering at very high pressures and the steel gets very hot in the process because the energy of each blow (or press) is absorbed by the deformed steel and is turned into heat (OK, a little is transferred as sound to the atmosphere)
You say that “Your model lacks some such (energy) focusing mechanism.” The energy focusing mechanism would be the same one that causes devastation whenever someone walks over a polished wood floor in high heels. The tiny heel has a small surface area and the pressure it exerts on the wood is expressed as the mass of the (inconsiderate) wearer divided by the area of the heel. Such heels can punch a deep indentation in wood. In the same way, a steel joist that falls in a vertical position and is then subjected to several hundred tons of steelwork pounding it into the concrete would be subjected to vast pressures and sheer forces that could have produced very high temperatures. If the steelwork had plopped down as one big flat plate then this would be equivalent to someone walking on your wood floor in flats.
I disagree about the energy of the seismic waves. This sort of assumes the energy transfer was a bit like a Newton’s Cradle with the input at one end all being transferred to the other end. With the sort of pressures involved, the steelwork was malleable and would have absorbed a lot of energy in deformation. The geology under New York is rock (as far as I am aware), I suspect it absorbed very little on account of its stiffness in relation to the steel.
I don’t get your “pancake” point. My simple calculation doesn’t depend on the exact mode of collapse. More or less energy may have been released during the collapse, before the steel hit the ground. But you still have hundreds of tons of steel falling a very long way. I think you are splitting hairs here.
You say that “these would all be common features of every controlled demolition/ accidental collapse involving an office building”. No one has ever demolished a building of this size. It is all a matter of scale. To give an analogy, the compost heap at the bottom of my garden is about 4 feet high by 5 feet in diameter. I you plunge your hand into the centre it is quite hot due to the biological reactions. My brother ran a power plant in California that burned mountain sized piles of pits (from almonds and plums etc.). These piles were about 40 foot high and got so hot that they could spontaneously combust, if precautions weren’t taken. All previous demolitions were my compost heap, the WTC was a mountain-sized pile of plum pits.
So think in terms of cold forging, stiletto heels, Tom & Gerry and compost heaps and you should get my drift.

  • 131.
  • At 11:56 PM on 26 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#124 Springgrove

I think I said "if you want to understand more about the WTC collapse". I said nothing about proving maths. My maths were a simple expression of the hugh amount of energy that was, after the dust had settled, transformed into heat. The domino effect is a credible scenario but I doubt if anyone can PROVE the exact failure mode.

  • 132.
  • At 12:32 AM on 27 Aug 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Here's one of the best articles I've read on 9/11 (and there's no mention of "controlled demolition" or remote-controlled planes etc):

The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html


The most interesting stuff is in the second half of the article, it's worth reading all the way through.

Excerpt:

"Throughout the late '90's, we were informed that bin Laden had declared war on America by reason of the American military presence on Saudi soil in the wake of the Persian Gulf War. We were told how bin Laden, ensconced in Afghanistan, headed up a world-wide terror franchise whose sophistication and global reach dwarfed that of the Iranian-financed Hizballah or Islamic Jihad (previously, the most widely known of the terror organizations among the masses in the Middle East). Bin Laden's organization, al-Qaida, was presented to us as something entirely new in the annals of terrorism - a far-flung, sophisticated empire of terror, possessing - possibly - weapons of mass destruction, while having no clear or viable state sponsor behind it (as the Afghani Taliban were merely its resident protectors). In short, by September 11, the United States now had a bona fide enemy - and, as they say in criminal justice parlance, a suspect with motive, means, and opportunity."


  • 133.
  • At 07:46 AM on 27 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

Steven Jones is a man you need to hear out, and then keep an open mind about the 11 sept 01 OV... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=529253447051382848&auto=true

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

...and this even has alex jones, the character from skys conspiracies 'illuminati' programme... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2205940254635302539

  • 134.
  • At 09:39 AM on 27 Aug 2006,
  • Springgrove wrote:

#127 Alan

Apologies.
The focus of my attention was to the contents of the link and not to you personally.

Springgrove

It might be taking five years for this whole rotten 'conspiracy theory' of hijackers and box-cutters on 9/11 to unravel, but unravel it is.

Check this out, from mainstream CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXxrmwZ7bo&eurl=

For those of you who still recommend the Popular Mechanics debunking, have a listen here to one of the magazine's publishers and then consider the credibility of this publication:

http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

Hopefully we won't need to wait 5 years for the evidence to be released which supports the OV of 7/7/05.

  • 136.
  • At 11:05 PM on 27 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Alan, you should setup a website or blog of your own, as your enough-energy-released-in-collapse-to-melt-metal argument advances the debate, imho. Not being an engineer, I can't judge your debate with Zoran, but your point sounds worthy of serious analysis.

I'm now on holiday for two weeks (emailing this from island internet cafe!), so I don't expect the forum to be around by the time I'm back. I'll be sorry to see this forum disappear from the site, or fade from use, in due course (despite its clunky download-all-posts-before-reading-the-last-one format). Pity it can't be given a permanent home! If Newsnight doesn't do anything on what we've discussed, I'm thinking about funding a documentary myself, although I would fear 'Them' (to use paranoid conspiracy jargon!) Bridget is far braver than me! Anyway, goodbye all. It's been very interesting, thanks to adamliv for actually airing the subsject and engaging with CT nutters, and the standard of posts from all points of view have been a pleasure to read.

  • 137.
  • At 12:36 AM on 28 Aug 2006,
  • Nikko wrote:

Alan (126)

Your model really needs to take into account the mode of collapse, if it is to have any credibility. As Zoran explained (in 120), collapse of the building at free fall velocity as a result of the floors pancaking requires two mutually exclusive phenomena to occur and is therefore impossible. The reason - conservation of momentum. As a floor crushes on top of the floor beneath it, it transfers momentum to the lower floor therby loosing its own velocity. This is not splitting hairs as you suggest.

Also, your suggestion that the high temperatures found at the bottom of the rubble were as a result of steel members falling vertically and being subjected to high pressures borders on fantasy. Besides, in a pancaking scenario of the floors, the supporting coumns should surely remain standing.

  • 138.
  • At 04:12 AM on 28 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

recent quote from the conversation of a world war two veteran and one of his peers [who served this nation and us all] (with permission/anon)...

"...but would you go SO far as to say that evidence of an inside job [u.s./911], also constitutes evidence of the pax americana global manipulation game ? [nuke/radioactive] bomb to come, iran blamed/invaded [before they have nukes to fight back with], western 'rule' of middle east, and the last covers coming off of the if-you-like fascist state at home here and in the u.s. ?"

...(the other party replied)...

"yes, but please don't use that [fascist] word ! in whichever order the confirmation comes, that seems to me what has been creeping up on us all these years, if they think they're found out they can blame a few bad apples, but i fail to see how such a broad attack upon us all could be the mere workings of a few fraudsters, this has the wreak of something less pleasant even than that, most disturbing, is the lack of real care as to whether we can see it's a put up job or not, makes me feel the war is lost already - there's a bleak thought, but we bear witness, to this very day, the fact that victory over evil seems to be the more natural outcome, and even when it seems already too late")...this i found somewhat comforting, aside from the fact that here were two 'true brits', talking as though the hammer and sickle or swastika were flying from a flag in downing street (i asked them if i put that, would i be overstating things somewhat, and they unanimously replied that if freedom still looms large in parliament, it can take the criticism) ouch !...the (admittedly anonymous, and far better informed than i, and whose ages and experience add gravitas to their statements) two people in question, i would suggest, should not be accused of treason, more of genuine concern for the values upon which they risked and lived their lives

i used to think that newsnight had teeth, but when alleged u.s. government dictats are stating that christians, home schoolers and defenders of the constitution and bill of rights...

- are terrorists -

...and this goes unreported, it makes me fearful , but not of the terrorists so much as our leaders, and the alarming parallels between american and uk domestic policy...

...it makes me fear that this war has, as conversation participant number two says above, already has its victor

i'd be glad if all this turns out to be a CT false alarm, we'll see...if this stuff is just plain insane ramblings, report it under "phew, what a bunch of loonies"...go on, i dare you

or did the above wise elder get it more right than they could allow themselves to fear ?

everyone - watch 'loose change', just incase some day soon you can't

  • 139.
  • At 10:34 AM on 28 Aug 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

Alan (126), there is nothing wrong with your calculation per se; if anything, the equation and the accompanying maths you presented are rather elementary and straightforward. The question I rise is what happens next with that energy? How was that potential actually released in case of WTC collapse? The answer I offered is - as kinetic energy in different forms such as motion of swirling/ colliding dust particles, and sound and seismic waves. I gave these three examples for I thought they were fairly obvious to anyone who watched it all on TV and listened to various reports at the time. They were ment to illustrate my notion that (any) structural collapse is better understood in terms of distribution and dissipation of energy potential "locked" in a structure, than in terms of focusing and "trapping" of it. That's where we apparently disagree - in your view "the amount released outside of the pile would have been small compared to the amount generated within the pile" - and that's fair enough. I don't think that further discussion on exact nuts and bolts of it would help, certainly not now that you have broaden the argument as to include Tom and Gerry, stiletto heels, and not the least, some intriguing insights into backyard organic biochemistry - that particular argument, the relevance of a decomposition of organic matter when it comes to understanding the WTC collapse escapes me completely. I guess I'm just an ignorant garden-less city dweller...

  • 140.
  • At 11:07 AM on 28 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#133 Nikko

You say “your model really needs to take into account the mode of collapse, if it is to have any credibility.” I disagree; the exact mode of collapse is a contentious point that neither of us can prove one way of the other. My potential energy (PE) calculation simply quantifies the huge amount of energy that would have been dissipated during the collapse. The mode of collapse is irrelevant; in fact the PE calculation applies even if you assume that the building was demolished with explosives. You can argue about what proportion of this potential energy was dissipated in the pile, and how much was dissipated to the atmosphere and the ground. My assumption is that a fairly large proportion of the energy would have been dissipated in the pile, that’s all.

You also say “your suggestion that the high temperatures found at the bottom of the rubble were as a result of steel members falling vertically and being subjected to high pressures borders on fantasy.”

I didn’t assume anything about steel members falling vertically; I simply used this along with my analogy of someone in high heels to demonstrate how forces can be concentrated to produce very high pressures. The pile was tangled mass of steel and masonry. In these circumstances it is clear that the forced would not have been distributed evenly while the pile settled. This provides a mechanism for the extremely high pressures needed to create plastic flow in some of the steel joists and thus generate very high local temperatures. The highest pressures would have been at the bottom of the pile so this is where melting was most likely to take place.

This is one credible mechanism to explain the high temperatures in the pile that melted steel, and that is all it is. How you can describe this scenario as “fantasy” while imagining the deliberate demolition of the WTC is beyond me.

  • 141.
  • At 02:43 PM on 28 Aug 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Matt, your two old veterans are exacty right. We are being softened up for the next war. Through a combination of black ops and psyops, far-right memes are entering the mainstream, sowing division and hate. Blair is now using the exact same tactics that Bush has been using for years to pit Americans against each other (to the point that RW pundits accuse liberals of at least being terrorist sympathisers and at worst as bad as the "terrorists").

I pray that Gordon Brown will push Blair aside ASAP and turn out to be a much more prinicipled man. My fear is that Blair will cling onto power in the belief that his God-given (or Bush-given) mandate requires him to rule against the wishes of the British people.

  • 142.
  • At 10:09 PM on 28 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

thanks Rick, i'll pass this on, they have both stated that the current climate is as frightening and unsettling as times were in the mid thirties, and are afraid that we're in the main as apathetic as we were then, they'll no doubt be pleased that we have some modern day Churchill-esque visionaries amongst us, if newsnight isn't part of the problem, it'll have something to say about this

my elder pals wish to retain their anonymity however

the modern day struggle is more of an inversion on the thirties though, this time around the risk is low key, gestapo style 'removals' of subversives to camps, torture and worse, with state war on peoples to follow, this will be done with a hybrid police-army, who will be willing and capable of raining death on any individual or region deemed to be a region of 'dissent'

i have not reached this point of view looking at too many conspiracy films, it was these two with their clearer sight though experience, that actually opened my eyes to what i was previously happy to consider under the mental file "too scary to contemplate, too unpleasant to believe"

  • 143.
  • At 06:23 AM on 29 Aug 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

For the 911 CT believers, who have a habit of quoting the pseudo research of Prof Steven E. Jones [1] behind WTC collapse, what else does the man get up to in his spare/professional time:

- pseudo research to support Creationism.
- pseudo research of 'archaeological evidence' to support the visit of Jesus Christ in North America.
- pseudo research to support dubious inventive CT behind 911

Please read on …………………...

Brigham Young University, employers of Prof Steven Jones say (a Mormon educational facility run by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [2]) :

"Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” [3]

If believers in 911 CT are going to cite the 'research' of Prof Steven E. Jones then they are advised to look at the credibility of Jones other work, which perhaps gives some bearing on his motivations & sincerity:

"Jones has written a paper entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" in which he used archeological evidence to support the claims of Joseph Smith Jr. (founder of the Latter Day Saint movement) that Jesus had visited the Native Americans after his Resurrection, an event chronicled in the Book of Mormon." [4]

…. yeah :)

Prof Jones other noted works as an Elder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…. "In this essay, Elder Jones shows how death before Adam makes sense from a scriptural sense. He is not necessarily saying that evolution of man is true or untrue" [4] …. "The details of the physical creation are not given in scripture. Indeed, why should they be? The Lord gave us the testimony of the rocks and bids us read" [5]

So in essence, Prof Steven E. Jones an alleged academic/scientist, a Mormon, who spends their time & resources to carry out:

- pseudo research to support Creationism.
- pseudo research of 'archaeological evidence' to support the visit of Jesus Christ in North America.
- pseudo research to support dubious inventive CT behind 911

With 'research' credentials like that & such a demonstrated flexibility in the belief of interpretive 'truth' Prof Steven E. Jones should convert to Scientology :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
[2] http://www.lds.org/
[3] http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724
[4] http://www.tungate.com/Death_Before_Adam.htm
[5] http://www.tungate.com/Death_Before_Adam.htm

  • 144.
  • At 02:51 PM on 29 Aug 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

Some posters to this blog have complained that my first attempt (#111)to quantify the heat generated by the WTC collapse, and explain the presence of molten steel found, did not adequately account for the mode of collapse. Here is a second attempt to do this.
This is based on the difference in speed of the actual collapse in comparison to the theoretical speed of a freefall collapse. For this example I will use 10 seconds as the time for the actual collapse and 8 seconds for the free fall collapse. These numbers have popped up in a couple of reports I’ve read and they are sufficiently conservative to suffice for this example.

The distance travelled for a freefall collapse (S) is given by:
S = 0.5 * 9.81 * 8 * 8
For the actual collapse the distance is given by:
S = 0.5 * X * 10 * 10 where X is the actual downward acceleration of the structure, reduced by friction

Since S is the same in both expressions we can calculate X as 6.28 m/s2 acceleration.

Now we can do the Potential Energy calculation:

Approx weight of WTC 500,000t = 500,000,000 kg
Height = 411m above ground plus 21 m below ground = 432m from base.

Approx Residual Potential Energy (RPE) of whole building accounting for reduction due to friction during fall (assume all weight at half the height, the centre of gravity, for simplicity) is given by:

RPE = M * rg * H where M is the mass in kg , rg = reduced acceleration force accounting for loss during collapse, and H = height in meters, therefore

RPE = 500,000,000 * 6.28 * 216 = 678,240,000,000 Joules (678 MJ)

This energy calculation represents the potential energy of the collapse just prior to the debris coming to rest. The reduced acceleration rate (6.81) discounts the potential energy of the collapse that was converted to heat and sound etc. during the fall. Some of this energy would have heated the debris as it fell so some of the energy would have ended up as heat in the pile but for simplicity we assume that only 678 MJ is still available to be released as heat as the pile comes to rest.

678 MJ is enough heat to raise the 991,578 kg of steel from 20 C to 1540 C (melting point) assuming a specific heat capacity of steel of 450 J/(kg . C).

e.g. 678,240,000,000/(450 * 1520) = 991,578

So the residual potential energy of the collapse, after subtracting the energy released during the fall (so we don’t have to be concerned with the failure mode) is enough to melt almost 1000 tons of steel. Each building had about 150,000 tons of steel. I have already described how forces could have been focused in hot spots to generate enough sheer force and friction to melt the steel. Most of the heat would have been more distributed but there is clearly enough energy to create pools of molten steel at the bottom of the pile where the pressures would have been greatest.

  • 145.
  • At 03:45 PM on 29 Aug 2006,
  • matt wrote:

vinkingar, as i said in response to your very similar post in "which side are you on ?"...yeah yeah, i hear what you're saying :)

but the reasons you give to mistrust jones, are no more compelling than anyones reasons to mistrust bush, he goes further than jones and claims dialogue with god, after all

i would never intend to convert you or anyone else, just wanted to know if you'd at least seen the likes of that semina, or indeed, loose change

even though you may consider all these films/documentaries etc flawed and mostly ridiculous, there may be in any one of them, one single reason to question the whole OV

i do not subscribe to any CT any more than any OV, i am simply aware of the power of the various media to tell any truth deemed to be the appropriate one, and would rather see what may be nonsense in the hope that it enables me to filter what is and is not true more effectively, i suggest to you, that i am better equiped than some to see potential future situations, than someone who resolutely decides to become a subscriber to A or B

for example, despite all the fear, doubt being and public vigilance infused into society, the massive defence budgets and so on, i will not be in the least surprised if and when 911/2 kills many, probably by dirty or nuclear bomb, it'll be blamed on guess which country, and then that country will be attacked, meanwhile at home, civil liberties will become an overt joke rather than a quiet one

id cards will become compulsary, but guess what ?...they won't stop the real terrorists, as they'll be able to make fakes more convincing than the state issues

of course, i do have the ability to descriminate between 'probashite' and probably true, but these are maleable concepts, sometimes the truth isn't what it used to be, i hope that the various conspiracy theories turn out to be utter tosh, but i feel it relevant to keep them under the mental file "not actually disproven yet", in the subfolder "one eye on the 'enemy', one eye on the state"

disbelief [of CT] may a weapon used against us to bring all the CT nightmares to us

of course, we all hope that these forums are well read by a diversity of people, and i hope that it is clear that to ask questions, and be willing to doubt, do not a terrorist make, but they do encourage debate, the world was, after all, once flat, and you could die for the hereticism of thinking it

  • 146.
  • At 11:08 PM on 29 Aug 2006,
  • Nikko wrote:

Alan (140)

Alan, you have calculated the potential energy available from the collapse but a simple calculation such as this does not prove that the energy actually ended up melting steel in a few locations. Your example of cold forging (high velocity impact) as the energy concentrating mechanism is inappropriate, as the velocities involved in the collapse of the buildings were very low in comparison. Besides, steel bends and breaks under stress and the distribution of energy within the pile was likely to have been quite uniform. Afterall, all three WTC buildings fell down perfectly vertically.

How do you account for the fact that almost all concrete was pulverised before the buildings hit the ground (Lower Manhattan covered in dust to a depth of several inches)and that no support columns remained standing?

  • 147.
  • At 11:56 AM on 30 Aug 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

thanks vikingar for the extra SE Jones info. It seems the whole Scholars for 911 Truth organisation is strange
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Michael.html

  • 148.
  • At 07:00 PM on 30 Aug 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #143

A couple of questions if I may.

With ref to your #143 comments in respect to the SE Jones background info I provided in my #139

Please clarify why in #61 you earlier responded to Alan #58 post thus ...

"Are the maths and science skills of Prof. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist, high enough for you (with your secondary school metal work experience) to engage in debate of the facts without using personal attacks?"

Q.1 do you believe the 911 CT theories of SE Jones are credible?

Q.2 do you believe the background (academic/scientist) of SE Jones is credible to make raise such 911 CT theory?

Q.3 do you believe, given his other work (#139) that SE Jones is in anyway credible source, when he offers another alternative theory to an event?

vikingar

Breaking news. Or time for prayer, depending on one's worldview.

Yesterday NIST responded to the scholarly critique of Professor Jones, in a page succinctly titled "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster - Answers to Frequently Asked Questions"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

An extremely significant milestone in the 911 story, deserving an immediate report on Newsnight.

* The first time NIST, FEMA or the 911 Commission has managed to articulate, without mockery, the question 'Why did [we] not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis [for WTC 1 & 2] ...' (Q2)

* The first time any such agency has said that they WILL consider such a hypothesis for WTC 7. (Q14 - read the last paragraph real carefully.)

There is much that Jones and others will relish getting their teeth into. The way, for example, NIST admits that it completely ignored the crucial evidence of molten metal in the ruins of all three buildings (Q13) is profoundly unscientific.

Evidently, another high-rise building is on the way down: the OV for 911. Such an unstable structure was only held together through ridicule of all alternative ideas, simply by labelling them conspiracy theories. That trick won't be so easy to pull off next time.

But it is time to pray. The collapse of the official theory is bound to coincide with deep questions about the legitimacy of government in the West. May, as David Ray Griffin writes, we be deeply humbled. But not entirely crushed, O Lord.

  • 150.
  • At 08:45 PM on 31 Aug 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Richard Drake #147 ......

Ref Prof Steve E Jones (given his past papers #141)

Are you in anyway surprised that NIST does not indulge the wilder aspects of 911 CT rhetoric of Jones, given his record?

BTW - if you read the NIST report, Jones name never mentioned, yet you post like it was a personal response for him alone?

Newsnight may be justified in doing an investigation ….. an expose the lack of credibility & motives, behind those who so actively tout CT imaginative theories.

EXAMPLE [1]

After all 'Elder' Jones previous work includes, such fiction as (#141):

- pseudo research to support Creationism.
- pseudo research of 'archaeological evidence' to support the visit of Jesus Christ in North America.

I wonder how much Jones Mormon beliefs influence his 'academic/scientific' musings :)

I wonder how many followers of this sect feel obliged to tout Jones 'pseudo research' on any & all occasions, esp online (do BYU students get academic credit for posting on Newsnights blog?)

EXAMPLE [2]

When you quote 'David Ray Griffin' why is it another US home grown religious sect believer in Creationism gets in on the act ref 911 & CT [1a] [1b]

SUMMARY

So on Newsnight, believers in 911 CT are so far relying on the same proponents of Intelligent Design / Scientific Creation / Creationism etc (Prof E Jones & David Ray Griffin) [2]

……. Ever wonder why such posters, such alleged 'experts' & such theories are not taken seriously, but I am surprised neither Jones/Griffin suggest a 'hand of god' in 911 (I awaited their next faction report).

Looks like ref 911 & what has resulted since politically in US, plenty want to get in on the act: liberal left (often/mostly atheist); US home grown fundamentalist followers; Muslim groups; misc

as they say….. ONLY IN AMERICA …. separated by belief, united by CT.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciples_of_Christ
[1b] http://www.stnews.org/Books-2375.htm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4152374.stm

  • 151.
  • At 11:41 PM on 31 Aug 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Vikingar - 150

Why are you attacking the man and not the arguments? I suspect many proponents of both sides of the discussion have some very bizarre beliefs, but what we are all trying to do is get to the truth, and picking holes in someone's private background does not further the debate. It simply backs up Richard's point:
"Such an unstable structure was only held together through ridicule of all alternative ideas, simply by labelling them conspiracy theories."
This has primarily been done by character assassination of those involved - check out the Charlie Sheen saga.

  • 152.
  • At 03:28 AM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Jayhawk (#150)

"Why are you attacking the man and not the arguments?"

Pardon what argument? its just more inventive sect based speculation.

FYI:
- when Prof Steven E Jones decides to use his title & position (at a religious sect's academic institution) on all his research, he does that to lend credibility to what he says.
- Nor is its picking holes in his background, its driving through them :)

Ans below with ref to my #143 & #150.

Prof Steven E Jones is a rather self serving mild mannered religious 'academic' (have you watched his webcasts) who has a proven track record of highly questionable 'research' (his choice of topics & method of research)... its more than reasonable to question his competency, track record & motivation, esp on other topics.

That is not attacking the man, its holding them to account by the same right & methods with which they speculate, but one important difference, we can evaluate facts i.e. their past chosen topics of 'research'.

Q. what do the two proponents of 911 CT (Prof Steven E Jones & David Ray Griffin) have in common, prior to their latest project (911 CT speculation) :

- membership of home-grown US religious sects.

- creationism (which about says it all from a scientific 'research' standpoint).

- in addition, Jones has dubious 'archaeological research' that Jesus Christ sailed/paddled over to North America (see #143)

When put into context, the religious based nature of their previous inventive work, its no wonder that Jones & Griffin's 911 CT has no credibility outside of certain minority circles.

You have to wonder why they keep putting fwd such inventive religious based theories , why certain type of person (esp in their sects believe in them) choose to endorse/believe them….. what are their hidden agendas …. conspiracy perchance :)

A proven track record in religious sect inspired speculation & invention does not dobe such people well, nor those who 'support' them :(

vikingar

  • 153.
  • At 09:12 AM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

This doesnt wash at all. There are a million serious "wackjobs" (I think that is the accepted term) in the US who support the OV. Enough reason to doubt it then? No, the reason I believe Jones's line on 9/11 and not theirs is because it is the most reasonable and logical explanation, not because I agree that Jesus sailed to America, which I don't.

  • 154.
  • At 03:56 PM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Jayhawk #153

"No, the reason I believe Jones's line on 9/11 and not theirs is because it is the most reasonable and logical explanation, not because I agree that Jesus sailed to America, which I don't"

.... and what about Creationism - are you are a believer also?

FYI

- real world believers in OV make up the vast majority (99%).

- real world CT believers are the distinct minority, but a majority online, if obsessed forum activity is anything to go by *

* but repetitive volume & spin does not make for a credible argument.

vikingar

  • 155.
  • At 04:01 PM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

vikingar, i have to agree with Jayhawks post (153 +/-)

i would go further however, as (i have held back on this comment until now, but feel obliged to state) i do not believe in any god, assuming he is a just deity - should he exist, and i be wrong, he'll judge me like all the rest, based the morals of my mortal existence, not whether i was a club member

[for me, religion is the same as politics, capitalism, communism, aligning oneself with leftism/rightism, ghosts, astrology, football, ufology, big brother or anything else of a similar nature, it is about consolidation of control and power, about giving us 'sides' against which to 'fight' for no real change, the false choice, the wasted allegiance - there is more power and liberation, more importance placed on morals and justice, by believing in nothing and considering everything, than by being manipulated into one school or another - not a view i tend to express of course, and not directed at anyone here]

personally, i find that i am from the Jeremy Paxman school of religion i.e. anyine should be able to maintain their own beliefs, without fear of harm, ridicule or descrimination, just as long as their beliefs allow the same for others

i find it plausible that jesus was a real man, and that he did try to affect change in a world unprepared to listen, so without overdoing the metaphor, we could say that we have some second, third, fourth or more comings of jesus today

i notice that you state in "which side are you on" you refer to yourself as a christian, but it is clear that you do not allie yourself with everything the likes of Steven Jones allegedly believe

therefore, you are a claasic example of the ability to believe one apsect of a larger idea, whilst being able to distance yourself from another

this neatly sums up my position with regard to Steven Jones theories regarding 911

when i saw his seminar, his arguments relating to the possible crimes commited against america by its own state, were utterly compelling, where he goes off into religion, from my position, i got the sense of a good man, with whom i do not agree entirely, but a good man nonetheless

the same is NOT true of bush

george bush, by some accounts, is a follower of the order of thule, worships an ancient pagan deity called moloch, and has sworn to continute the aims of the nazi regime, indeed, his family wealth comes from the nazi war effort http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661 alex jones may be a wildcard, he may tend to yell at the camera, but just watch the film martial law, and try to convince yourself the he's got it even 60% wrong, then fear for the future

Only just read this for the first time since yesterday morning, with only a few moments to comment.

Thanks to jayhawk and matt for making the key point about the essential difference between the day job and the wackjob.

Take Isaac Newton. Not a bad mathematical physicist, by all accounts, given where he found the subject (at least as we now conceive it) and where he left it. Perhaps the greatest of all time in fact. But the poor retard wrote far more on alchemy and various unorthodox theological speculations, which writings he sadly thought were far more important than his jottings on 'natural philosophy'. The credulous wacko obviously isn't to be trusted on the laws of motion or calculus, right?

Or take Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada during World War Two. He was regularly up late reading the Book of Revelation and having terrible nightmares of how the current situation with the great beast called Hitler fitted it all so perfactly. But, when Winston Churchill desperately needed a friend to influence Roosevelt to start to give very practical help to the UK, in our direst need for hundreds of years, King came up with the goods. At least, according to the account by the BBC-anointed historians who produced the great series called "Finest Hour".

And who knows, even some BBC journalists may sometimes harbour the odd unconventional notion. David Icke anyone? (Not my conspiracist mentor these days, I hasten to add. But when exactly did his shape shift, from earnest and trustworthy sports reporter to the ultimate Terry Wogan irony-defying wackjob? At what point should we have KNOWN?)

I've chosen a politician/theologian and a physicist/theologian as my primary examples because that has a lot to do with what we're dealing with here. And Professor Steven Jones strikes me as a trustworthy witness in his widely acknowledged field of expertise.

The reason I took the NIST FAQ as being a direct respose to Prof Jones was ... well, it was simplification. It is really the group of scholars, especially those from science and engineering, that Jones has gathered round him that is having a major impact, I believe. And much of NIST's thrashing about in the FAQ concerns key questions that I first saw raised in a careful, scientific way by Jones. For example

(Q11) "Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?"

This is raised by Jones, on the basis of careful experimental results. Note that NIST's 'answer' speculates much but refers to no such experimental evidence.

I go with the experimental approach. It's called the scientific method, folks.

I thought even wackjobs understood that.

  • 157.
  • At 06:49 PM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

vikingar

please back your assertion that 99% believe the 911 OV

i don't believe that for a moment

  • 158.
  • At 10:04 PM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hi Vikingar,

ref: your post (148)

Q.1 do you believe the 911 CT theories of SE Jones are credible?

I'm currently on holiday using a very slow internet cafe, so not in a good position to answer your questions in any depth. btw: I see we've been taken 'off air' from the Newnight website, although at least this URL still works. I suggest anyone who wants to keep in touch - we could all contact Bridget via her website, and ask her to forward on email addresses. There are several people on this forum who I'd be interested in keeping in touch with. I'll send my email address to Bridget when I'm back from holiday (assuming she's ok with it). Anyway, to answer your question, I haven't read Jones' papers, so I'm in no position to comment on his work. My position on 911 CTs is that there are many facts that don't fit the OV easily, and the 'controlled demolition' theory of WTC1 and WTC2 is neither here nor there, for me. I'm far more interested in whether the wargames were used as cover. Also the collapse of WTC7 poses much harder question, imho. What gets me about 911 are all the anomalous details, that we haven't discussed much on this forum - for example, why did Atta risk not pulling off his attack (especially as ringleader) by leaving such a short amount of connection time to catch his Boston flight? lots of bizarre stuff like that.

Q.2 do you believe the background (academic/scientist) of SE Jones is credible to make raise such 911 CT theory?

in short, no, although I wouldn't want to prejudge anyone from my own personal prejudices - imho, we need top academics involved in the debate - but unfortunately they think (quite rightly, no doubt) they'll ruin their careers by getting involved.

Q.3 do you believe, given his other work (#139) that SE Jones is in anyway credible source, when he offers another alternative theory to an event?

no. just as a point of principle, I try not to 'believe' in anything - only do my best to ascribe probabilities.

anyway, it's been fun, if anyone is still reading this - rather than the far more serious issues at stake for Newsnight, like whether someone is carrying a tray of teacups on their head or not. sigh - we're doomed!


  • 159.
  • At 10:28 PM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

Andrew

anytime one of us posts in this thread, it is linked on the right hand side of the main newsnight page, so it's not entirely dead !

are you curious w2hther we've been read twice or three times too ?

wonder if they can show the number of hits on thee threads soon ?


the tray thing was impressive :D

  • 160.
  • At 03:15 AM on 02 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref newsnight blog contributors.

Anyone believe in BOTH A & B:

A - Intelligent Design / Scientific Creation / Creationism

B - 911 CT

vikingar

  • 161.
  • At 04:05 AM on 02 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Richard Drake #156

Two selected quotes from your #156

1) .... "I go with the experimental approach. It's called the scientific method, folks"

There is nothing scientifically credible about Prof Steven E Jones work & by default those who cling to such questionable topic & dubious research to support 911 CT in lieu of anything more credible/tangible to support fantasy ideas.

If someone fills in their own blanks to a fixed question, that is not a scientific approach (see Nazi Scientists methods & approach to eugenics. http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.htm).

2) .... "And Professor Steven Jones strikes me as a trustworthy witness in his widely acknowledged field of expertise"

Trustworthy .... Widely acknowledged ….expertise??????

Do you in anyway believe that such a religious inspired academic / 'scientist' with a self damming proven track record carries out pseudo research to support [1] 'Creationism' & [2] 'Jesus Christ visit to North America', can be relied on to produce credible research to support fantasy claims ref 911 CT

..... are you claiming a 3rd time lucky approach that Jones struck a cord with a certain type of person, who hitherto has ignored Jones work?

QUESTION:
- what the wider motives of Prof Steven E Jones? * & other 911 CT theories who have come out of the woodwork such as David Ray Griffin?

ANSWER:
- membership of US home grown religious sects
- religious inspired 'research'
- creationism

CONCLUSION:
- 'pseudo science' touted & fixed to support BOTH Creationism & 911 CT is pretty damming.
- religious affiliations seems to weigh heavily in the choice of research topics & methods of questionable research to support such topics.

MOTIVE:
- if 911 CT believers tout such work to support 911 CT they are also endorsing Creationism by default, perhaps the true motive of such religious academics all along :(

…. Only in America … & Tehran & Afghanistan & Africa.... & other areas where religion is misused.

One religious sect (Islamic Terrorists) used religion to justify & carry out a terrorist atrocity i.e. 911 whilst members of other religious sects (Mormon academics/'scientist) look to prove the opposite.

Meantime, the largely atheist liberal left, jump from horse to horse, endorsing/excusing the motives & actions of both religious sects …. surely a miracle :)

vikingar

  • 162.
  • At 04:26 AM on 02 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

you mean the OT-CT ? which is a CT itself, what with its convenient findings of a passport as 'proof' ?

  • 163.
  • At 02:49 PM on 02 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

vikingar, i think it's time to 'pull' out the old dusty internet 'CT' phrase, and ask you which branch of the u.s. government you actually work for ? ;D

watch in plane sight http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722 and ask yourself why you are in the camp described as 'descrediting the messenger, rather than listening to the message' ?

Dave vonKleist describes perfectly what is wrong with the title 'conspiracy THEORY' as opposed to 'conspiracy POSSIBILTY'

...or even, simply, CONSPIRACY

  • 164.
  • At 09:38 PM on 02 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Matt - 159

Faith in faith schools (38)
On internet conspiracy theories (163)
A hybrid world (25)
Weaning the States off cars (17)
When Am I Going To Get a Mobile That Does Everything (20)
Cash-for-kidneys? (10)

Who's top of the pops then??!!

  • 165.
  • At 11:01 PM on 02 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

i have noooooooooooo idea ! :D

am i supposed to ?

We're an hour into Sunday, some people have been known to call me a Christian, yet I'm going to do something one might not expect from one so meek and mild: I'm going to draw a couple of lines in the sand, I'm going to say a couple of things that may even appear a little rude.

To vikingar: I feel that you have been extremely, perhaps deliberately, stupid in your last ten or so posts. If you explain to me, to my own satisfaction, what I was trying to get at when I mentioned salient details of the stories of Isaac Newton and Mackenzie King, I may consider entering into 'debate' with you. Otherwise, it would be a total waste of time.

To Andrew: I wouldn't dream of being associated with Bridget's blog, if she is the same Bridget Dunne who treated Rachel North, a survivor of 7-7, so appallingly on the nineeleven.co.uk bulletin board for so many months of the last twelve. (She wasn't the worst, but that is saying very little. I was ashamed this week even to be browsing such reckless, heartless interchanges, brightened only by the obvious courage of the one in the middle, who was being so ridiculously maligned. I wouldn't go near most of the protagonists with a barge pole.)

To Andrew, Adam, indeed Anyone: My assumption in adding to this exciting if sometimes exasperating stream of shared consciousness is that bbc.co.uk will keep the end result safe and sound to be accessed by future generations, as with so much other garb... I mean, of course, in the BBC's case, highly distinguished reportage and discussion.

I may be quite wrong about that. If these stray bytes are sent forthwith to that great disk farm in the sky I won't lose much sleep about it. It has been a valuable opportunity to try some ideas out on a few other, for a while seemingly intelligent people. Who knows, I might even have fooled a few on that account myself.

I do feel now though that we need to up our game a bit, or the law of diminishing returns will have its inexorable way with us all.

  • 167.
  • At 03:21 AM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

wake up england

watch this film

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947&q=alex+jones

it's important that you at least arm yourselves with the knowledge offered to you by these guys

  • 168.
  • At 05:17 AM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

some names who dissent from the manufactured line of 'truth', and who are trying to tell you something that in your hearts and minds you may already know (that something very disturbing is going on in our 'free democracies', and that a distinct lack of accountability [as there is currently] either shows that democracy is a falsehood, or that it has died)...

Michael Meacher
Dr Paul Roberts
Dr Morgan Reynolds
Professor Steven Jones
Andreas Von Buelow
David Shaylor
Ray McGovern

if we are so free, why is now illegal to stand outside parliament and complain that our current state activities are wrong ?

if we're free, why can't we protest, surely our freedom is manifest in our right to moan ?

in the film i linked above, the Orwellian processes used to have us too befuddled to actively do something are well explained, i suggest you watch the film, and ask yourself are you in the game, or of the game ?

Re #167 & 168, matt, some questions for you.

Do any of the people you recommend differ about any aspect of what's been going on?

Have any of them, including Alex Jones, changed their minds on anything since 9-11?

If the answer to either question is yes, if England is to 'wake up', how do we work out who to believe? And even when to believe them?

(A warning. I have an example of somebody close to Jones changing his mind three times about something I thought was pretty important, a few years back. And never, as far as I can tell, admitting it.)

What J Last wrote back in #55 was way too simple.

"If the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 turn out to be true ... I would have to take my hat off to President Bush for his acting capabillities."

The problem is that the CTs about 9-11 differ widely, so much so that it would be logically impossible for them all to turn out to be true at the same time.

I assume, for example, that you and I agree that the cumulative physical and engineering evidence, and the most professional analysis thereof, currently suggests that WTC 1, 2 & 7 collapsed as a result of the planned use of explosives, not just damage from commercial planes and fire. I also suspect that, from there on in, we might have very different hunches about who did what, and why.

It's unlikely that we would both be right. Nor all the people you cite. At the same time.

Who then should we follow?

  • 170.
  • At 02:42 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

yes, certainly looks far too "clean" a destruction wrought upon those intricately constructed towers to be random, chaotic, catastrophic failures, and yes, wtc7, just stinks of coming down by more than mere gravity pulling on a weak zone, created in a randomly selected area of damage or fire (remember the building whose front was blown clean away in america around ten years back ? howcome [most of] that still stood, and yet wtc7 all came down ? there is an inconsistency here...unless of course, one is thinking in terms of accusations of false flag attacks and rapidly changing/disappearing 'news')

and furthermore, as Jones states, entropy [especially north and south towers] - where was the increasing entropy ?

call it hindsight, but watching the buildings collapse on the day, something was simply 'not right', cannot put it any better than that, but these weren't wattle and daub and timber structures, and indeed, they weren't riddled with woodworm and dryrot, so why, how, did they just fall, almost as fast as if there was nothing beneath the destructing framework

as to 'who', anybodies guess, but mine, and it's just a guess remember, is factions working for bush, or working for the group who 'run' bush...in any event, closer to bush and money, than bin laden and holy war


as for the named dissenters...
they're not people to follow necessarily, but they are people whose arguments/theories/questions should be heard by as many people as possible

without having any examples to mind as to whether any of those i cite have changed their mind or disagree with one another, i cannot honestly claim or admit that they have, nor would it be dishonest to say that i don't think so [disagreements/changes of mind]

to my knowledge all of the aforementioned have broad concerns in some regards e.g. pentagon - was it hit by a 757, and specific ones in others e.g. demolition of the wtc complex

to the best of my knowledge, they have a definate convergence of opinion with either suspicion of, or outright accusation of, government false flag operations

who should we believe ? whoever has the most cogent, scientifically solid theory/evidence, and whomever achieves this without obfuscation

none of the above believe in holographic non-existent jumbo jets, nor do they posit that aliens did it, there is as i say a convergence on the area of the sand marked 'false flag'/'self inflicted wound'

better surely, to know not to follow any leader, than follow a leader out of the need to be led by anyone interested in the role

i still think waking up is preferable to sleep, even if i don't know what to do now i'm up, better than double-thinking sleep-walking

now i'm in this particular land of not being allied to 'this' newspaper (never read them to be honest) or indeed, 'that' VERSION or THEORY, but being willing to question, and hear the most plausibly or evidentially supported version/theory which is around, it is far more difficult for me to be subsequently caught in some new web, thus far not on radar


call me a cynic, but to me, the modern world does appear to be governed by the criminally greedy rather than the criminally stupid...and to me, it almost looks as though someone in control is laughing at us, for our sheer blindess and stupidity in letting these things go unchallenged, each atrocity, slightly less convincing than the last, just to see how blind we've really become


here's something else to laugh at or be concerned about, depending upon world view (yep, i'm concerned about it) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8981053652955779253&q=dark+secrets+inside+bohemian+grove (hey, this is the whackjob thread, right ?:D)

  • 171.
  • At 06:04 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

With reference to my earlier post #144 and response from Nikko #146 I want to keep to the theme showing that the molten metal found in the WTC piles could indeed have been created by natural process. I note that some later posts indicate that the molten steel is still seen a proof of the use of explosives in a demolition. I have already shown that there was enough energy in the collapsing structure to melt about 1000t of steel. The actual mechanism that can generate these high temperatures is Adiabatic shear localisation. This is described as follows:

ADIABATIC shear localization (shear band) is an
important damage/failure mode of materials during high strain-
rate deformation. This failure mode is characterized
as an unstable behavior of deformation to form a band-like
localized deformation region in a nearly adiabatic process.[
1,2] Although thermal softening in a shear band can
finally lead to a rapid failure and makes the material lose
its local load-bearing capacity, unlike cracking, the material
inside a shear band may still maintain a weak continuity.
Once a shear band forms, thermal softening dominates the
subsequent development of shear bands. Severe plastic
deformation within a shear band at high strain rates leads
to a drastic rise of temperature, even up to the melting point
of the material.

This can be found at:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:tG_2Y-mEETIJ:doc.tms.org/ezMerchant/prodtms.nsf/ProductLookupItemID/MMTA-0608-2447/%24FILE/MMTA-0608-2447F.pdf%3FOpenElement+adiabatic+melting+of+steel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Now would some of your CT enthusiasts please admit shear localization is at least as credible an explanation as thermite charges deliberately placed to destroy the tower?

  • 172.
  • At 06:39 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

hi Alan

forgive a non-techie, but shear forces such as you describe, make me envision a twisting, distorting, but most fundamentally, a SIDEWAYS descending pile of to-be molten tower

i [in my relative technical ignorance, but intuitive 'wisdom'] cannot see how this failure mode results in perfect vertical descent

the actual time taken for the towers to collapse vertically somehow manages to omit the 'unhelpfulnes' of the structure underlying the failure zone, i submit to you, that the water flows sideways before it digs downward, if you get my 'drift'

  • 173.
  • At 07:49 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

'Richard Drake' & 'matt' - ref your entertaining numerous fantasy Newnights posts attempting to dress up 'credible alternatives' to 911 based on 'science'.

.... so what are your true motives - which religious sect's you hail from? (though matt let slip on other thread that he is a Mormon) which political pressure group do your align yourself too?

BTW matt… encouraging people to peruse your various fantasy CT films is rather pointless, given they can prejudge the dubious bias of your recommendations, based on the dubious 'science' you choose to support your imaginative speculation.

The reliance on non credible science of religious academics such as Prof E Stevens (Mormon BYU faculty) & David Gray Griffin, have fatally undermined & exposed 911 CT for what it is - wishful fantasy.

Furthermore, the pseudo science of Prof E Stevens 911 behind his CT theories, have been honed on his previous two major works (#143 #150):

- Fantasy [1] - Intelligent Design / Scientific Creation / Creationism

- Fantasy [2] - Jesus Christ's sailed/paddled over to North America.

Now we have Jones latest instalment & third effort:

- Fantasy [3] - 911 CT.

QUANDRY:
- as clearly demonstrated, the inter-reliance of 'Prof' E Stevens 'research' equally condemns the pseudo science behind each work but moreover clearly demonstrates the inclinations of a fanatics choice in topic.

QUESTION:
- what are the motives of those individuals & minority groups who promote & tout such plain & non credible falsehoods?

ANSWER:
- if your desperate to believe an alternative bogeyman & attribute alternative motives you cannot be too choosey about alternative theories to fill the inconvenient blanks.

Either way, dubious pseudo science has all been done before -

http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.htm

vikingar

  • 174.
  • At 07:59 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#172 Matt

You said “i [in my relative technical ignorance, but intuitive 'wisdom'] cannot see how this failure mode results in perfect vertical descent”.
This isn’t a failure mode. We are talking about the situation that arose when the pile came to rest at the bottom of the decent. The kinetic energy (energy due to motion) must be transformed ultimately into heat energy. This has nothing to do with the “near perfect vertical decent”. The verticality of the decent is down to gravity. When the structure collapsed there where no sideways forces, ‘vertically down’ was the only option.
You said “, i submit to you, that the water flows sideways before it digs downward, if you get my 'drift'”
You are drifting on a river called “misconception” without a paddle (heh heh). The shear forces referred to here are forces that arise WITHIN the steel. Even if you compress steel with a perfectly vertical force the internal structure will be subjected to shear forces which, if memory serves, will be at 45 degrees to the applied force (don’t quote me on that one). The forces in the WTC collapse would have been so huge that that adiabatic shear zones are likely to have been generated in large portions is the pile.
Won’t you even concede that this natural process is at least as likely as your thermite theory….

Alan (171), from the time you first mentioned the possibility of 'adiabatic shear localization' causing molten metals to be reported under all three collapses I've thought "Hmm, possible, just like it's possible that all the molecules of oxygen in the room in which I'm typing this could go into a cube only an inch square in one corner, leaving me rather out of breath. Quite physically possible, but the kind of thing that is unlikely ever to have happened in the history of the universe so far.

Adiabatic shear localization meets the second law of thermodynamics (as it always has to) - all that kind of pedantry.

Now that was my immediate intuition when I read your stuff. But, happily, as Professor Steven Jones has been reminding us, in physics we don't have to rely on intuition.

So, as someone who is proposing such stunning cause and effect occurred three times on 9-11, what experiment by NIST would you propose to show not just that the potential energy in the towers was enough to cause a certain amount of metal to melt, if it was all miraculously applied to that mass and nowhere else - a fact that I'm sure we all accept - but that such pools of molten metal were a LIKELY outcome of three such highly chaotic collapses?

  • 176.
  • At 11:04 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • Springgrove wrote:

I have struggled with the reasons as to how the towers collapsed and found in the below 'Discovery Channel' production an answer which suits me. These towers, it seems, were hastily built to regeneate a poor part of town and, at the same, to demonstrate the might of the USA with their size and audacity. They were unique and had a limited lifetime expectancy.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/twintowers_collapse.ram

Regards

Springgove

  • 177.
  • At 11:29 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

Alan

erm, no, but only because i do not understand/agree how this mechanism is supposed to work

my failing i'm sure

your last post reads as though the melting of the metal occurs only at the base upon collapse ? this leaves little room for the energy in the structure to be put to its purpose of melting that steel

any comment i have made is based on 'selecting the most likely explanation' (likely meaning logical, explanable, potentially provable - and ignoring the 'you must not dissent' camp), so, if your explanation is logical, explanable and potentially provable, i'll be glad to multiple post in your honour

because i have questions, not pre-existing answers, i would appreciate assistance in undersanding this theory

my personal suspicions are there because of history, and personal experience of the human skill of betrayal, they do not however, pollute my desire to hear whatever the truth may be, dull and old as possible, if the truth it be, i just (like many others) don't seem to have been supplied with much reasonable explanation thus far from any and all official sources

and now for something NOT to Alan !...

to any who want to libel, obfuscate, spread religious hatred or bias...

to ask questions, and be attacked for that, well, that's like finding i've woken up in some horrendous, state controlled misinformation prison camp

anyone who resorts to obfuscation has the real hidden agenda, and that agenda, is against you, every reader, it is against your freedom to think


again, i suggest everyone watches as much alex jones, steven jones, and other non-govt-straw-man material as they are able, as my mentioning him really seems to have ruffled some feathers

why is this stuff so dangerous ? and to whom ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6246148295258152003&q=discussion+in+firehouse

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=in+plane+sight

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206291362863434922&q=alex+jones+bilderberg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358319439993514946&q=bohemian+grove

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=steven+jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=911+cover+up

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7048572757566726569&q=alex+jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=alex+jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=alex+jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024&q=alex+jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4559472852690653060&q=alex+jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2366503626387827974&q=alex+jones

  • 178.
  • At 12:13 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#175 Richard Drake

Your comment about “…all that kind of pedantry…” say’s it all. What you mean is. “Don’t try to change my world view with your common sense, facts and logic…” ‘Adiabatic shear localization’ is a technical term for what happens to steel when is subject to enormous forces. If you don’t like big words, I am sorry, I have tried to use analogies in previous entries, but these have been rejected as too simplistic, so I got technical. ‘Severe plastic deformation’ refers the steel being crushed by forces that are so large that it flows as if it were a thick fluid. ‘High strain rates’ refers to this deformation happening in a very short time period. This is what happens when very large steel structures collapse under the force of gravity.

You say “But, happily, as Professor Steven Jones has been reminding us, in physics we don't have to rely on intuition.”

Well, yes, but I am not relying on intuition am I? Well, am I???? Huh???? I have done some basic calculations to show that there was enough energy in the collapse to melt 1000t of steel, haven’t I? I have also described the process in which some of the forces are concentrated in such a collapse (using the analogy of the high heel on a wood floor). I then mentioned a technical term for a known process that can raise steel to melting point as a result of these concentrated forces (adiabatic shear localization). This process is not theoretical, it happens.

You say “what experiment by NIST would you propose to show not just that the potential energy in the towers was enough to cause a certain amount of metal to melt, ?..“ No experiment is required. I have showed that there was enough energy to melt 1000t of steel. You could refine this, no doubt, but there is no question that the energy was available. The only question is, could some of this energy be concentrated and absorbed by the steel in such a way as to raise its temperature to melting point? This could be demonstrated with finite element analysis software, I imagine.

You say “if it was all miraculously applied to that mass and nowhere else..” No miracle is required. I am not suggesting that a whole 1000t of steel was melted. The amount of melt was not measured and will remain unknown. It may have only been a few hundred kilograms. It may have been 50 kilograms. I have seen no estimate for the amount of molten steel produced. If more that 1000t of molten steel was found THEN my argument would fail.

You say “…but that such pools of molten metal were a LIKELY outcome of three such highly chaotic collapses?” These collapses are unprecedented. There was no experience prior to 9/11 of collapses on this scale. I predict that such collapses (involving massive steel structures of a similar size and proportion) are highly likely to result in some molten steel being produced from adiabatic shear of the steel joists.

Now I ask you, what is the logic behind Jones’ argument that the melt was a result of demolition by thermite?

  • 179.
  • At 12:16 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

vikingar

having to remember what i wrote here as my post was refused

oh yes, that's right, you've libelled me

i am not a mormon, i don't even believe in god

to summarise my own post, you cannot and have not tackled the issues i have raised on their own merit, you simply obfuscate until you turn to offensively misquoting

where is your data to support your assertion that 99% are OV believers

why are you so scared of the truth ?

what is driving you so hard ?

why do questions and dissent frighten you so ?

why do you appear to demonstrate an agenda that is against freedom of speech, and against seeking the truth ?


i challenge Newsnight to have a poll (not that they will) posing the question (without possibility of repeat voting) in these words...

"the events of 911 were as reported in the mainstream media in the days after, and are not in doubt, neither are there any significant areas that deserve examination or re-examination"

- agree/disagree

  • 180.
  • At 12:44 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

and another thing

if the 'two camps' were towers...

one whose storeys were comprised of the names of those whose instinctive thought (and instinct is not something to be ignored, it can be a useful tool) was that there are issues with the OV, and this towers frame were constructed of sound, scientific argument to support the questions

and the other tower comprised of the names of those whose conscious thought was that the OV was acceptable, and that towers frame were constructed of sound, scientific argument to support the OV

...then i suggest that the 'tower of questioners' would be significantly taller than the 'tower of accepters'

not only this, but the tower of accepters would have many holes in its frame, and would be losing storeys at random on all levels

might explain why the internet terrorism is flying into the taller, more majestic structure

Alan, I take it from your long answer that you cannot conceive of a single experiment to support the proposition that pools of molten metal were to be expected under all three buildings on 9-11, just from the energy released by the collapse itself.

Your theory is not falsifiable, even in principle.

But it remains more scientifically valid that the plain and repeatable observation that thermite and thermate produce molten metal when used to cut through steel?

  • 182.
  • At 01:39 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

so vikingar, where are we ? that's right, you've to date, on this forum, misrepresented me, made anti freedom anti religious comments and used other personal attacks

i'm offended and i'm not even religious

keep going

but perhaps try something a little fresher than this oh so dull 'left-right' 'tory-labour', 'commie-cappie', god-no god' stuff, there are more and more 'weirdos' out here who won't get sucked in to that any more, no sir

it all comes down to two opposing ALL EMBRACING theologies...freedom [within universal moral boundaries] and oppression [in all areas of life, whether mental, spiritual, economical or other)

how about openly trying to argue FOR totalitarian oppression, or against freedom, when to remove freedom is to simply create oppression in its vacuum

  • 183.
  • At 02:22 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Matt & Richard Drake.

Don't blame the messenger …. its the mainstream majority who do not take your fantasy seriously :)

Your litany of above posts condemn ….. if you give people enough rope etc.

You propose questionable CT about 911 then insist on propping it up with pseudo science.

The pseudo science of Prof E Stevens 911 behind his CT theories, have been honed on his previous two major works (#143 #150):

- Fantasy [1] - Intelligent Design / Scientific Creation / Creationism

- Fantasy [2] - Jesus Christ's sailed/paddled over to North America.

Now we endure Jones latest instalment & third effort:

- Fantasy [3] - 911 CT.

Any position based on such theory is doomed / worthless / nada / useless :)

'Carry On Conspiracy' …. oohh err matron !

vikingar

  • 185.
  • At 02:56 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

vikingar the libeller, misquoter and follower of agenda rather than genuine debate on pertinent issue

you think your campaign against Steven Jones will help your oppression agenda, but did you not notice all the other contributors to my links ?

why can you not even bear to ackowledge Alex Jones

his name is Alex Jones

are you willing to berate the brave and skilled firefighters ? (discussion in firehouse)

if desiring the truth is a "sect" in your mind, makes me wonder what kind of sect you're spinning for

i'm independant and spreading the question, you're attempting to cloud the issue and dumb down the debate

keep soldiering on with the debunkathon, you're adding site hits to Steven Jones material

cheers

from matt, freethinker, non sect member, not tied to a religion, not fronting any organisation, and no, not a mormon

in fact, entirely bumper sticker free...are you ?

  • 186.
  • At 03:19 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

vkingar...MY posts condemn ? you really are all over the place

readers, i hope, based upon trust in your intellegence, that you are willing to entertain the notion that vikingar is employing double thinking to confuse you

and i trust in you to read and investigate for yourselves, don't be fooled by this psychological warfare

step over this guy

vikingar

you cannot and have not tackled the issues i have raised on their own merit, you simply obfuscate and misquote

where is your data to support your assertion that 99% are OV believers

why do questions and dissent frighten you so ?

Let's keep things civil, chaps. You'll scare the horses...

  • 188.
  • At 09:01 AM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#181 Richard

You say “Alan, I take it from your long answer that you cannot conceive of a single experiment to support the proposition that pools of molten metal were to be expected under all three buildings on 9-11”

I said “This could be demonstrated with finite element analysis software”. I also show that the energy was available, and the melting process I described is not merely a theory, it is well understood behavior of metals. So it is beyond me why you would then assert that my proposition can’t be supported.
Your assertion that “…it remains more scientifically valid that the plain and repeatable observation that thermite and thermate produce molten metal when used to cut through steel…” is just utter nonsense. Electricity is used to melt steel in industrial plant and there would have been a great deal of electricity floating around in the WTC. I haven’t heard your so called “professor” suggesting this as a possibility.

  • 189.
  • At 01:39 PM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

i agree adamliv, perhaps you could comment on the BBCs point of view regarding misquoting and libel ?

any possibility please, of a Newsnight piece on 'is the world falling into line, or thinking for itself ?'

and that poll ?...

"the events of 911 were as reported in the mainstream media in the days after, and are not in doubt, neither are there any significant areas that deserve examination or re-examination"

- agree/disagree


also, can you please tell us, just out of curiosity, how many horses there are ?

or modify the blogs to show how many hits there have been (reader hits that is, not poster asassination attempts) :D

  • 190.
  • At 02:11 PM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

"electricity floating around in the wtc" ?

hmm, interesting :)

Alan, I never said that your proposition can't be supported. I was treating you with the respect I would accord to any real scientist. I was asking you to support your proposition, through experiment.

Or at least to indicate what kind of experiment might lend support to it. In this context constant repetitions of the potential energy available are as relevant as a 12 year old metalworker's physics workbook. As I've said already, we all accept that there was enough energy to do it, indeed there was also no doubt the energy to make a million omelettes. Strangely, the omelettes were not reported. The molten metal was. Was it really likely that such a chaotic collapse, without explosives of any sort, would produce such a dramatic and uneven distribution of energy in the debris of all three towers, as is required by your current thinking?

The only way to prove that such an outcome was likely is by experiment.

I did read the words "finite element analysis software" but they fell short for me of a satisfactory description of an experiment, or series of experiments, that could shed real light on the scene.

But then I'm a software engineer, have been for 26 years. Having graduated in mathematics at Cambridge. What's your academic and professional background, while we're at it?

  • 192.
  • At 07:35 PM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

more questions that won't go away, or be answered by personal attacks or libel...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=590416857132687483&q=alex+jones+bilderberg&auto=true

  • 193.
  • At 08:54 PM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • nikko wrote:

Alan, you have calculated the theoretaical potential energy available but have consistently failed to account for or explain
1) final velocities much smaller than theoretical due to the resistance of the structure and conservation of momentum in pancaking floors
2) what caused virtually all the concrete to turn to dust before the towers even hit the ground
3) what concentrating mechanism was in play that day to channel the energy of collapse into melting steel. Steel bends and distorts under pressure and forces would have been generated pretty much uniformly within the pile, precluding the possibility of some energy concentrating effect. Afterall, the towers fell perfectly vertically confirming that whatever resistance to the collapse was present, it was uniformly distributed.
4) Pancaking due to shear failure of the floor supports should have resulted in the support columns remaining standing. How come they all collapsed (there were about 50 in each tower)

Until you answer these points your simple calculations prove nothing

  • 194.
  • At 10:45 PM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Richard Drake #191

"Alan …… but then I'm a software engineer, have been for 26 years. Having graduated in mathematics at Cambridge. What's your academic and professional background, while we're at it?"

… and still signs up to pseudo science of religious sect academic Prof E Jones (#143 #150)

Akin to the rather harmless tradition of encouraging children to believe in Father Christmas, but then holding a serious expectation of actually receiving a present from Santa Claus yourself :)

vikingar

  • 195.
  • At 11:05 PM on 04 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

i don't know if this is already a conspiracy theory, but...

scary, three letters have been circulating parliament demanding blair to resign - and you know what that means ? john reid, that's what that means, he'll be used like bush to be the scary, unpopular patsy to bring in nasty new laws


as i said on the 31st august...

john reid...
tick...johg reid...
tock...johge reid...
tick...jeohge reid...
tock...jeorge reid...
tick...jeorge ruid...
tock...jeorge buid...
tick...jeorge buih...
tock...jeorge bush...
tick...george bush

know what i'm saying ?

the steady 'lets go u.s.' machine rotates round on its continuing cycles towards a very scary future


prediction:

john reid becomes pm

john reid presides over the war on iran to come

millions protest another war in good time to stop it

they are not heard

the police attacking, beating and incapacitating them with sound weapons look more and more like waffen SS

then, maybe then, enough people, too many people for our despotic leaders to be able to stop, decide they've had enough


snippet of a recent conversation...

"[anon]- Why isn't Golden Brown going to be PM?

[me]- lol, 'cos he failed bilderberg vetting

[anon]- No, but why the hell should Reid be up next?

[me]- reid demonstrated the will to go with the plan, the plan involves terror on a wider scale, just don't believe it's alcy cider, it's all about the laws and the wars"

  • 196.
  • At 12:18 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#191 Richard

I got an A in metal work, sophomore year, San Carlos High, California.

More strangely, there was enough energy in those collapses to power a generation of irrational conspiracy theorists.

The only way that an experiment could be done to model the effects of a collapse on such a scale would be a computer simulation, I think. As you are probably well aware, finite element analysis is a standard mathematical tool used in simulations. You would probably know better than me if software tools are available to model adiabatic shear under such conditions. Such a model would first be run to see what pressures and strain rates were required to generate shear forces on a typical joist high enough to reach melting point. Simulations could then model various collapse scenarios to see if these pressures and strain rates could have been achieved in practice.

Of course, no one will bother to run such simulations because the organisations with the level of resources and expertise needed just wouldn’t see the point.

A program aired this evening about the firemen who were trapped near the bottom of stairway B in the North tower. They experienced the whole collapse from within the building. They described hearing and feeling each floor collapse above them, and how the rate of collapse increased, just as you would expect with a domino effect. No mention of hearing or feeling explosions.

I will post again if I find any more solid experimental data on adiabatic shear. Bet you can’t wait…

Dear old vikingar

#143, #148, #150, #152, #154, #160, #161, #173, #183, #194 ... hey, that's an average of the very same point made every 5-6 posts. Surely you are now in line to get the Jeremy Paxman/Michael Howard award for persistence in the face of adversity - or indeed perversity.

And in all this there is cleverly no evidence that you ever bothered to read my response in #156. While you're looking that up, as I'm sure you now will, why not try #107, where I owned up to my own peculiar brand of evangelical Christian faith. (Jayhawk, who sounds as if he's a 911 CTist who, like many, does not - yet - subscribe to any recognizable Christian worldview, had of course just blown my cover.)

Given these constant interjections, though, would it be helpful to you if you could get off your chest exactly which of the following you think disqualifies anyone from being a good scientist:

1. belief in a deity

2. belief in a deity who created the space-time universe out of nothing

3. belief in a deity who confirmed the message of a man called Jesus Christ by empowering him to do miracles, including his physical resurrection from the dead

4. belief that Jesus made his way across to America after his resurrection. (The means of travel being a fairly lightweight issue after the miracle of rising from death itself, if you think logically about it, if indeed you think it is possible to think logically about such matters.)

I hold to options 1-3, like billions in human history. Professor Jones, as a good Mormon, also believes 4.

Now do you really want a list of the outstanding scientists that would join Jones and myself on points 1-3, such as the formulator of the Maxwell equations, the inventor of the Big Bang, the discoveror of penicillin and the geologist who did a vast amount of groundwork changing our picture to a very ancient earth, leading up to the theories of Charles Darwin. That last was Adam Sedgwick, a keen evangelical from Cambridge University. So I'm bound to feel a special affinity for him.

Sedgwick was a creationist alright, just not the stupid kind that has only recently emerged, from around 1960, trying to put the clock back 150-200 years and deny the cumulative scientific evidence for a very ancient earth. As I'm sure you know, since the dramatic, accidental discovery of background radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, the ancient earth now arises from the Standard Model of cosmology, one of the great scientific achievements of our time, with the Big Bang estimated to have occurred around 15 billion years ago.

And this is the really crazy thing to me. From the one quote you've given of Professor Jones in the 'creationist' area, he's one of the sensible ones, believing in the best possible integration of the insights of scripture and modern science.

"In this essay, Elder Jones shows how death before Adam makes sense from a scriptural sense. He is not necessarily saying that evolution of man is true or untrue ... 'The details of the physical creation are not given in scripture. Indeed, why should they be? The Lord gave us the testimony of the rocks and bids us read'"

Just like 19th century Reverend Adam Sedgwick, just like 20th century Roman Catholic priest, George LeMaitre, inventor of the Big Bang, just like little old 21st century lay person, Richard Drake.

Now if you're going to try to smear any one of us, I suggest that you do your homework a little bit better than that.

  • 198.
  • At 12:53 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref matt #195

'bilderberg'

The latest addition

Oh not, it’s a full house of CT for matt :)

- 911
- Creationism
- Jesus Christ visited America
- Bilderberg [1a] [1b] [1c]

Q. what next Sciencetology? (but as a Mormon are you allowed to?)

Thanks for full house CT self outing ……. needed a laugh this evening - BTW - is this you [2]

So given the addition of bilderberg to your self declared list, what other major CT is left …

- zionism
- aliens
- Elvis
- lock ness monster

But your 'alien CT' file is as extensive & large as your 'zionism CT' file.

vikingar

SOURCES

[1a] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm?ls
[1b] http://www.bilderberg.org/tonyhom.htm
[1c] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg
[2] http://www.bilderberg.org/gosling.jpg

  • 199.
  • At 01:08 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Richard Drake ref #197

You now willing acknowledge that you sign up to the pseudo science behind:

- 911 CT & Creationism

That's pretty telling, but thanks it's saved a lot of time ... self smear :)

Least we have a clear indication about where you are coming from.

Current religious sect academics such as 'Prof' Steven E Jones, David Gray Griffin etc clearly have other motives, as do those who sign up to their imaginative approach (#143, #150) the topics & methods of their CT 'research'.

Personally, I am a British Christian & Humanitarian, who reserves the right to question the efforts of those who set out to manipulate others through a intentional twisting religion for self/group gain.

There is no real science behind 911 CT & Creationism - only a mix of furtive imagination & hidden agendas.

I refuse to get drawn into a open discussion to in any way legitimatise such topics, rather than concentrate my fire on the underhand tactics & motives of those who 'create the CT evidence', those who tout CT & those naïve/dishonest fools who only too willingly embrace CT to fill a void in their lives (or lack of one should I add) *

* for them CT = when the world does not make sense & a person has little/no personal reasonability and/or influence over events, fill in the blanks/void with your own specualtive & imaganiative theories.

vikingar

  • 200.
  • At 01:12 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

Alan, at or around #196

surely, people such a yourself are the 'theorist' here, your desperate effort to come up with explanations which avoid the evidence, are nothing more than supposition backed by attempts to use babblescience as a smokescreen

  • 201.
  • At 02:44 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

to anyone with an open mind, or a mind they desire to open, i urge you to go back up the page and visit any of the links i posted or words i typed, and see for yourself how much i mention being or believing any of the things vikingar falsly accuses me of, i wish there were draconian laws against false accusers today


once again, vikingar, i have to remind everyone that you are plainly libelling me, it is perfectly clear to anyone how innacurate your campaign is

i'll answer each of your 'claims'/libels in turn...

YOU said "'bilderberg'"

...i say http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206291362863434922&q=bilderberg

YOU said "Oh not, it’s a full house of CT for matt :)"

...i say, no it isn't a full house, or even a small shed, i do not subscribe to any CT, i ask questions about why the selected CTs I PERSONALLY have raised are not widely, openly debunked in mainstream media, if they're just bunkum, where's the harm

VIKINGAR, STOP DOING YOUR (I ASSUME U.S. GOVT) JOB, AND LEAVE US TO DEBATE IN THE NAME OF TRUTH HERE IN ENGLAND - as you americans love letigious action so much, maybe i should sue you for libel ?

we're trying to debate what may be mass murder done in order to control the world with fear, you should be ashamed of your lies

YOU said "- 911"

...i say, yeah, THAT'S right

your team of writers aren't doing very well are they ?

YOU said "- Creationism"

...i say, where have i said ANYTHING to even remotely support your sustained lies where you continually assert that i in any way subscribe to religion, you complete fool, utter fool, you're clearly desperate as well as a liar

YOU said "- Jesus Christ visited America"

...i say, nowhere, not once, have i made any claim, any claim WHATSOEVER that i believe jesus visited america, i did simply state that he may once have been alive [and a real human being], your flabberghasting mormon hatred means nothing to me, especially considering i am not a mormon, clearly, i am close to the real truth, or you would not be so desperate to construct these laughable lies over and over again

YOU said "- Bilderberg [1a] [1b] [1c]"

...i say, yeah, that's right, those same people you self evidently are employed by http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358319439993514946&q=bohemian+grove

YOU said "Q. what next Sciencetology? (but as a Mormon are you allowed to?)"

...i say - you see, this is what i'm talking about, i must be near the truth, you utter fool, I AM NOT A MORMON, and as far as i know, scientology is as convincing and plausible as you yourself


YOU said "Thanks for full house CT self outing ……. needed a laugh this evening - BTW - is this you [2]"

...i say, tell me your address so i can sue you for your continuing, baffling lies

YOU said "So given the addition of bilderberg to your self declared list, what other major CT is left …

- zionism"

...i say, i have no idea where you think you're going with this, what an idiot

YOU said "- aliens"

where have i made any comment about aliens ? i doubt highly that we've ever been visited by aliens that's just one of the many ways in which you people confuse other people, but not i

YOU said "- Elvis"

...i say, i think you'll find he's dead ?

YOU said "- lock ness monster"

i say, aren't you depressed having to do this, and making such a fool of yourself ?

YOU said "But your 'alien CT' file is as extensive & large as your 'zionism CT' file"

...i say, where ARE you getting this crap from ?

vikingar, you will not stop me with your lame obfuscations, i won't ever back down from seeking the truth, no matter how long you continue to LIE ABOUT ME AND MISPREPRESENT MY VIEWS, if i knew who you were, i would sue you for libel


i thought i made it perfectly clear to you, that i will not be obfuscated by lame attempts to peg me to one of your 'groups'

i desire the truth, nothing more, you will not get me to play your pathetic game any further, next time you lie about me, i'll get your post removed, that's a promise

  • 202.
  • At 06:40 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

matt

You really do all the running here don't you.

Could not have more ably undermined your own 'cause' if you tried.

Talk about 'outing' yourself in the credibility stakes - got to laugh :)

vikingar

Matt wrote:
i agree adamliv, perhaps you could comment on the BBCs point of view regarding misquoting and libel ?

Well as a rule I try to avoid it 8-)

  • 204.
  • At 08:43 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

jolly good, any chance of us wierdies getting an on air rant about the NWO ?

:D

  • 205.
  • At 08:50 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#200 matt

I refer you to my first post #58. Since you seem to have failed to follow a fairly straightforward argument, you will be first in line for forced labour at one of my science/math camps.

  • 206.
  • At 08:54 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Richard - 197
(quote)
"Jayhawk, who sounds as if he's a 911 CTist who, like many, does not - yet - subscribe to any recognizable Christian worldview, had of course just blown my cover"

Sorry Richard, but - and this is beginning to make christians look a bit enamoured of the old CT - I've subscribed to a very similar worldview to yours for about 30 years. It was the reference to East Sussex and Greg Boyd that nailed it....

  • 207.
  • At 09:03 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

Alan

do i get to bring my calculator ?

;D

Matt wrote:
any chance of us wierdies getting an on air rant about the NWO

I'll have to run it by my Bilderberg masters. Let me get back to you.

  • 209.
  • At 09:10 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

Jayhawk

who is Greg Boyd, and what happened in East Sussex ?

is a Christian worldview compatible with an 'atheist, free thinker, equality, truth, justice and peace worldview'...i'm assuming it is ?

Ok viks, we think we've got it, you are a UK Christian but, unlike Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, his twelve chosen apostles and billions of Christians since (to say nothing of devout Jews and Muslims), you do not believe in a deity who created the world.

Fair enough, that is your unconventional choice of terminology and, like Voltaire, an atheist who was at least more honest about the implications of his beliefs, I would die for your right to say it, even as you er, claim to die laughing at my right to say anything at all.

As for outstanding scientists who have also believed in a God who created all things, like Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Mendel, Kelvin, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, DeMaistre (inventor of the Big Bang), Fisher (central to the neo-Darwinian synthesis) and Collins (leader of the Genome project today), they are also I assume to be written off as 'creationists', from whom you have gained, and could gain, nothing?

But that's not all. From your fourteen posts so far, none of which has even tried to grapple with the evidence, what you seem to be saying is this. All believers are creationists and all conspiracy theorists are believers. Not only that, the 911 conspiracy theory (there is only one, in your view) is itself a giant conspiracy of dumb, yet also fiendishly clever, creationists, like Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin and Richard Drake. Anyone who questions the official version of 911 in the smallest detail, even if they swear blind that they don't believe in God, are only dissembling or deceiving themselves. Even though they don't know it, they are in fact creationists working to 'manipulate others through a intentional twisting religion for self/group gain' with a 'mix of furtive imagination and hidden agendas' to deceive the whole world.

That is your own, very novel CT, as best I can ascertain it. You have a perfect right to hold it. And the BBC seems to have given you the right to endlessly regurgitate it. Even if it is clear to everyone that it fails to advance the argument one iota, switching some off posting and making others, like matt, more hot-headed perhaps than 911 sceptics like Nikko, Zoran, Andrew and myself, understandably furious.

Elsewhere on the Net we know it's called flame-bait, from someone who has no interest in the subject and simply wants to disrupt proceedings, to have the joy of seeing others lose their cool. Good game, good game, as they might have said on the BBC in times past. But isn't it time for either you or the moderators to grow up just a little on this subject, at this time?

  • 211.
  • At 10:45 AM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Richard Drake #195

Several 911 CT posters are doing their dammedest to give their fantasy an airing on a Newsnight blog.

Although right now its suffering from over exposure & they are doing their imaginative speculation quite a bit of harm.

Their main central 'scientific' pillar are the dubious works of religious sect academics Jones et al, who has a proven track record in religious 'research' (how inconvenient) & inventing pseudo science to support their religiously inspired theories:

- creationism
- Jesus Christ paddled/sailed over to North America to say hello to the Native Americans.

Motivation of 911 CT 'evidence' providers: trying to legitimate their sects ideas perchance, a recruiting drive etc.

Pretty simple, questionable motivation & bad science/research on previous works, strong likelihood next bunch of theories are equally as pants.

Therefore, ref such 911 CT 'evidence' we need go no further, point made, case closed :)

vikingar

  • 212.
  • At 12:16 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

adamliv wrote "I'll have to run it by my Bilderberg masters. Let me get back to you"

nice ;D

can i suggest Radiohead 2+2=5 for the back-track ?

  • 213.
  • At 12:47 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

ooh, that reminds me, Alan, what will the lessons in this camp involve, i presume it will span 2+2=5, all the way through to advanced maths (also 2+2=5) ? only, i already know that

;D

  • 214.
  • At 12:49 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#207 matt

You have a calculator!! :o

matt wrote: "Jayhawk, who is Greg Boyd, and what happened in East Sussex ?"

Ok, Jayhawk, here's the plan. You keep him talking, I'll get the guitars and the short trousers. We'll have 'im singing "Kumbiyah, my Lord" round the camp fire, out of tune, like the all others, by nightfall. He'll be ruined forever ... no real-ale drinking freethinker will ever share that juicy bit of Voltaire or Dawkins with him again.

He he he ... (exits stage right, laughing, into Doctor Vikingar's tender Bora Bora hospice-cave for the monotheistically insane)

@ Adamliv

Your rather arbitrary moderation on blog comments is hard for us 'censored' ones to understand.

I posted a reply to Richard Drake @ 166 which I feel is necessary, given the bold statement he made about me personally.

Any explanation forthcoming on why my reply didn't make it through?

Bridget wrote
Your rather arbitrary moderation on blog comments is hard for us 'censored' ones to understand.

Sorry Bridget but I have nothing whatsoever to do with the moderation of this forum so I have no idea what you're referring to.

  • 218.
  • At 02:12 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Matt - 209

See 107.

In East Sussex? Something very fishy was going on....


Kumbayah......

Adamliv @ 217

Apologies. Then who does moderate the comments and by what criteria?

Could you please post this comment:

I've tried to catch up on this debate, and have to excuse myself from the 9/11 science aspect, but would just like to agree with matt on Atta's passport and the fireman's statement.

Richard Drake @ 166 Claims that I treated Rachel North 'appallingly' on the 9/11 boards. You wouldn't mind posting a quote that supports this assertion would you? Rachel North is certainly no stranger to making statements that are about 'shooting the messenger' and has conducted a very personal crusade against people she views as 'conspiraloons'.

See her blog:
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-you-are-conspiracy-theorist.html

and her replies to me in the comments section of this post:
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/conspiracy-theorists.html

perhaps people can make up their own minds?

Rachel's recent post re: a reply from John Reid (note that these are not 'public announcements' and we wouldn't know of them unless a survivor blogs about them), makes this pertinent point about the lack of CCTV images from 7th July.

Rachel: "Many self-styled ''July 7th Truth campaigners'' have a particular question that they raise again and again, and it is a reasonable question to ask, though extrapolating from it that nothing we have been told about July 7th is true is about a thousands steps too far into a murky world that I find barely recognisable and hope never to inhabit. The question is: why has more CCTV footage of the 7/7 bombers not been shown? The media often play the tape of them going through tube ticket barriers but that is not from July 7th, it is from the ''practice run'' three of them did earlier. The only picture that has been released of them on the day is the famous shot of them wearing their rucksacks at Luton station."

John Reid: ''CCTV footage
A number of people questioned why there was a very limited amount of footage of the bombers released to the media. The Metropolitan Police have told us that the primary reason for this is that the footage forms part of the police evidence. Their practice is to limit the release of footage to that which is pertinent to progressing their investigation. In deciding what to release, the police need to take into account that any footage could potentially [ underlined] prejudice any prosecutions that result from the on-going police investigation.''

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/09/77-cctv-question.html

As the July 7th Truth Campaign's petition to 'Release the Evidence' is calling for the evidence that is already mentioned in the 'narrative' whch was published on 11/05/06, can we assume that the narrative itself would prejudice any prosecutions? Would the BBC's 'Crimewatch' programme be allowed under these MPS guidelines? What about the need for witnesses for whom an image from, say, Kings Cross may help to identify themselves as being present?

Is John Reid and the MPS 'excuse' for not releasing the evidence acceptable?

  • 221.
  • At 03:26 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

hare krisna you say ?

hmm, clearly terrorists, i mean, they're wearing orange, right ?

so obviously allied to alcy-cider

i think east sussexstan may be in danger

where's that dossier on hare krisna enriching uranium ? i know it's around here somewhere, oh wait, this is the unedited version, it still says "enriching spirituality"

that can be fixed

  • 222.
  • At 03:30 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • Jack Mcmanaman wrote:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=911+coverup

I think you guys should visit the above site and see for yourself what the truth is.

  • 223.
  • At 03:55 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

is john reid acceptable ? hell NO !

he'd be our geargde dubyaa, i can just see it in his eyes every time he's on camera

and you know what that means

  • 224.
  • At 04:02 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

#213 matt

It depends what you mean by "+". "+" is an oppressive capitalist construct. It is used by the Establishment to subvert the masses. It implies accumulation and engenders avarice. It pits the working classes against themselves and gives free reign to the capitalist oppressors. We must not genuflect before the great “+” and instead must embrace the all encompassing “=”. Therefore I reject your "2+2=5" construct entirely.

/CT mode off

  • 225.
  • At 07:00 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

more melting irony Adam ?

Well, it's day nineteen of this intense interaction and one has to say that the humour has improved markedly.

Top marks must go, at least from this maths BA (Cantab), to Alan's diatribe against the oppressive "+". But the whole progression, from Adam calling up his Bilderberg controllers, to matt's suggested back-track and link to Alan's punishment camp ... you know, being a free agent, even in a world of suspected CTs, can be more fun than I realised.

I even laughed at my own, latest contribution. Well, somebody had to. It was MEANT to sound like a bad Richard Curtis movie, folks; I hate to break this to you all but my revelation of the creationist conspiracy wasn't for real.

And now I give fair warning that I intend to answer matt's original questions in earnest. Because I think they are good ones and that there are some surprising connections with 9-11 and 7-7. (And the jokes about hare krishna were also excellent, matt, it's just that isn't quite the neck of the woods we were exploring in the Sussex countryside.)

Last preliminary. I will respond to Bridget Dunne's question about my comments about her and Rachel North in #220. In due course. I want to think carefully about that.

Now, skip the rest if you're feeling theology-repellent. Though I say you shouldn't be. It's the greatest subject of all.


matt wrote: "Jayhawk, who is Greg Boyd, and what happened in East Sussex ? Is a Christian worldview compatible with an 'atheist, free thinker, equality, truth, justice and peace worldview' ?"

Greg Boyd is an American evangelical Christian leader who was recently featured in a front-page article in the New York Times because he was boldly challenging the religious right's cherished belief that the USA is a Christian country.

Last month Greg was speaking at a camp in Sussex at the invitation of Roger Forster, another Christian leader of much the same persuasion, based in south east London. Roger and his wife Faith founded the church I go to, called Ichthus, in Forest Hill, in 1974. That's why I was there.

The version of Christianity that Roger and Greg stand for

* allows every person to think for themselves and choose for themselves

* recognizes no distinction between "Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

That last being a quote from the apostle Paul, that Roger and Greg take very seriously, in working for equality, justice and peace for all. Ichthus is well-known in the UK church for promoting women leaders just as eagerly as men, without limits. Basic Christianity and equality to us; but not sadly to some other churches.

Various strains of Christianity over the years have not been so good at giving people freedom to choose for themselves. Famous church leaders like Augustine and Calvin have taught that God forces men to believe, so that we are entitled to do the same.

Greg and Roger represent a new stream of scholars and pastors, with profound roots in the radical reformers of the past, called open theism. Open theism totally repudiates that shameful, coercive part of Christian history as completely opposite to what Jesus Christ intended.

That is extremely relevant in thinking about Islamic radicalism, which never stops harking on about the iniquities of the crusades and the inquisition, while adopting exactly the same methods of violence today to bring humanity around to THEIR way of thinking.

It is also interesting, in passing, that David Ray Griffin is the next step on from an open theist; he's a process theist. The traditionalists would have even more problems with him. But he certainly would agree with us about every person having the freedom to choose, without pressure.

So, matt, we say that you are completely free to make up your mind as to what kind of theism you prefer, or none. For that is the way God - as we see him, because of our experience of the love of Jesus - intended you to be.

Keep us to it.

Matt - no irony intended.

Bridget - try http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/02/talk_about_newsnight_comment_guidelines.html

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4176520.stm

but please let's not have a debate about moderation rules here. Life's too short.

  • 228.
  • At 11:38 PM on 05 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

sorry Adam, i had maent to type ALAN in that last post, but the moderator is obviously a busy person and understandably did not edit my post for me (i have asked for many of my typos to be corrected !)

apologies for the confusion

  • 229.
  • At 05:49 AM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

hi Richard, "Doctor Vikingar's tender Bora Bora hospice-cave for the monotheistically insane" :D sounds like fun, are there group booking, and extended stay discounts available ? :)


this post rambles on and on, short version for now is john reid ? = say NO !


alright then, seeing as how heads are poking up above the parapet...

whilst i don't believe in god...i have to say that the theology you describe is admirable, truly admirable...i have no quarrel or disrespect for others who do have faiths of a religious nature (other issues of hatred and vendetta, are not exclusive to religion - everyone whose vision is not clouded or distorted knows that, so i assume we can take the religious provisos as read and known)


personally, i get most 'spiritual enrichment' in the physical world, on starlit nights, the transition of seasons, a good thunderstorm...like Tolkien, i have a love of trees

BUT I AM NOT A BOHEMIAN [nwo/ill-loony-nutter] ! weaving spiders are fine with me ;) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358319439993514946&q=bohemian+grove (incidentally, my favourites are the little jumping wolf spiders, the ones with the urban camo stripes of grey and black, not web weavers themselves to the best of my knowledge, but amusingly spring loaded, they seem to move by teleporting a few centimetres at a time)

hoverflies and dragonflies are particular favourites of mine, ever had a hoverfly do an airborne dance with your hand ? ever had a hoverfly tread air in front of your face, and seem to be looking and pondering right back at you ? marvelous things

so i suppose i could be characterised as loving my home, and being in pleasant awe of the universe, the incredible rarity [correct on 6th sept 2006] and precious nature of our spinning-omni-top home

...of course, i wouldn't be posting the kind of stuff i do here, without knowing that the wolf spider is the microhum-vee cctv and ground assault platform, the hoverfly is the gardenhawk surveilance uav, the dragonfly the micro-b2 (with covert electrogravitic drive propulsion, naturally), and the weather is courtesy of black-op seeding aircraft, and haarp induced atmospheric disturbance ;)

the beckoning plastic bag in American Beauty is one thing, playing landing pad for a hoverfly, is on a whole other level


there you go, my spiritual hand well and truly shown, and no apology from me will be forthcoming for it, but i think you'll find no evidence of sect membership, scientology, or worst crime of them all, psy-op obfuscation tactics


i am perfectly comfortable with the notion that many many believers, of a myriad diverse faiths, might see some commonality with myself, and i hope that we all, all who have the conscience so hated by the likes of the bohemian club, are ready to make peaceful protest, should a certain moral cause against a certain inevitable 'dodgy war' make itself apparent, i think you know what i'm talking about


basically, i'm an obstinant fellow, determined and much experienced in the area of being told to my face that i'm a multi storey carpark, when i'm quite sure i'm not, when you're me, you need your facts rock solid, and your doubts in no doubt

but now, back to the raving, salivating tirade...


there are some elements within the power systems, who are gravitating towards an 'end game' scenario, make no mistake, that atheist or believer, a time to stand in peaceful but visible judgement may be approaching


the 'elected' leaders of the world need to know that there are 100s of millions of people who have a pretty good idea what's really happening 'beyond the kaleidescope', to coin the mixed metaphor, and that number is on the increase


research the bilderberg, and bohemian grove, ask yourself why the elite cremate an effigy of care, meaning an effigy of conscience, meaning they regard conscience as inherently evil in their mindset

the axis of evil might possibly be hinged here in the west, study the faces of bush and blair as they preach to the camera about the actions of the terrorists, observe the look in their eyes, the split second moments of self doubt over their 'performance'


demand the addition of a "none of the above - there are no voting options that deal sufficently with my concerns" ballot choice for electoral votes, as this will force a public media [valid] recognition of our dissatisfaction - if any exists


don't get drawn into tensions with migrant workers and asylum seekers, this has been predicted and planned by our government, it's all about increasing tension and terrorism

don't let your kids get indoctrinatd into the cashless society and thumb scans for school lunches, it has a dark underbelly, that 'convenience'

don't be fooled by id cards, they are about easy control and intimidation, not security, terrorists can make copies of the same quality as the state issues

id cards will be part of the cashless society, the cashless society will not make anything better or safer, but it will tighten yet further, the grip being exerted upon us all


demand an inquiry into the july 05 bombings, a thorough independant one


do protest the war to come against iran, the 'cause' will almost certainly be a self inflicted wound, as the 911 attack appears to have been, this war must not proceed

and if you do protest, don't forget to film as much as possible, and demand in bulk groups, that footage of the masses are broadcast before ships sail and aircraft leave the ground (well the official ones at least ;) )


blogging on an internet conspiracy forum, is very much like making love to a beautiful woman...buy it fine wine, belgian chocolates, then you whip your piece out, lay it out on the page, and drive it home

of course, it's all about blogs you see, whose blog is the biggest, mine is the biggest, it's mine :D

  • 230.
  • At 08:42 AM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

226 Richard:

I concur with most of what you say about christianity- I have appreciated Roger Forster's ideas for many years, being an inhabitant of East Sussex, although attending an anglican church. The thing about 9/11 truth is how it seems to have chimed in, for me anyway, with what Jesus said about truth setting us free. This was of course primarily referring to himself, but I find it outrageous that such a massive lie has been and is still being perpetrated upon the world, and that it must somehow be exposed. This all ties in with the dispensationalist theology which is the favourite of many of the US "christian" right, which actually seems to be saying that "hey we're all heading for Armageddon anyway so bring it on" and actually if you go further, logically that the present ruling forces (US, UK, take your pick) represent, or are, the Antichrist. Now if you believe that there is a grain of truth in the book of Revelation as I do, then you are left asking yourself, is there actually anything anyone can do, or is it all on a set course? The tension between this and wanting truth, and even more keenly, justice, is becoming pronounced. Anyway, "conspiracy theory" doesnt come remotely close to describing what this is all about, and the discussion is not helped by such as Vikingar, who as I think has been pointed out has succeeded in derailing a useful thread by little more than hurling insults. Don't take the bait.

Matt, the mind boggles. I would say "keep taking the tablets". But even that could be dangerous, given your final analogy. You conspiracist on viagra, you.

But, although I consider some of your ideas crazy and much of your presentation counterproductive, thank you for some kind words. Actually, if I'm honest I think what I'm talking about is the only safe place from which to begin to deal with radical evil (as was clearly on show on 9-11, one way or another), without going mad. That gets us into the cross of Jesus, the God so passionate in love that he was willing even to die for us. And indeed the conspiracy that put him there. That is the only safe place to be, with Him, the only one who truly understands. IMHO.

Jayhawk, thank you also. Roger has always given out to the wider church, while retaining the challenging, radical theology and praxis I've tried very inadequately to describe. I'm very glad to hear that he's been a help in your Christian walk.

The questions about end-time thinking and interpretation of apocalyptic books like Revelation are very pertinent, both to the Christian scene in the States and to our state of mind here. Muslim eschataology is far from irrelevant either.

Much to learn, for all of us. No more attempts at answers from me. Well, for now.

  • 232.
  • At 04:21 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

pardon me, Richard, i thought the 'swiss tony' analogy was just bit of a chuckle...surely you've seen the fast show ?

similarly, did you not see the 'wink' after my accusations of flying insects being 'garden*hawk surveilance uavs' ?

*as in globalhawk

...more ;)

or was it the serious stuff that was crazy ?

:D

  • 233.
  • At 06:32 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

pardon me, Richard, i thought the 'swiss tony' analogy was just bit of a chuckle...surely you've seen the fast show ?

similarly, did you not see the 'wink' after my accusations of flying insects being 'garden*hawk surveilance uavs' ?

*as in globalhawk

...more ;)

or was it the serious stuff that was crazy ?


apologies for the double post, but look a the time of this post, and the other, should it ever see fit to appear

  • 234.
  • At 08:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

pardon me, Richard, i thought the 'swiss tony' analogy was just bit of a chuckle...surely you've seen the fast show ?

similarly, did you not see the 'wink' after my accusations of flying insects being 'garden*hawk surveilance uavs' ?

*as in globalhawk

...more ;)

or was it the serious stuff that was crazy ?


apologies for the triple post, but look a the time of this post, and the others, should they ever see fit to appear

  • 235.
  • At 11:29 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Gordon Brown orchestrating a coup? Come on Newsnight, less of the conspiracy theorizing....

matt,

I suppose what I find the most crazy is this. You seem so much surer than me that you know exactly what's going on. But, although you sound much more certain about everything we touch on, I'm sorry but I don't have a strong feeling that you're much more experienced in the worlds of intelligence, or the media, or politics, or the military, or history, or science, or indeed, bluntly, that you're a lot smarter than me.

In fact, I think you're the kind of person who would have made me run a mile if they'd been the first that I'd come across going on at vast length not just about the scientific anomalies on 9-11 (I'm very grateful for early exposure to the punchy but wholly scientific J McMichael there) but also loudly trumpeting that you understand exactly who was to blame and why.

Sorry to be blunt.

And if you are by any chance putting others off even looking, by the way in which you present your immensely strong beliefs in a mega-conspiracy that controls pretty much everything, when the specific subject under discussion - the truth about 9-11 - is so sensitive and so vitally important for us all, then (taking a totally dispassionate view, rather than trying to protect your feelings) that is absolutely crazy.

At least I would hope that it's crazy. That is clearly the better of two very unattractive options.

@ Richard Drake

Sorry to break up the party but can I refer you back to my comment @ 220.

I await your reasons for making such a bold statement.

@ Richard Drake

Sorry to break up the party but can I refer you back to my comment @ 220.

I await your reasons for making such a bold statement.

  • 239.
  • At 01:59 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

steady Richard, i have no belief in intellectual superiority over you, indeed, i assume you're smarter than i am

but i do need to correct you on one thing - this thread is not entitled '911 - was it an inside conspiracy ?', and i suggest you think in terms of 911 rather as a big fish in a much bigger pool, than the pool itself

and even if this thread were titled '911 - was it an inside conspiracy ?', i'd still be annoying you by typing this stuff, and taking some of the 'vikingar's pointless bullets for you too

what i have written may appear to be 'certainties', but they are far from it, it is all merely extrapolation based on the explanations, or lack thereof, of various events and situations, based in the main on my own instincts and personal experiences

yes, i might appear to be describing 'actual facts', but at the expense of betraying my arrogance, all signs point to them being so

i cannot respond to these possibilities in the 'very softly, i don't actually think this stuff is true, but here's the theory' tense...these things require real assertion

i have no drive or desire for bad goings on to be real, or to seek evidence to support 'my theories'...it is more that the evidence (yes, in the main speculative, but some visual/self evident), which i had noted and ignored for as long as i could remain unmoved, has led me to these concerns (not certainties)

in various posts here and there, i have repeatedly stated words to the effect of "i hope all these CTs turn out to be nonsense" - i don't know how to be more open, transparent and 'safe' than that ?


the vast majority of the things i suggest are often valid moral reactions to realities such as school thumbscanners regardless of whether there is some master plan behind it all

much of what i write is based on first and second hand witnessing of things i won't go into

however, you may find some 'vague' things i let slip, such as - have you ever asked the mod why they use OUR troops, and secret services to front and protect arms 'shows', where despotic third world leaders can buy genital electric torture devices ?

how about who makes torture equipment sold in these events ?...motorola for one, don't see many smiling, happy, life enriched torture victims in their advertising do you ?

what an awful irony - here, mobile phone makers "set us free", whereas elsewhere, they are the boot in the face

my first hand witnesing of events are mostly 'trivial', in the main, corporate behavior related, and the few more eyebrow raising things i have observed first hand, i will not expand on here


one silly little thing i will expand upon, which is a thing which proves nothing, but is suggestive of 'conspiracy', is the corporate 'preferred supplier list', now, i can tell you that business and government are interlinked, few could argue with that, so anything i have personally witnessed in business, is by association, not necessarily alien to government, in other words, government, being partly financed by business, and big business at that, will have to by default not interfere with business practice...preferred supplier lists, are constructs that tightly control the flow of money (in administration/site services etc) in corporations, these 'psl's prevent and actively keep down new businesses and projects, unless of course, those businesses or projects are 'approved' beforehand

surely, in a free democratic world, business should be free for all unless a direct rival ? - this isn't business where some are the enemy, this is business whare all but a very few are the enemy

i have, in efforts to join in the commercial world and make a living for myself, sought TO BUY components for products, products whose only danger or risk, would be presented toward established businesses, and large multinational corporations at that, strangely, i have been UNABLE TO PURCHASE these components from any supplier, and have hit upon several layers of 'corporate bilderberg'dome, in other words, if what i wanted to manufacture was made, it would be detrimental to the establishment, because of this, i have been repeatedly denied, lied to and generally fobbed off by the suppliers of said (but not specified) components

i'm being vague here, but ask yourself why a small component, that cannot be put to any illegal, immoral or violent or destructive use, should not be available for any and all to buy ?

and it's not once, i've experienced this myself on three disparate occasions

i suggest, that everyone makes their own 'preferred supplier list', and i furthermore suggest that list is comprised of the very smallest business able to supply whatever the service is, always aim to spend your money 'downwards' [small trader], as the big business we all deal with, but not in EVERY case out of obligation, only trade their money 'upwards' [corporate royalty]


i'm not convinced that i am putting people off looking into this stuff, the issues i raise are mostly self evident by being film sources (e.g. alex jones film 'dark secrets inside bohemian grove) or self evident as in ...there ARE thumb scanners being introduced into english schools, and that is about indoctrinating our younger citizens into a world they are less ably equipped to be concerned about and fear and fight


politics IS excused blame for the lack of voting, by not having a 'none of the above' voter option


they DO want to make you disillusioned about politics, and leave them to get on with it


the west IS embarking on building massive military complexes to the left and to the right of the map of iran


less concerned about you thinking me crazy, than i am concerned about the idea that in a thread entitled 'on internet conspiracies', you expect not to be told that tony blair, bush, clinton, reagan, thatcher, major, and many many other leaders have been vetted BEFORE they were 'allowed' to take power, by an organisation that meets basically in any country in the world, and which also is involved with all the major corporations, because anything big business/bank, is owned by an even bigger organisation until you get to the royalty

oh, and if you don't go along with the bilderberg, you don't get to succeed in politics, it IS that way round

this isn't coincidence, it is all interelated, all our current 'enemies' WERE bankrolled by the cia, i've barely scratched the surface, and these diverse things are linked

anyone who is going to look into this stuff for themselves, will do so regardless of length of post, i break my posts up into paragraphs, it's very easy to skip any or all it if the reader wishes to

  • 240.
  • At 03:03 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

thinking about it, Richard, i want to know which you're implying, that i'm crazy in putting people off, as you assert i am, or that i am working out of a psy-op dept somewhere ?

also, you seem to be personalisinig this, as if i have in some way attacked your validity, frankly, i find this hard to understand

being blunt, i think you're crazy if you think there aren't groups determined to control everything, have us think we control our own political destiny, whilst setting us to whatever task that suits them

look at the world today, do you really think the political and commercial powers, are vicariously doing OUR bidding as we're led to believe ?

  • 241.
  • At 03:24 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Yet again more pointless spin than a broken washing machine to pollute the airways.

So far:

- 911
- Creationism
- Jesus Christ visited America
- Bilderberg
- Death of Diana

CT speculation is the virtual equivalent of real world carbon emission (well its hot air at least).

The fundamental flaw of 911 CT is to base their arguments in the imaginative pseudo science of discredited agenda driven religious sect 'academics' such as Jones & Griffin & others (#153 #150)

Whose previous works into Creationism & Jesus Christ's visit to North America to have tea with the Indians, completely undermines their scant credibility, then & now.

Still the CT believers have to work with the material they have, no matter how flawed the science & fresh the ink.

True to form, if they cannot find the 'evidence' they are only too willing to make it up as they go along.

So many sad/naïve fools & dishonest fabricators with hidden agendas.

But that's CT for you - COMPLETE TRASH

vikingar

  • 242.
  • At 03:24 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Yet again more pointless spin than a broken washing machine to pollute the airways.

So far:

- 911
- Creationism
- Jesus Christ visited America
- Bilderberg
- Death of Diana

CT speculation is the virtual equivalent of real world carbon emission (well its hot air at least).

The fundamental flaw of 911 CT is to base their arguments in the imaginative pseudo science of discredited agenda driven religious sect 'academics' such as Jones & Griffin & others (#153 #150)

Whose previous works into Creationism & Jesus Christ's visit to North America to have tea with the Indians, completely undermines their scant credibility, then & now.

Still the CT believers have to work with the material they have, no matter how flawed the science & fresh the ink.

True to form, if they cannot find the 'evidence' they are only too willing to make it up as they go along.

So many sad/naïve fools & dishonest fabricators with hidden agendas.

But that's CT for you - COMPLETE TRASH

vikingar

  • 243.
  • At 09:32 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Vikingar is actually an A.I. program generating random comments based around several repeating phrases. Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm working on automated response software to combat this; I'll get back to you....

@ vikingar

Much as I would prefer not to engage with someone like yourself who has such a 'closed mind' and is obviously scared of the nexessary paradigm shift that occurs when questioning the Official CT, I would just like to comment on this point that you made:

"if they cannot find the 'evidence' they are only too willing to make it up as they go along."

Well, I don't know about 'making it up as they go along' but was suprised to learn that over a year after the events in London on 7/7/05, Dr John Reid should say in a letter:

"My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly [ underlined] the bomb exploded has yet to be established. The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation."

The police are still awaiting the forensics report?

Precisely what evidence has been used to determine the guilt of the 4 young British working-class men that are accused of these crimes?


@ vikingar

Are you scared of the nexessary paradigm shift that occurs when questioning the Official CT? I would just like to comment on this point that you made:

"if they cannot find the 'evidence' they are only too willing to make it up as they go along."

Well, I don't know about 'making it up as they go along' but was suprised to learn that over a year after the events in London on 7/7/05, Dr John Reid should say in a letter:

"My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly [ underlined] the bomb exploded has yet to be established. The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation."

The police are still awaiting the forensics report?

Precisely what evidence has been used to determine the guilt of the 4 young British working-class men that are accused of these crimes?


I was just wondering what some of you might make of this statement from 'Strategy on winning the War on (OF) Terror' posted on the White House website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

"The terrorism we confront today springs from:

Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

So there you have it, CT's are responsible for terrorism!

Or, everything becomes its opposite in a minefield of twisted logic.

  • 247.
  • At 02:25 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #244

Do not wish to engage in such fantasay CT - but this once.

" ... precisely what evidence has been used to determine the guilt of the 4 young British working-class men that are accused of these crimes?"

... you mean besides their own 'I did it videos' :)

If 911 CT holds some is regrettable CT fascination for some, London's two bombings in July 2006 are rather self evident.

What are the real agendas of those indulging in such creative CT.

- false flag extremists
- pressure/fringe groups
- windup merchants
- those making personal gain from CT (profile/money) e.g. evidence fabricators & writers "there is a book in all of us" mantra (tshirts, CD, videos, lectures etc)

vikingar

I was just wondering what some of you might make of this statement from 'Strategy on winning the War on (OF) Terror' posted on the White House website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

"The terrorism we confront today springs from:

Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

So there you have it, CT's are responsible for terrorism!

Or, everything becomes its opposite.

@ vikingar

Are you scared of the nexessary paradigm shift that occurs when questioning the Official CT? I would just like to comment on this point that you made:

"if they cannot find the 'evidence' they are only too willing to make it up as they go along."

Well, I don't know about 'making it up as they go along' but was suprised to learn that over a year after the events in London on 7/7/05, Dr John Reid should say in a letter:

"My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly [ underlined] the bomb exploded has yet to be established. The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation."

The police are still awaiting the forensics report?

Precisely what evidence has been used to determine the guilt of the 4 young British working-class men that are accused of these crimes?


Apologies for the multi-posting of my comments. They appear then disappear then appear again. Wonderous.

@ Vikingar

I don't think two so-called matyrdom videos which fail to actually mention these events could count as proof positive of guilt for the four accused. I doubt that they would be allowed as conclusive evidence in a court of law.

Interesting how you avoid answering my question re: John Reid's letter and the lack of a final forensics report.

What actual evidence have any of us seen, apart from one grainy image outside Luton station?

  • 251.
  • At 05:20 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

you only need to read through vikingars nonsense to see how many times HE's mentioned jesus/diana/creationism/aliens (and remember it is he. and only he, who has raised these), these are his moronic efforts to subvert the debate (the real spinner here. and not very good at it either), he thinks you, dear reader, cannot tell the difference between what others have actually said, and what he has misquoted

i don't think you're so dullminded as he assumes

every time vikingar misquotes/libels/defames, he ADDS validity to the ACTUAL CLAIMS being made here

  • 252.
  • At 06:20 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #248

"Precisely what evidence has been used to determine the guilt of the 4 young British working-class men that are accused of these crimes?"

... you mean besides their own 'I did it videos' :)

---------------------

For those foreign readers of Newsnight not familiar with the notion of evidence [1/2/3]

CLASS WAR? - 'working class' is a bit generous more like our home grown foreign inspired British Islamic Terrorists were mostly middle class, unemployed/student/employed)

The only CT around both July Bombings (7th & 21st) is fantasy speculation of certain people who think they are on roll, enabled by the internet, if they think it, it therefore must be true etc.

Anyway you dice it, find it, access it - eventually you have to read & evaluate content: CT = Complete Trash

That's it Bridget Dunne done my bit - your 7th July Bombing CT doomed never to fly - why - BECAUSE THOSE DOMESTIC BRITISH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS DID IT - case closed.

Q. but what do CT believers say about 21st July attempted bombing?

Now an investigation as to competency & resources available to security forces & police (lessons learn etc) since two 7th July terrorist known to them, is merited - but behind closed doors, not arming the enemy with info or propaganda - we are at war after all - from what we know the police need both extended resources & powers to tackle the rising tide of British Islamic Terrorist threat.

What threat? I hear the deniers/apologists/appeasers/supporters of Islamic Extremism & public disorder & the serial CT believers - FYI several investigations known to the British Public:

- 2006 Alleged 21st July Bombers case (Old Bailey) - trail pending [4]
- 2007 Alleged Nightclub & other targets cae (Old Bailey) - underway [5]
- 2007 Alleged Plane Bombings (charges made) - trial pending [6]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/html/bombers.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4762313.stm
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5154714.stm
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4130314.stm
[5] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2197754,00.html
[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/14/do1401.xml

Bridget wrote:
I don't think two so-called matyrdom videos which fail to actually mention these events could count as proof positive of guilt for the four accused. I doubt that they would be allowed as conclusive evidence in a court of law.

Reality check. Someone posts a suicide video on arabic TV and bits of his body are found in the rubble. If I were on that jury I wouldn't have a problem.

admliv @ 253

How would you then explain the absence of 'martydom' videos for Lindsay and Hussain?

In fact, Hasib Hussain's own father told the BBC he had not been shown any evidence of his son's involvement.

And why have the cctv images from Kings Cross not been shown? The BBC disingenuously use the footage of the so-called rehearsal from the 28/6 over any news regarding the 7/7.

Don't you think it incredulous that the MPS can claim they have not had the final forensic report of where exactly the explosions occurred?

Vikingar makes the point about the 21/7 'no-bombs' bombers. Have you ever wondered how no-bombs and no-one injured or killed leads to 43 arrests and 17 on trial compared to 7/7 where 52 are killed and yet no-one else is arrested or charged?

Where are the investigative journalists and why are they not asking these questions.

admliv @ 253

How would you then explain the absence of 'martydom' videos for Lindsay and Hussain?

In fact, Hasib Hussain's own father told the BBC he had not been shown any evidence of his son's involvement.

And why have the cctv images from Kings Cross not been shown? The BBC disingenuously use the footage of the so-called rehearsal from the 28/6 over any news regarding the 7/7.

Don't you think it incredulous that the MPS can claim they have not had the final forensic report of where exactly the explosions occurred?

Vikingar makes the point about the 21/7 'no-bombs' bombers. Have you ever wondered how no-bombs and no-one injured or killed leads to 43 arrests and 17 on trial compared to 7/7 where 52 are killed and yet no-one else is arrested or charged?

Where are the investigative journalists and why are they not asking these questions.

Bridget Dunne wrote: "Richard Drake @ 166 claims that I treated Rachel North 'appallingly' on the 9/11 boards. You wouldn't mind posting a quote that supports this assertion would you?"

The simple answer is no, I don't intend to re-read any of those 25 pages at http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=811

I did click through every one of them leading up to 24th August, in order to assess how "7-7 truth" in the UK compares with the 9-11 Truth Movement in the US. It was one of the most unpleasant experiences I have ever had on the Net. And I've had some.

It's hard to assess how much each person is to blame in such distasteful and insensitive group behaviour, of course. But just the toxic words of 'Ally' were, for me, easily enough for anyone else present with any decency to

1. ask for him to banned

2. failing that, leave the thread, or indeed the whole site.

Instead, I had the strong impression that others, including yourself, agreed with, perhaps even rejoiced in the way Rachel was being denigrated and hounded. That strong impression was the foundation for my comments in #166.

Even before finishing the reading, I emailed Ms North, expressing my admiration, pledging her my support against such grossly insensitive and intrusive attack and letting her know, as a courtesy, that I was putting her forward for my suggested panel on Newsnight on 7-7 CTs (#118) - however hypothetical my suggestions were bound to be

Rachel replied, within an hour or two, at considerable length. She comes across as a truly formidable person, but retaining a grip on reality and compassion for her fellow victims. I believe her about the death threats that she has received since entering into this dispute with various people associated with nineeleven.co.uk and I take that as extremely serious.

It's strange to put it like this but one bright spot for me was to learn for the first time, through her inspiring Sunday Times article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1892288_1,00.html

about the terrible rape ordeal Rachel was just getting over when she became a victim on 7-7.

I think she's an awesome spokesperson for the 7-7 victims, Bridget, and, however good your research, thinking and campaigning may be in other ways, I consider the way you in the nineeleven newsgroup treated her to be a colossal PR own goal.

Individually, you may have some expertise on 7-7 that I need to learn from. It's just that you are starting, with me, with a profound negative impression to overcome.

  • 257.
  • At 11:27 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

255 Bridget you are so right. There is no real investigative journalism about any of these things. It's well known that the Guardian lost large amounts of advertising revenue after printing a 9/11 truth article, and the reality is that nobody can afford to take the risk. Why has the inquest into Jean Paul de Menezes' death suddenly been delayed until "probably 2008"? Any article that covers these things always sticks to the OV ultimately. We no longer live in a free country with a free press, it's crept up while we were looking the other way.

Vikingar - your software needs debugging.

  • 258.
  • At 11:32 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

in regard to the july '05 bombings

watching the 'martyrdom video', and taking stock of what we've been told and not [mainstream]

here's a theory...

the chap who appeared in the video, was displeased by recent events, he appeared in that video to prove a point, to say things not only muslims might agree with

he and his cohorts, decided upon a plan to risk getting themselves shot, to be martyrs, but not by blowing themselves up, instead, by going to london with fake bombs and bulky rucksacks

instead of this, they (as may be theorized) were patsies, whose plans were known by groups who had the means to set devices in the transport the four were going to travel in, and the motive of re-igniting patriotism and a submissive electorate

this would account for the phrasing used in the video, it would also explain the bodyparts

remember folks, this is a conspiracy theory thread, so you're going to hear theories, i put it to you, that as disturbing and unlikely as this theory may be, it is surely in the realms of plausibility, given some of the shenanigans embarked upon by the state in recent decades

it is also noteworthy, that in both the case of 911, and 77, there were exact duplicates of the 'real' terrorist events being acted out by security and/or military and/or consultancy organisations

that's exercises of the real event, on the same day, and in advance of the tragedies, in both cases

i would remind vikingar that this is a thread titled 'on internet conspiracy theories', not 'internet pointless insults'

if he has any interest in finding out what really happens whether conspiracy, negligence or unavoidable tragedy, he will avoid repeating the usual religion/mermaids line, and put his objections in a clean, factual and reference based manner, otherwise the only conclusion to draw, is that he is employed to obfuscate, in the hope that these questions will be diluted and dissolved

which would be a desperate and ultimately doomed enterprise

  • 259.
  • At 11:37 PM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #254, #255

You really are entertainment value.

-----------

"Vikingar makes the point about the 21/7 'no-bombs' bombers. Have you ever wondered how no-bombs and no-one injured or killed leads to 43 arrests and 17 on trial compared to 7/7 where 52 are killed and yet no-one else is arrested or charged?

Where are the investigative journalists and why are they not asking these questions"

-----------

'Dunne' over or what :)

vikingar

  • 260.
  • At 12:08 AM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Vikingar said:





But then again he would say that. But he's getting nearer the mark wouldnt you say?

Richard Drake @ 256 Firstly, any forum or blog, such as this for instance, does not infer 'group status' by posting on it. I am no more responsible for what you or anyone else writes than I am for those who post on 9/11, only for what I write. Rachel stayed and posted on those threads herself. Of course I deplore any threats or harassment she may have received, I myself have received threats which isn't a pleasant experience. So despite your feelings, I reiterate here that I have never treated Rachel North 'appallingly', and you have posted no evidence to support your unwarranted remarks.

Vikingar @ 259: Your point is lost on me, but at least you're entertained.

As for 'martyrdom' videos, I know I've watched Gene Kelly break dancing to singing in the rain. That Adam Gadahn is the Al Qa'ida video maestro, a white American 'convert' whose grandfather was on the board of the ADL is something worth investigating. As is Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, the ex-SBS anti-terrorist operative, another white 'convert', who turns up running the Iqra bookshop in Beeston, Leeds.

What a strange world we inhabit.

Bridget (262), I note what you do not say. You do not say that the comments of 'Ally', and others like him in that thread, were despicable and should not have been allowed to stand. Nor did you at the time.

Group behaviour can be complex to unpick but your responsibility stands. Every page of the twenty-five reads as if Rachel is facing something like a lynch mob, a collective (whether formed spontaneously, or through past association, or both) of whom you were a key member, by no means the least critical. That's certainly the way she portrays it herself. I think that's completely fair.

Rachel did not for a moment want to face any one of you on live TV, a visceral emotional reaction that I fully understand - and indeed was not and would never have proposed.

She only took part in this warped online world because she didn't want the campaign for an inquiry into 7-7 to be subverted by what she still calls the 'conspiraloons'. And why take such offence at that word, as if the injury caused to you poor, timid souls is equivalent to those caused to Rachel and her survivor-colleagues, by horrific, real-world explosions? She doesn't accept your findings. She has a lot of access to first-hand evidence that you do not. Grow up.

I came to this without any strong feelings either way on 7-7. I sure don't assume that, because WTC collapses are very hard to explain, every aspect of the offical narrative of 7-7 is also automatically demonically deceptive. As I've made clear above, I don't find claimed anomalies on 7-7 on a par with the collapses on 9-11, the first two of which were also a public trauma, viewed by the whole world on live television (in a way that the explosions in London, and even in Madrid and Bali, were not).

Most of all, I, like the vast majority of British people, feel compassion for those who went through that hellish experience, underground in the darkness in our capital city, that claustrophobic, choking sharing of the agonies of the dying.

Your treatment of one of the bravest and most articulate of such survivors was at best spine-chillingly insensitive.

I stand by my judgment of that.

  • 265.
  • At 12:43 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

911 CT ANNIVERSARY BLUES

With the 5th Anniversary of 911 how inconvenient for the CT believers whose 'mantra motivations' coupled with their worship at the pseudo science altar of Elder Jones aka. Prof Steven E Jones.

Sorry …… Jayhawk, Bridget Dunne, matt et al & Richard Drake (though after something resembling lucid thought #231 #236, risks being kicked out of the CT Conspiratorial Club).

1. BBC1 7/9/06 retold the terrorist atrocity o f11th September 2006 (9/11: The Twin Towers) in an excellent drama documentary (based on recorded first hand experiences/testimony of building engineers real time observations of the gradual 'meting' of WTC & degrading from the cause of fire) & much more besides [1]

2. then old Osama Bin Laden releases a video (a format matt will surely enjoy) of OBL glad handing the Islamic terrorist cowards, who murdered all those people (taken pre 911) also couple of 'martyr video' releases from two of the hijackers [2]

Meantime, new BBC conspiracy blog for those who cannot get enough (CT believers happy to shadow & counter paste your spin) [3]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=yesterday&service_id=4223&filename=20060907/20060907_2235_4223_57514_45
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5325590.stm
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/05/conspiracy_theories.html

To the moderator:

Please publish the comment I made in response to Richard Drake as I've attempted twice to get it published and now I've lost my copy of it.

There was nothing contentious in it or anything that broke the moderation rules.

Thanks

  • 267.
  • At 02:43 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

like newsnight, you know there's some truth in the fact that 911 is full of holes, but although newsnight is forced to be complicit by fear of mortgages, you just love the idea of what might come if people aren't informed, and yes, allowed to make their own judgement

keep at it, for every reader you manage to turn off, you get ten more to question the voracious, fearful nature of your attacks, they'll dig, and it's all thanks to you

the essence of the forum rules are something you just don't think apply to you, and far from being some bastion of high standards, newsnight has allowed you to persue a shameful and offensive obfuscation and libel campaign, the likes of which would cause uproar if transmitted on television

all you are vikingar, is a happy face painted on the boot in the face, and newsnight, you're just metallic paint on a cruise missile

mildly distracting

but that's it

The mysterious 'British Christian' (199) calling themselves vikingar has praised me for 'something resembling lucid thought' (265).

Should I be happy?

He/she starts on this thread with a quick joke about others perhaps thinking that the moderation here is a conspiracy (72). No problem.

The next post I found genuinely interesting (127). It is also the only occasion vikingar has promoted a CT of their own. A limited CT that the Lebanese staged certain photos of atrocities, especially a faked missile attack on a Red Cross vehicle, for the western media. That was a substantive contribution to the debate here. Pity it didn't lead to some discussion.

More recently (roughly from 247 until now), although I don't agree with vikingar (or the OV and thus some BBC programmes) on the collapse of the WTC buildings being explicable solely due to aircraft damage and fire, the posts attributed to this moniker have started to make some sense.

None of that explains the incredibly dumb patch (143, 148, 150, 152, 154, 160, 161, 173, 183, 194, 198, 199, 211, 241, 242) with no remotely credible answers to my reasoned critiques thereof (197, 210).

How to explain? The most annoying and time-consuming form of flame-bait (as I called it in 210) has transformed itself into detailed and to me truly sensible critique of some of Bridget Dunne's theories of 7-7 (eg 252).

This goes beyond the normal in terms of deliberate sowing of confusion. The solution, though, is simple. Something Newsnight knows all about, would insist on for all its on-air discussions: use of real names, with the consequent ability to check out the person's consistency and track-record in holding any opinions professed.

So here, just for the moment, is to both Adam Livingstone and Bridget Dunne (whom I assume is a real person living in north London and who certainly has a fairly long-standing blog named after her). And to Richard Drake, come to that.

  • 269.
  • At 03:37 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • matt (is my name) wrote:

vikingar - like newsnight, you know there's some truth in the fact that 911 is full of holes, but although newsnight is forced to be complicit by fear for mortgages, you just love the idea of what might come if people aren't informed, and yes, allowed to make their own judgement

keep at it, for every reader you manage to turn off, you get ten more to question the voracious, fearful nature of your attacks, they'll dig, and it's all thanks to you

the essence of the forum rules are something you just don't think apply to you, and far from being some bastion of high standards, newsnight has allowed you to persue a shameful and offensive obfuscation and libel campaign, the likes of which would cause uproar if transmitted on television

all you are vikingar, is a happy face painted on the boot in the face, and newsnight, you're just metallic paint on a cruise missile

mildly distracting

but that's it

and what IS going on with this forum ? my last post needed six submissions over five hours to make it show, and the above was hardly quick to appear either, being originally submitted some hours ago, so assuming it doesn't ever appear, here it is /\

  • 270.
  • At 03:53 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • matt (is my name) wrote:

vikingar - like newsnight, you know there's some truth in the fact that 911 is full of holes, but although newsnight is forced to be complicit by fear for mortgages, you just love the idea of what might come if people aren't informed, and yes, allowed to make their own judgement

keep at it, for every reader you manage to turn off, you get ten more to question the voracious, fearful nature of your attacks, they'll dig, and it's all thanks to you

the essence of the forum rules are something you just don't think apply to you, and far from being some bastion of high standards, newsnight has allowed you to persue a shameful and offensive obfuscation and libel campaign, the likes of which would cause uproar if transmitted on television

all you are vikingar, is a happy face painted on the boot in the face, and newsnight, you're just metallic paint on a cruise missile

mildly distracting

but that's it

and what IS going on with this forum ? my last post needed six submissions over five hours to make it show, and the above was hardly quick to appear either, being originally submitted some hours ago, so assuming it doesn't ever appear, here it is /\

matt (239), you have posted much here, more than anyone else in fact. Here's one example of a small section of one post that I found 'crazy'.


START OF QUOTE (155)

when i saw [Professor Steven Jones'] seminar, his arguments relating to the possible crimes commited against america by its own state, were utterly compelling, where he goes off into religion, from my position, i got the sense of a good man, with whom i do not agree entirely, but a good man nonetheless

the same is NOT true of bush

george bush, by some accounts, is a follower of the order of thule, worships an ancient pagan deity called moloch, and has sworn to continute the aims of the nazi regime, indeed, his family wealth comes from the nazi war effort

END OF QUOTE


What you wrote about Professor Jones struck me, as someone who has both watched Jones and read his papers on 9-11, as fairly reasonable. Not everyone would agree of course - and your use of 'crimes' committed by 'the state' would predispose many against - but they can at least check one of Jones' papers or videos and make up their own minds.

What you say about George Bush, on the other hand, is crazy.

Where do I start? Have you read Professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke on the Thule Society, started in Munich from around 1916, which gave rise to the Nazi party? I have. Did you track the process whereby Professor Norman Cohn, who had earlier written what most scholars consider the definitive academic account of the terrible anti-semitic forgery called "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", was the initial supervisor of Goodrick-Clarke's PhD at Oxford in this key but neglected area of the occult roots of Nazism?

To say that George W Bush is a member of Thule, worshipping Moloch, right after making relatively reasonable comments about Jones ... well, firstly, that is so insensitive to your audience. Assuming that it is not only those who already agree with you. (In which case, what is the point?) The practical effect of such juxtaposition is to make ordinary punters not yet committed to any CT assume that you are crazy. And that, therefore, the much more careful Professor Jones is too, without bothering to look. That is what I call crazy, if you want to bring real good into such dark areas.

The reference to worshipping Moloch has I assume to do with the Bushes attending Bohemian Grove, with its annual Cremation of Care ceremony, which was penetrated by Alex Jones and Jon Ronson, with a hidden camera, in 2000. Although I don't go a bundle on this kind of occult pantomime, it is not remotely good enough as evidence for real worship of the Owl, aka Moloch, even by the most regular attendees. The reference to Thule has I assume to do with the family's involvement with Skull and Bones at Yale for three generations. Thule and Bones are it is true both secret societies with a German language base. But no scholar that I know of has shown that Sebonttendorff, the founder of Thule in Munich, or Pohl, founder of the wider, originating secret society, the Germanenorden, had any contact with the boys from Yale.

You don't just assert things like this, wild extrapolations only dimly related to the available evidence. You do the hard work of decent scholarship, to show that it is so. Or you pipe down a little.

And, I suggest, you pray. If you want to make a difference against radical evil, which Thule definitely turned out to be, leading as it did directly to the Nazi extermination camps.

Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker's involvement in the Union Banking Corporation, through Brown Brothers Harriman, and the links between the Nazis and UBC, were, I agree, more or less completely covered up until the Internet came along. That is something that I have been praying that the Bush family will finally come clean about. Such dark alliances, even if entered into from initial naivety, matter greatly and ought to be dealt with honestly.

Wild prayers of mine, you could call that. But based on the work of reliable scholars and researchers, such as Anthony Sutton, John Loftus and Mark Aarons.

Not wild, unprovable words, from someone who I don't think has done the necessary groundwork.

Make any sense?

@ Richard Drake

Does your scholarship stretch to the Reichstag Fire? Was this carried out by the Dutch left-wing radical Marinus van der Lubbe who was arrested at the scene of the crime, apparently as the sole culprit. Or was it a classic false-flag operation, as detailed by Hans Bernd Gisevius, who had worked as a junior lawyer for the political police from August to December 1933, and who made the following testimony at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial in 1946: “It was Goebbels who first came up with the idea of setting fire to the Reichstag. Goebbels discussed this with the leader of the Berlin SA brigade, Karl Ernst, and made detailed suggestions on how to go about carrying out the arson."

Of course, this event led to the Enabling Act, the accusations against 'communists' of an impending uprising and their subsequent arrest and imprisonment and, crucially, to Hitler and the Nazi's grip on power. Without the Reichstag fire would history now be different?

What would we have done then? Said nothing? Claimed we didn't know what was happening until it was too late? More than our job's worth, we have mortgages to pay?

History as tragedy repeated as farce. Except it isn't funny. Jean Charles de Menezes, Forest Gate, the harrassment and demonising of Muslims, the almost total erosion of civil liberties?

No I won't be praying, I will be campaigning and questioning and doing all I can to alert people to the dangers of the present situation.

  • 273.
  • At 07:20 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

matt (as in door mat)

#267 #269 #230

.... 3rd time paste just for luck?

Yes? we have watched in awe the legions of CONVERTS to your 911 CT, flood to a Newsnight blog to support you.

Ref Newsnight, I have to presume we are somewhat amoeba under the microscope, a NCA social networking exercise of sorts & too damm right, its a great idea.

As your such a creator of fiction & a supporter of fabricated flawed pseudo science for 911 CT …. matt its rather amusing to see you getting so prissy over the rights/wrongs of others treatment & reaction to your fantasy meanderings.

Laugh ….. I nearly clicked on one of his home made video links :)

vikingar

  • 274.
  • At 07:42 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref matt (is my name) #267 #269 #230

As a dedicated 911 CT believer matt .... surely not this 'matt911' [1]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.podcastpickle.com/casts/15624/

  • 275.
  • At 09:33 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

Richard

yes, makes sense, but so does the following...

"wild, unprovable words" is apt, very apt indeed, as a description of the 'official' version' of events of say, 911

yes, of course i get what you're saying

but although i may not personally be equipped with proof for these comments, they are 'widely believed facts' (another ironic josh, ref Futurama)

we could say that bush IS AT an 'associate' of moloch

i am not particularly concerned if people regard me as crazy, the whole world is crazy, i am arguably slightly less mad, as a know to ask myself if i am so

oh no, i have always presented Steven Jones in a manner that would make it perfectly clear that he is not 'crazy', quite the opposite, you're thinking of vikingar there

you say that i was reasonable about Jones, but not about Bush, this was simply to my mind a necessary reversal of the third reich-esque propaganda, of the seething "you're with us, or a terrorist" mantra of the overthrown democracy

your quote, is to my recollection, my response to an attack on Steven Jones credibility, rather than random good guy bad guy rhetoric without reason

i doubt i will ever be classed as a 'decent scholar', but i have a good instinct, hardly demonstrable to you, but it is often said by others to me - "god, you had that exactly right, how did you know ?", or "you know too much", and these are not ironic observations

i greatly respect the scholar, truly i do, but it is an approach, that has rarely served my particular (i'm sure very limited) skills, indeed, i find that for me personally, too much info clouds the visual/abstract/analytical parts of my mind

i thought this was about internet conspiracies, about raising relevant issues, if i had known it was my responsibilty to publish all the underlying data, i would have done so

surely, newsnight DOES have the access and researching tools to find the evidence, in detail for these various, yet potentially connected activities ?

i got involved with this thread to ask my own questions, and newsnight has answered one of those questions for me

you say i've posted possibly more than anyone else - well, how can i apologise for that when much of the posting has been in response to personal attacks from our friend, if my ramblings are so inneffective at getting to the issues, why his campaign ?

clearly you do not know me, this is after all, a strange form of communication, but actually, YES I DO just assert things, once i am satisfied that is the way things are, you may dislike it, but it clearly frightens vikingar in some way, judging by the manner of his amusing attacks

my assertions have caused me much trouble in my life, but as much as it has been to my cost on many occasions, i can feel vindicated that this and that were as i thought, you may be thinking arrogance, but it's saved my life more than once, i embrace being wrong, no problem with it at all, i am simply observing that my instinctive response has served me well (by instinctive, i mean letting the mind do the hard work in the background, rather than feverishly chin stroking in the hope of conscious revelation)

bad science/theory is openly debunked on occasion on newsnight, but when it comes to corporate and state royalty, where the biggest debates lie (at least on the internet), there is a deafening silence occasionally punctuated by small revelations, but a distinct lack of real engagement, this is the answer to one of my questions, i am sure you can figure out what that question might be ?

all the films i have linked to are perfectly self explanatory

they merit further investigation, that they are left in the cold wastes of the internet has less to do with validity, than hereticism, in the broadly accepted scientific sense (earth is a sphere, sun is the centre, evolution, four billion year old earth, nwo/occult control system - no precedent for that is there ? unless one includes roman, chilu, mayan, inca, pharoahic just to name a few)

all of the three readers of this thread will take in what they choose, and filter it through their knowledge of history, to whatever degree they possess such information

as i'm sure you'll agree, there are some interesting, and not immediately apparent skulls and bones in many closets of the powerful, i could not and would not ever apologise for bringing a few of these to the attention to the one of the three readers who was not aware of them, as i say, it is both easy and accessible to get the basic gist of these things by viewing the back catalogue of the films/seminars of Alex Jones, and to the more learned types such as yourself, for whom solid paper is preferable, there is the excitement of rooting these out for oneself (who doesn't have a latent Indiana Jones lurking within ?)


i make no apology for a small, and insignificant part in informing the one of the three readers who may now be digging this stuff out for themself, "one person at a time", as a certain man once said

the films of Alex Jones, may, just may, have played a part in slowing the onslaught of the very things he is rightly indignant and alarmed about, so it is a matter of honour for me to assist 'spreading the word'

i noticed a distinct lack of mention of him, so, seeing as how he is an important proponent of issues of concern/[state] conspiracy, i thought we should have him discussed here


here's a real issue of concern, why does it take five to six hours, and five or so submissions, for a harmless, and brief post to be displayed, when subversive, insulting posts duly arrive in moments ?

it is this FIVE hour wait, coupled with many attacks, which left unanswered give some form of credibility, that can be apportioned much of the blame for the implied 'thread hogging'


i appreciate the recommendation of prayer, but my way is to use my big fat mouth here

if you must raise the issue of prayer, i personally always found action or words achieve more

as an example, you, apparently well read in the area of thule, order of death etc, are FINALLY engaging in adding your knowledge to the debate

thanks to my big fat mouth

SINCERELY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN I CAN SAY "WELL, I HAD THAT ALL WRONG", LET'S HOPE [PRAY] SO

and apologies for the post/length, i guess you wanted a reply

  • 276.
  • At 10:47 PM on 08 Sep 2006,
  • matt wrote:

well newsnight, i was misled, i thought you had 'something' to do with this website

with my posts disapearing at random and the inexplicable "moderation"

and the continuing 'acceptability' of 'the idiot' being left to continue, i'm out of here, what a shame, newsnight, i thought better of you

i leave the field open to vikingar, victorious over justice, long may his type reign over us all

  • 277.
  • At 03:29 AM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Posts #270 & #275 essential reading for a classic demonstration in 'scaring the horses' :)

Ref matt #275 - "….. but i have a good instinct, hardly demonstrable to you, but it is often said by others to me - "god, you had that exactly right, how did you know ?", or "you know too much", and these are not ironic observations"

… presumably, this took place in front of a mirror, in a room of one?

Ref matt #275 - "SINCERELY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN I CAN SAY "WELL, I HAD THAT ALL WRONG", LET'S HOPE [PRAY] SO"

… surely any day since 11th September 2001 will do?

Ref matt #275 - "….. i leave the field open to vikingar, victorious over justice, long may his type reign over us all"

Well that’s very kind of you, but hardly merited, you defeat yourself & undermine your 'cause' with a laughable combo of delusion, denial, pseudo science, paranoia, inventive myopia & a self imposed creative detachment from reality, whilst alienating those around via an abuse of the norms & behaviours of relationship (virtual kind between strangers) ...... consequence? not so much a rallying cry to your cause but a nuremberg-esque rally of one.

…. have you considered a career in screen writing :)

vikingar

Bridget (272), your questions about the Reichstag Fire are very good ones. The simple answer to what we should have done, if we'd been in Germany at that time, is a great deal. And been prepared to die for doing it. Whether we would have passed the test then, well, only time will tell. Which is to agree with you that it seems likely that we will face such defining moral choices in our own day.

You may, from what you write, think that we already face such a test. I will come back to that, by Monday at the latest. And to the historical question of whether the Reichstag Fire was a false flag operation by the Nazis. (Note though that my answer above stands, either way.)

Now I have other things that I want to do today, including getting to hear David Ray Griffin at Red Lion Square.

Are you going?

  • 279.
  • At 02:47 PM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • WHAT A JERK wrote:

VIKINGAR

Been following your activities here.

Do you honestly expect to create a public point of view with your PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN ?

Why would people who see through you want to enter into debate with you here ?

You do not represent the millions of people for whom, you are simply a time waster with nothing to say, and no influence.

HA HA HA, How desperate :D

  • 280.
  • At 04:08 PM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref WHAT A JERK #279

"Why would people who see through you want to enter into debate with you here ?"

Ahh ... herm

Not here to enter into a debate with zealots, rather to counter their disingenuous efforts at CT (various motivations & hidden agendas) esp aimed at the vunerable.

I'll happily engage with those in the middle ground not polarised to the extremist borders.

Its the simplest & most honest of methods, if CT posters aligned their CT arguments to the pseudo science of certain persons, the we are duty bound to examine the previous work & gauge the credibility of such authors of CT 'evidence & research' (Jones, Griffin et al).

Don't blame me if inventive CT is even further undermined by the 'scientific answer' that has to be doctored to the loaded CT question (but we know that already - given the original inventive premise).

"ha ha" indeed ….. methinks :)

vikingar

  • 281.
  • At 05:17 PM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • WHAT A JERK wrote:

VIKINGAR

I couldn't agree with you more ! :)

Bearing in mind that all those who say there is something deeply wrong with the world are wrong, it would be more balanced of you to include Bush, Chenie, Rumsfeld, Blair to your list. :)

They are also disingenuous zealots who indulge in CT - "Give us your freedom or there'll be terrorism". :)

How hilarious is that ? Almost as laughable as suggestions that there is some dark New World Order intent on total domination, seriously, what possible reason is there to suspect such as thing ? :)

Yes, absolutely valid to examine the previous work and gauge the credibility of such authors of evidence and research, but you should include yourself, as well as United States Government :)

You underestimate the reader. :)

Straw poll round the office - nine out of thirteen said of VIKINGAR - "Definately not what he pretends to be" :)

BYE BYE ! :)

  • 282.
  • At 07:02 PM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref WHAT A JERK #281

'straw poll' = conversation with self

'office' = bedroom

'13' = 1

..... presumably :)

Ref 'New World Order' ? best ask matt ref his/her use of the terms in #204, 208, 229 264, 275 … his CT territory.

Ref Bush & Blair, no favourites of mine, but as a Brit I support the teams, not the captains. As for the 'neo-cons' a way over estimated group, with a finite shelf life given the nature of our societies, what influence they 'ever' had diminishes daily (but the Left & anti-war brigades require a definable bogeyman, so they must give it a name & attribute influence to it).

The current main threat to progressive democratic societies is Islamic Extremism, the domestic variety/international variety & also the disingenuous pressure/political groups, typically the of the left (anarchist, communists, socialists etc), liberal left & elements of the supposed illiberal intelligentsia.

Such are feeding off this impasse, deliberately blurring the lines of debate with a combo of mixed message, attempting fusion of parity & moral equivalence arguments between terrorist mantra & atrocity & the legitimate policy & action of progressive states (who may make mistakes, but who are accountable to the people they defend).

For many CT has become an enabler, a means to get across their own messages by hijacking what may be legitimate concerns & reservations about governement policy (more so in the US, but hardcore in the UK).

Consequence, the vulnerable in our societies & esp those in our Muslims communities can become confused & easy prey to be radicalised (not only by the terrorist variety, but by extremists period).

Governments have the right & responsibility to ensure peacetime rights/entitlements are protected, but in wartime such can be legitimately suspended/curtailed, esp given nature of the conflict. The trick is to get them back in the same/similar format as when they are given up.

As for the anti-war, anti bush, anti blair, anti west brigades … they will not have it both ways.

As the conflict undoubtedly escalates (the west v religious extremism), when the terrorism ramps up atrocities in progressive societies, the peacetime right to protest (esp by the serial protesters of multiple causes) must be voluntarily transformed into responsible criticism under wartime conditions, otherwise the state will be forced to act & some will be enjoying custodial entertainment - hay ho.

vikingar

  • 283.
  • At 07:45 PM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • WHAT A JERK wrote:

I said "BYE BYE" :)

WE aren't interested in what you have to say, and WE can leave you alone, WE can ignore you, you ARE discredited !

Although a colleague may respond to you, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you :)

Laugh.....The length of your post shows you're rattled (As well as plain wrong) :)

Laugh....."Progressive" :D
Laugh....."Democratic" :D
Laugh....."Accountable" :D
Laugh....."Defend" :D
Laugh.....'Trust in Politics' :D
Laugh.....'The old Left/Liberal-Right Paradigm/Lie' :D
Laugh.....'No freedom in wartime' - this is a 100 years war, we'll all wait that long :D
Laugh.....You just threatened most of the country who do dissent :D

Laugh.....You're so out of the game :D

Laugh.....You may have the last word, but not the last Laugh :D

Laugh.....Huge laughter at you :D

This is OUR last GOODBYE ! :)

BYE BYE :)

@ vikingar 282

you claim to be centre but you come across as extreme right. Perhaps that's where the centre is now.

  • 285.
  • At 11:20 PM on 09 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref WHAT A JERK #283

Rattled no, willing to counter the spin of the multi vested interests behind CT - yes, yes & yes - hence length of posts. But interesting to see you employ the collective 'WE' when criticising, supposedly the kudos in numbers argument, whilst then accrediting my lone prose, action & motivation to being part of a state agency - flattered but no). But it sounds like my criticism of the left, liberal left & anti war & Islamic Extremists/Muslims communities has somewhat touched a nerve :(

BACK TO THE THREAD TOPIC ... bit of a long post

Ref my #127 which Richard Drake was kind enough to mention in #268

Two opposites: CT & OV.

Q. but what is in-between?

How about RU (reasonable uncertainty) which would require legitimate & credible investigation to address such queries.

Q. how to make a distinction between OV - RU - CT:

- (a) what can be deduced from seeing all the footage, esp live (e.g. WTC) which becomes central & core to the OV.
- (b) a spun interpretation of a recorded event from a packaged selection of footage touted as CT (which may or not have been doctored further to support the premise of the CT).

Before the 911 CT believers wet themselves, ref WTC collapse, the world collectively experienced (a) whilst the 911 CT believers make great play of (b)

OTHER EXAMPLES

Case in point, two examples from the Israel v Hezbullah conflict in Lebanon & the efforts of Hezbullah propaganda campaign.

1. The Ambulance

Hezbullah & certain groups (home & abroad) & even parts of MSM & certain made great play of the Israeli attack on IRC ambulances.

A battered ambulance with a round hole in the roof was shown globally by Mainstream Media (MSM) as being evidence to such an attack (though where did they get the footage?) [1a]

Further investigation revealed the hole manufactured hole was where the flashing light/venting unit normally is in the same model of Lebanese ambulances, but a correction has never been widely made [1b]

Also there were queries about the part that 'paramedics' with supposed injuries played on that day, given they where bandaged up one day on a trolley & bounding around the place without mark or scars the next day.

Also questions about how the casualty in the ambulance had obtained their injuries given the lack of damage to the ambulance not attributed to a missile strike (which did not occur).

2. Choreographed Emergency Services - 'Green Helmet Guy'

This one is a very interesting example of un packaged/total footage becoming the undoing of Hezbullah OV.

German News Agency Zapp have shown footage from a 'known' person who was seen & heard directing the recovery of a dead child from damaged building into an ambulance. Then unhappy with the shot, 'the man in the green helmet' choreographed the event again, taking the dead child out of the ambulance down onto the ground then lifted onto another trolley & put back into the ambulance [2a]

The Green Helmet Guy turns out to be one 'Salam Daher' an alleged Hezbullah supporter, who has form for stage managed choreographing such events from 10 years earlier [2b].

However, at the time what was released to the MSM was a packaged selection & the Hezbullah media campaign is more slick for that part of the region, than people had thought (but MSM should have known better

AP & Reuters to name but two MSM org's criticised by bloggers [2c] [2d] & also both agencies allegedly using related photographer & journalists (twin brothers) in the region, questioning the impartially of reporting [3]

SUMMARY

Therefore, using examples 1 & 2 …...

Q. what say you - CT or RU?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html
[1b] http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
[2a] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc
[2b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Daher
[2c] http://newsbusters.org/node/6933
[2d] http://www.sirhumphreys.com/al/2006/aug/12/green_helmet_guy_salam_daher
[3] http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/ap-photographer-and-reuters-reporter.html

Just back from hearing David Ray Griffin and David Shayler at Red Lion Square, chaired by Ian Crane of the Totnes 911 Truth group.

Over 500 made for a packed and rapt Conway Hall, making it easily the biggest UK event of its kind. And it seemed a good mixture of ages. We met some really interesting people. That lady whose father escaped from Auschwitz and had just before I met her opened a book by Webster Tarpley to find a diagram showing that dreaded place and commercial links back to famous US names (without ever having come across such things before) ... that's a personal story to tell in the not so distant future.

Both speakers are being interviewed live on "Heaven and Earth" on BBC1 at 10am tomorrow (Sunday). And there were rumours of other BBC interviews pending.

Any chance of Adam tipping us off in advance as to when and where we might see Prof Grif in the coming week?

  • 287.
  • At 09:10 PM on 10 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #284

"you claim to be centre but you come across as extreme right. Perhaps that's where the centre is now"

Never claimed that?, happily inhabit the centre right (liberal conservative).

The vast majority of British Society are mainstream centre to centre right, whilst the minority (various left incarnations, others & extremists of all persuasion) wrestle for the remainder.

Perhaps as you are in this minority , everything else by default seems extreme to you & your belief/mantra?

I agree the centre is 'more' rightmost, but it has not had to journey far.

vikingar

  • 288.
  • At 10:19 PM on 10 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Catching up on two weeks of posts has been extremely entertaining. As pointed out by Jayhawk (151, 230), Richard Drake (166), Matt (251) and others, Vikingar disrupts the forum with a deluge of ad hominem attacks against ‘conspiracy theorists’. According to him, all non-OV CTs are fabricated, flawed, inventive, creative, questionable, wishful fantasy, hot air, based on pseudo science, disingenuous efforts, pseudo research, fantasy claims, dubious bias, non credible falsehoods, imaginative speculation, and are propagated by zealots, extremists, fanatics, believers, sad/naïve fools and dishonest fabricators. Phew, that’s quite a list and enough to put anyone off, who’s casually browsing the blog.

I doubt that Vikingar is a U.S. govt. employee as Matt suggests (201), or an A.I. program, as Jayhawk suggests (243) – although, regarding the latter, I have no idea what the state-of-the-art can achieve these days, especially when one considers the Pentagon’s will to engage in ‘information operations’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4655196.stm . From the puerile way Vikingar (198) brings up ‘zionism, aliens, Elvis and the lock ness monster’, I’d say he/she may be a BBC employee (remember the photo chosen for this blog!)

The one CT that Vikingar has argued for is the anti-Israel staged photos (127), which Richard Drake commended (268) for its contribution to the debate; which I do too – although we musn’t forget Vikingar’s support for his ‘own, very novel CT’, as described by Richard Drake (210), nor his defence of the grand OV 911 CT (the fact the 911 OV is a CT has been pointed out many times, e.g. Matt (162) and Bridget (249)).

Vikingar’s ‘case closed’ mentality seems to me at odds with his/her/(its) acknowledgement of ‘reasonable uncertainty’ and a call for ‘legitimate & credible investigation (285); a legitimate, credible investigation, now wouldn’t that be a refreshing change! The tactic to tie all 911 CT (e.g. 241) to ‘religious sect academics’ ignores the research done by others. Even if 911 CT was exclusive to the people Vikingar attacks, Richard Drake makes the salient point (156, 197, 210) that great scientific achievements have been made by the religiously-minded, and that questioning S.E. Jones’ religious beliefs does not mean, a priori, his 911 CT ideas are invalid. Nor has Matt’s challenge (157) to Vikingar’s statement (154) ‘real world believers in OV make up the vast majority (99%)’ been addressed by Vikingar. Yet here’s a source which states the opposite of Vikingar -http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

To use the loaded anti-CT language used on this forum, I see that Adamliv (253) ‘clings’ to his suicide video theory to ‘prop up’ the OV. I agree with Bridget (254) and Jayhawk (257) there’s a complete lack of investigative journalism.

With regard to the debate on what caused WTC 1, 2 & 7 to collapse; Arguing for the OV, I think Alan has done an excellent job addressing the issues, and he has won me over to the idea that the molten metal could have been due to the energy released from the collapse, although the thermite explosion theory sounds plausible to me too (e.g. as argued by Zoran, Richard Drake, etc.). Whilst I’m not qualified to judge the plausibility of these theories, I do think the debate needs to be broadened to tackle other information, such as the seismic spikes before each collapse (as recorded by Columbia Uni’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, NY), and eyewitness reports of ‘bombs’ going off.

Thanks Bridget for the info on the Whitehouse statement (246), which I find extremely disturbing.

In the Kelvinesque spirit of working with numbers (ref: Alan, 110), I’d like to ask Richard Drake, with his Cambridge mathematics degree (191), whether he could work out (for the sake of future generations! Ref: 166), the probability of the 7/7 Visor Consultants training exercise choosing exactly the same tube stations as the real attacks – under a conservative scenario that, say, only Zone 1 stations (c.70 stations?) were equally likely to have been picked – and perhaps an even stricter scenario, if you can think of one. It must be thousands to one, at least.

  • 289.
  • At 11:51 PM on 10 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Besides the questionable motives of those who tout 911 CT, none can agree on a single alternative 'motive' & means/method'.

According to them there was a queue of people with different motives & different methods doing different things simultaneously …. get in queue & take a ticket :)

But you cannot divorce:

1) 'Motivation'

from

2) 'Means & Method'.

If you rely on pseudo science (given the questionable past works & current beliefs) of Jones et al to validate your 'Means & Method' - CT has failed before the race started (as it would, given its fantasy).

Then where are CT believers left on the Motivation front?

This is where the CT believers completely looses the plot, their ideas will never fly outside the fantasist turkey coup. The mainstream is not interested, but CT may have success with the vulnerable in our society.

Whereas, a straightforward & basic understanding of the litany of recent historical events provides the unpalatable answer.

An answer rather unfortunate for the various 'motivations' promoted by those who tout & fabricate CT ideas & evidence.

The reality of recent history of the modern world, is far more simple & straightforward:

- bad decisions
- domestic distraction
- ineffectual & poor foreign policy
- failure to deliver v intransigence
- all combined with rising Islamic Extremism

......... led to 911.

What has happened post 911 is another situation entirely.

But ref 911:

1. Perhaps it was too much to expect those with an axe to grind in our own societies (political/fringe/pressure groups & the 'challenged') not too take advantage of the such events & others suffering …. & construct fantasy CT to assist their aims.

2. Perhaps it was too much to expect those vulnerable in our society not to be effected by CT, given changes within our societies & the means of popular communication by which those with agenda can disproportionaly promote their mantra.

3. Perhaps it was too much to expect that those drawing up the strategy & the tactical response to rising Islamic Extremism would be as less then successful about it.

When the response of government to extremism is not wholly satisfactory & does not deliver in a timely manner (expectation of the modern world) any wonder the same CT protagonists will attempt to weave this into their opened ended CT equation as well - linking pre-911 to 911 to post-911.

But complex fantasy does not a credible argument make (in the face of recent historical events).

vikingar

Vikingar

Perhaps you might care to explain why Bush claims to have watched the first plane go into the tower whilst waiting to enter the classroom on 11/9?

Did he just forget the script or believe the myth was watertight by then?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

  • 291.
  • At 01:56 AM on 11 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #290

Suggest you ask the serial simpleton directly [1]

But before that, watch his other public gaffes [2]

According to Bush he was 'trained by Alqueda' 20 sec into the video.

Really ... trust your CT built on better bushism that that :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg

  • 292.
  • At 02:51 AM on 11 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

5th ANNIVERSARY - 911 - 11th September 2001

RIP - the 2,973 innocent victims of an Islamic Extremist terrorist atrocity.

911 Overview [1]

The 4 high jacks [2]

How the Towers Fell [3a] [3b]

9/11 - The Report [4]

Who did it - Alqaeda [5]

Finally, with ref to the subject of this thread, the consequences of intentional & deliberate domestic CT [6]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2006/11_september_five_years_on/default.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456983/html/default.stm
[3a] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5298746.stm
[3b] http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm
[6] http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=303

Whatever our other views on the subject, we pray for God's comfort for the families and friends of all victims of 9-11 at this gut-wrenching time.

For me, though, it's back as promised to the Reichstag Fire (278, 272).

Here's a concise summary from Anthony Sutton:

"The firing of the Reichstag on February 27, 1933 is one of the key events of modern times. The fire was used by Adolf Hitler to claim imminent Communist revolution, suspend constitutional rights, and seize totalitarian power. From that point on there was no turning back for Germany; the world was set upon the course to World War II."

The next day, February 28, an emergency decree was passed by the right-wing coalition cabinet, which contained just three Nazis, led by Hitler as Chancellor. In the words of Ian Kershaw

"With one brief paragraph, the personal liberties enshrined in the Weimar Constitution - including freedom of speech, of association and of the press, and privacy of postal and telephone communications - were suspended indefinitely. With another ... the autonomy of the Lander was overridden ... to ensure Nazi control throughout all the German states. The hastily constructed emergency decree amounted to the charter of the Third Reich."

Later the same year, after the March elections, which strengthened the Nazi grip on power, things got even worse, as Michael Burleigh chillingly describes:

"Since the 'national community' was effectively defined by race, it was progressively exclusionary. ... Notions of equality before the law were replaced by a system of legal apartheid. Racial aliens did not belong ... In further departure from civilised norms, words became crimes. Public suspicions about the causes of the Reichstag Fire resulted in the 1933 Decree against Malicious Attacks, which criminalised hostile remarks about the leadership, Party and state."

Thus, as shown by their own legislation, suspicions that the Nazis planned and caused the fire arose from the start.

One of the earliest books proclaiming this particular CT was published the following year by Georgi Dimitrov, the feisty Bulgarian communist, himself falsely accused by the Nazis of being involved in such a conspiracy of communists in the Reichstag Fire Trial, which ended with his and almost all his colleagues' acquittal in December 1933 (showing that the courts were not yet completely subservient to Hitler).

The one man found guilty was, as Bridget mentioned, Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutchman also said to be a communist. He was executed in January 1934, days before his 25th birthday.

Those are the basic 'facts'. Two very different questions arise.

1. Did the Nazis do it, as well as use it, to gain totalitarian power?

2. Are we facing exactly the same situation with Bush, Blair and 9-11?

Let's take the second first. In making the link explicit, Bridget's final words concentrate on the UK situation:

"History as tragedy repeated as farce. Except it isn't funny. Jean Charles de Menezes, Forest Gate, the harrassment and demonising of Muslims, the almost total erosion of civil liberties? No I won't be praying, I will be campaigning and questioning and doing all I can to alert people to the dangers of the present situation."

Well, you do that. But the situation, however worrying, is not remotely the same as it was in Germany in 1933, let alone later. It is very muddled historical thinking, not to say following the ways of Goebbels himself, to proclaim otherwise.

The very fact that there is so much in print and on the Web putting forward alternative theories of 9-11 and 7-7, theories which do great damage to the reputations of the Bush and Blair governments, and that such activity is NOT criminalised, five years later in the case of 9-11, shows that we are not, thankfully, governed by people of the same level of totalitarian evil as Hitler, Goebbels and Goering. Or, even, just perhaps, that they ARE every bit as evil, but that something in our precious systems and traditions of consitutional democracy prevent them from turning our great nations to disastrous tyranny right now, let alone the day after a cataclysmic event like 9-11.

There are many reasons for not overstating the case. One of the biggest is that it can easily imbue a sense of fatalism and despair into less aggressive, more reflective readers who are not so well-versed in history. We are not in the same terrible position as the Germans in 1933. We should not be made to think so. Instead, we should be wonderfully grateful for the freedoms we do enjoy. And out of that gratitude we should certainly work to investigate and expose the truth behind epoch-making but sadly deceptive events like 9-11.

Andrew's summary of the last two weeks discussion had many strengths (288). But for me he falls into the same trap of overstatement when he writes

"Thanks Bridget for the info on the Whitehouse [sic] statement (246), which I find extremely disturbing."

Actually, the moment I saw that bullet point on that page I agreed with it. The prevalence of conspiracy theories amongst Muslims and Arabs does great harm to them as individuals and societies

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

But even if you and I greatly disagree with it, one erroneous government web page is not the same as detention, torture and execution for saying different. "Extremely disturbing"? What words would we have left if Bush and Blair suddenly took us seriously about this Hitler stuff? I suggest the concepts wolf and cry are worth some more study in some quarters.

Lastly, then, where Bridget started. Was the Reichstag Fire a pre-planned Nazi false flag operation, or was it the work of one maverick left-winger and used in a fit of opportunism?

For that, you'll have to see my next post. It will also give full details of the books referred to in both.

I sign off with a prayer for all of us, all over the world, considering 9-11 today. As David Shayler said on BBC1 yesterday, quoting Jesus, the truth will set you free.

  • 294.
  • At 06:19 PM on 11 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hello Richard,

ref: 293

> But even if you and I greatly disagree with it, one
> erroneous government web page is not the same as
> detention, torture and execution for saying
> different. "Extremely disturbing"?

If it's one erroneous government web page, that's fine of course. I take your point about the use of the word 'extremely', but if it's the logic of Western society to come, I find it disturbing (is that better?) that our activity in openly discussing and perhaps supporting some alternative ‘conspiracy theories' equates to contaminating the public discourse with false and corrupted information which engenders a population from which terrorism can spring.

I found it especially disturbing in the light of ‘conspiracy theorists’ already being persecuted in the US;

In July, Michael C. Ruppert of www.fromthewilderness.com left the US for good, stating, ‘I had humiliated the government one too many times, I understood two things. I was too old to go on fighting these increasingly ugly and dangerous battles. And there was nothing left in the United States worth fighting for. The next battle would surely mean death for me.’
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081606_burning_bridge.shtml

In August, 911 investigator Chistropher Bollyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Bollyn) was beaten up and tazered on his front lawn by police.
“I have every reason to believe it is because of my journalistic investigation into 9/11. I have been threatened before in my career as a journalist, but this is the first time I have been intentionally beaten and abused—by the cops…. I intend to seek asylum in Norway or Switzerland. I can read the writing on the wall.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/170806Bollyn.htm
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm

Before Vikingar beats me to it, even if you find Ruppert's 'US govt. did it' conclusions, or Bollyn's 'Zionists/Mossad did it' conclusions, distasteful, does that mean he should be beaten up by the police for expressing a view?

Three days ago, this story appeared about Greg Palast facing Homeland Security charges for filming an Exxon site for his documentary on Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.gregpalast.com/palast-pascarella-face-homeland-security-criminal-charge

Is this just the beginning of a trend? I hope not.

btw: Dear Moderator - I would like to know what happened to my reply to Vikingar (289) that I posted this morning. It hasn't appeared on the blog, yet Richard Drake's 4.08pm post has.

Thanks Richard for your scholarly response, and the quote that 'the truth will set you free'.

I prefer Orwell's 'In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.'

Much like Vikengar's determined efforts to equate Bush's clear 'lie' that he watched the first plane hit the tower before he entered the classroom, with Bush's often strange and muddled sentences, you choose to miss the point I was making entirely.

My point is that on the basis of a manufactured LIE (whether the Reichsatg Fire or 9/11) all the subsequent events unfold. None of which would be possible without the lie.

I do not suggest that we are in exactly the same situation, of course we cannot possibly be, but I also doubt that the people's of Iraq or Afghanistan, Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib would share your belief that the world is quite as comfortable and cosy as you seem to indicate. Would any of these events have been possible without 9/11? Would Jean Charles de Menezes or Forest Gate have happened if not for 7/7? Is the UK a comfortable place for Muslims since these events, I very much doubt it.

As for the statement that:
"It is very muddled historical thinking, not to say following the ways of Goebbels himself, to proclaim otherwise." That is just nasty and uncalled for. You have twice chosen to smear my character and I would ask you to have some decency in your responses to me, as I do with you.

  • 296.
  • At 11:28 PM on 11 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

QUOTE:

"In countries where associations are free, secret societies are unknown. In America there are factions, but no conspiracies" Alexis de Tocqueville - (1805-1889) French social philosopher.

3 PERIODS:

Period 1 - Pre 911
Period 2 - Events of 911
Period 3 - Post 911

2 CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Motivation
2. Means & Methods

ANSWER? - the CT:

CT believers interlink all three periods in a dizzying myriad of fantasy & conspiracy but are unable to agree on a single alternative 'motivation' & means/method' (surprise surprise given their fantasy premise)
- fantasist motivations
- pseudo science means & methods.

According to CT believers there was a queue of people with different motives & different methods doing different things simultaneously …. get in queue & take a ticket [1]

- it was not muslims, it was Jews, it was Amercians, it was Neo Cons, it was the CIA (but it was ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in PLANES)
- it was insurance fraud, it was oil barons, it was military industrial compex (but it was ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in PLANES)
- it was missiles, they were not planes, it was bombs, it was cutting charges (but it was ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in PLANES)

ANSWER - the reality:

A straightforward & basic understanding of the litany of recent historical events (Period 1) provides the unpalatable answer & the reality of recent history of the modern world, is far more simple & straightforward which led to the events of 911 (Period 2):

- bad decisions
- domestic distraction
- ineffectual & poor foreign policy (backing the wrong group, arming, training & funding etc).
- failure to deliver v intransigence
- all combined with rising Islamic Extremism

PERIOD 3 - Post 911:

Given the changing nature of the Islamic Extremist threat - are targeted progressive democratic societies ....

- entitled & duty bound to react - YES
- entitled to make such a reaction as part of an overall strategy (roadmap etc) - YES
- entitled to secure support for an overall strategy (from all quarters) which encompass more then basic reaction to an instance of terrorist i.e. the causes & heart of such mantra - & offer an alternative - YES

Do the citizens of progressive democratic nations, reasonably expect the following:

- EXPECTATION [1] government actions bring success - YES
- EXPECTATION [2] government actions bring timely success - YES
- EXPECTATION [3] government actions bring timely success in a affordable way (fiscal & human cost) - YES

Given the current impasse, with such EXPECTATIONS not being readily met, the less than satisfactory total response of those who have authorised the 'War on Terror' is at question, their judgement & competency (a consequence of democracy, something radical Islamic extremism goes not dare entertain).

The history of world war has taught us that the initial reaction of those under attack often takes a while to get going, but setbacks were overcome & sorted out & the response was deadly & brought success:

- 20th Century - Europe: BEF withdrawal, collapse of France, German occupation then back with D-Day to Victory in Europe.
- 20th Century - Pacific: Pearl Harbour, Japanese occupation to Victory in Japan.
- 21st Century - Post 911: its ongoing :)

DOMESTIC DIFFERENCE:

What is the domestic difference between the circumstances of two World Wars & our societies now. Then soceity bred/allowed constructive criticism but its socities did not give birth to such domestic intransigence amongst various groups with an axe to grind (abusing peacetime entitlements in wartime environment) as we now endure.

Many domestic protagonists demand the freedoms of society under threat, whilst making a disingenuous argument to deny the said governments of such societies the freedoms to defend such societies.

But the point to which those touting non constructive criticism gives direct succour to an enemy & promotes uncertain & untruths making the 'vulnerable' in our societies prone to the influence of extremists - are the acts of a 5th Column (the difference being individuals & groups not agreeing on final objectives, but agreeing on any means to bring down common bogeymen: the west; certain political figures; capitalism; US, Israel).

The right to question the actions of one governments is a right & entitlement for citizens of progressive democratic societies.

But there are virtually no headline CT individual/group which do not have a litany of other agenda (simple analysis of their previous/current activities reveal this e.g.):

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups.
- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety)
- Islamic extremists themselves
- usual loon brigade.

SUMMARY:

There are other factors which have undoubtedly influenced history & society (aims & desires of governing elites & their supporters to the societal engineering policies of liberal elites).

But headline CT individuals/groups are not there doing a civic services, they are embroiled in self service (ego, aims, kudos, money).

The internet enables mass dissemination of a CT message, enabling people prone to such beliefs to be interlinked & enabled - but still it’s a very small but disproportionaly vocal minority.

Willing not only to invest time & resources promoting CT fantasy, but invest time & money fabricating CT evidence, to fill the blanks.

CT believers in essence have an axe to grind in our own societies & 911 has presented them with an opportunity far too tempting not too take advantage of the such events & others suffering.

PSE NOTE:

Given this is an covert information & propaganda war as much as a overt military war, you have to wonder how many extremists (esp Islamic variety) adopt different guises & intentionally look to actively promote CT due to its corrosive undermining of consensus in progressive democratic societies.

Deny the victim (society) the right to accuse & undermine their right to defend themselves, serial abuse will follow.

CT protagonists also have aims & agendas, which 911 CT enables :(

And in the face of this tangible & damaging underhand combo of domestic intransigence & Islamic extremism (in all its forms) - I trust & dearly hope the governments of progressive democratic societies, are playing suitably dirty & the gloves are off - though we need to ensure they are put back on - at some point :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A652277

  • 297.
  • At 06:57 AM on 12 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Dear Vikingar (289),

> Besides the questionable motives of those who tout
> 911 CT

‘Tout’. You’ve used it ten times so far (in 150, 161, 173, 199, 285, 289, 296), and are the only person to have used it; such a fabulous word, with connotations of dodgy trading and petty exploitation.

> none can agree on a single alternative 'motive' & means/method'.

I find it incredible that you expect the millions of people around the globe who question the 911 OV to agree on a ‘single alternative’.

> According
> to them

It’s ‘wishful fantasy’ there is a single group of people to attribute your idea to!

> there was a queue of people with different motives & different
> methods doing different things simultaneously

I have yet to read 911 conspiracy theorists (apart from perhaps the multiverse crowd!) who accept a mixed bag of scenarios as all being true, even when there are multiple suspects.

> But you cannot divorce:
> 1) 'Motivation'
> from 2) 'Means & Method'.

You can treat these as separate phases of an investigation. Establish who may have had a motive, then see if they had the means and opportunity. Alternatively, analyse those with the means, and see if they had the motive and opportunity, or those with the opportunity, to check whether they had the motive and means. Suspects with all three attributes are worth serious investigation.

> If you rely on pseudo science (given the questionable past works & current
> beliefs) of Jones et al

Why are you so focused on Jones et al? They are Jonny Come Lately’s to 911 CT (nothing wrong with that, of course).

> Then where
> are CT believers left on the Motivation front?

I find it ironic that you use the word ‘believers’ to describe those who question the 911 OV, when you seem to me to be the ‘believer’ (in the OV) opposing people who have openly said they don’t have preconceived conclusions and are attempting to get to the truth.

> This is where the CT
> believers completely looses the plot

Another moment in your constructed narrative. You’ll find there is no shortage of motivation that doesn’t fit the OV – well you would if you actually debated the points raised by others!

> their ideas will never fly outside
> the fantasist turkey coup.

Insult upon insult. We’re turkeys in a coup. Thank you for the inspired debate; remember this is supposed to be a high-brow forum!

> The mainstream is not interested,

How do you know what the mainstream is or is not interested in? Even Adam Livingstone admits, in the introduction to this blog, that ‘the official version (OV) is no longer shifting copy like it did’. Perhaps by 'mainstream' you mean 'mainstream media' - that would make sense.

> but CT may
> have success with the vulnerable in our society.

First we’re turkeys in a coup, and now we’re the ‘vulnerable in our society’. IMHO, these kind of comments tell us more about your own psychology than about the people you’re referring to.

> Whereas, a
> straightforward & basic understanding of the litany of recent historical
> events provides the unpalatable answer.

I, for one, don’t deny Islamic extremism, or the threat posed by it to the West. But there are many forms of extremism, some you seem unwilling to consider as a possibility.

> An answer rather unfortunate for
> the various 'motivations' promoted by those who tout

‘tout’ again

> & fabricate CT ideas
> & evidence.

It seems to me that you’re the one unwilling to consider evidence that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of how the world should work.

> The reality
> of led to 911.

It may be the ‘simple & straightforward’ version you’d like to believe, but imho there are more ingredients in ‘reality’; bad/good, ineffective/effective, failure/success – it all depends on what one’s actual goals are, not what the public was told.

> 1. Perhaps it was too much to expect those with an axe to grind in our own
> societies (political/fringe/pressure groups & the 'challenged')

You seem to have a preset notion of who you’re addressing. I’m not a member of any political, fringe or pressure group. That leaves your category the ‘challenged’, whatever that may mean!

> not too
> take advantage of the such events & others suffering ….

What advantage? The ones I see taking advantage of 911 are politicians and businessmen.

> & construct
> fantasy CT to assist their aims.

All your ad hominem attacks can be turned around to point in the other direction, so why bother using them? I could say that the OV has constructed a fantasy CT to assist in its aims. We’re no further forward in the debate.

> 2. Perhaps it was too much to expect
> those vulnerable in our society not to be effected
> by CT,

Slur. No debate.

> those with agenda can disproportionaly promote
> their mantra.

Disproportionately? A forgotten Newsnight webpage compared with 24/7/365 global mass media? Mantra? Tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout sounds like a mantra to me.

> …strategy & the tactical
> response to rising Islamic Extremism would be as less then successful
> about it.

At the high level of global strategy, the rise of Islamic Extremism may be a strategic goal to foment war.

> any wonder the same CT protagonists will attempt
> to weave

Attempt to weave? According to you, 'CT protagonists' even fail home economics class.

> complex fantasy does not a credible argument
> make (in the face of recent historical events).

Back at you - the complex fantasy needed to maintain the OV in the face of recent historical events does not a credible argument make.

RIP - the innocent victims of 911. May your families be successful in their pursuit of truth, justice and acccountability through the courts (those still able to do it, by having been able to refuse the government ‘drop your case’ compensation).

  • 298.
  • At 07:13 AM on 12 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar, the amount you repeat yourself in 289 and 296 amazes me - perhaps Jayhawk is right afterall about the A.I.!

Your posts are slur piled upon slur, and you lash out at groups I would never identify myself with. Why are you not able to debate? If you're so confident the OV 911 CT is the truth, you should be able to win your arguments on the facts.

> Given this is an covert information & propaganda war
> as much as a overt military war, you have to wonder
> how many extremists (esp Islamic variety) adopt
> different guises & intentionally look to actively
> promote CT due to its corrosive undermining of
> consensus in progressive democratic societies.

You have just implied that I, and other people on this blog, may be extremists, probably Islamic extremists, fighting a propaganda war against democratic societies. I invite anyone reading this blog to think very carefully about where this logic would lead democratic society. Vikingar has just demonstrated the same logic as contained in the NSC strategy doc that Bridget linked to. 'Erroneous web page' Richard? How long before we can put 'extremely' before 'disturbing'?

  • 299.
  • At 09:18 AM on 12 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Over two hours, and still my 2 'within moderation rules' posts don't appear - vikingar, like yesterday, gets the last word for hours with his no-debating attack pieces. Is it the BBC coming up with their own hurriedly-written posts to "balance" the forum in line with impartiality rules?

I'd like to invite Vikingar to be consistent and attack the 911 widows who appear in this just-released documentary http://www.911pressfortruth.com as 5th Column enemy propaganda extremists. Or will he/she, not wanting to come across as an extremist, just use the PlanB 'vulnerable in our society' argument for them? I suggest listening to what they have to say.

  • 300.
  • At 03:34 PM on 12 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #298 & #299

(fyi - appreciate the time & engeries to pull #288 together)

As previously stated #280, I am not here to debate with CT believers & zealots, to indulge their creative fantasies & thereby 'validate' imaginative speculations which they seek to actively work into the normalcy of mainstream society.

The CT myth is not like other endearing ones - Father Christmas, fairies & pixies - at its worst, its an intentionally disingenuous & corrosive political exercise which undermines social cohesion at a time when such turmoil can only give succour to our societies collective enemies - Extremism, esp Islamic variety.

Its like perverting the national curriculum, whereby shcools are foreced to promote 'creationism' alongside Darwinism in science - of utterly pointless use to the mainstream & provides not value only fictional distraction - leave it to the radicals & the flat earth society to play around with.

In case anyone needed reminding, CT Fantasy & Creationism - funnily enough two topics of research interested the main pseudo science fabricator Jones et al.

Next you will be wanting the public to take seriously a discussion on the merits of USS Enterprise v the Shuttle Enterprise (one fiction, one fact) & propose we should be have a treaty with the Klinongs (just in case) & offer state sponsored language courses in Klinong, which children could take after they have finished their Creationism classes (though not sure the two could co-exist? - what do the radicals say about aliens in their version of the bible?) [1]

However, more than happy to discuss notions of 'Reasonable Uncertainty' regarding 911.

To the extent that the US caught off guard (whole host of historical reasons) with its proverbial pants down, used the opportunity of the Islamic Terrorist attack to redeemed itself & launch a strategy, which may or may have not already been theoretically formulated (given all governments engage in different war scenarios & war game exercising - just in case).

A scenario Richard Drake alluded to #293

Personally, rather disappointed if governments did not have something to pull out of a hat and/or could not respond to tragedy & potentially turn it into opportunity.

Nothing wrong with that - unless they balls it up - but that’s not Conspiracy in Theory, that’s called Incompetence in Action.

..... unless of course the CT believers have been watching too much '24' & 'X' file reruns (collector editions, the Directors Cut - all seasons etc)

CT - a generation primed to be sceptical, conditioned by the fiction of the popular media, indulged by liberals & fantasy enabled by the internet - any wonder so much time & energy is spent pursuing any number of 'rainbows'.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://klingonska.org/links.html

  • 301.
  • At 04:26 PM on 12 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

As my post 299 appeared and then disappeared, here's an obliquely worded alternative;

Considering Vikingar's PSE Note in 296, as commented upon in 298, I wonder if Vikingar would regard those interviewed in this newly-released documentary
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/story/
as 'extremists' fighting a covert enemy propaganda war. I suggest to anyone who thinks questioning the OV is the province of 'extremists', to start by watching this documentary.

  • 302.
  • At 07:16 PM on 12 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

You'll like this Vikingar,
Here's a very recent 5th anniversary critical analysis of 911 CT

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html

I came across it whilst checking the background to the old BBC news stories that some hijackers were 'alive and well' - e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm - (which naturally leads to thinking the FBI may have got their list wrong, and the question; so who the hell were the real hijackers then?). Part 2 goes into the subject of discrediting the 'some hijackers are alive and well' stories.

  • 303.
  • At 09:08 PM on 12 Sep 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Andrew - very good point about "9/11: Press for Truth". I found this documentary about mainstream political and financial questions and information surrounding 9/11 much more shocking than any "conspiracy theories" about controlled demolition or remote-controlled planes etc.

  • 304.
  • At 12:31 AM on 13 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #301 #302

With ref to my #300

As I have stated the 911 CT premise is a self prophesising fabricated cul de sac of an argument, wholly dishonest.

So total is their myopia that they embrace any & all inventive 911 CT (slightly whacky to wholly unbelievable) - beggars cannot be choosers :)

I have no desire at all to debate such disingenuous theories.

The world is witness to what happened on that day #292 - those with other agendas choose to remain in denial, hence their efforts since to fashion & invent a 'reality' that suits their purposes.

Families of those affected have earnt the right to question but CT does not offer answers - it promotes lies.

But the right to question of the bereaved has to be put into the context that the vast majority (verging on all) of people affected that day accept the realities of that day & accept the reality & the answers of their government, 9/11 commission etc.

Now for those rational posters interested in a simple argument (supported by links):

Q.1 which of the following is true based on research of same religious sect academic?

- Argument [1] Prof Steven E Jones - Creationism [1a]
- Argument [2] Prof Steven E Jones - "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" [1b]
- Argument [3] Prof Steven E Jones - 911/CT [1c]

Q.12 which of the following is true based on research of same religious sect academic?

- Argument [1] David Ray Griffin - Creationism [2a]
- Argument [2] David Ray Griffin - 911/CT [2b]

Q.3 which of the following is produced by competent professionals with resources & remit?

- loose change - Dylan Avery 22 yr old Director from Oneonta [3a]
- Popular Mechanics - US science/technology mag 1st published 1902 [3b]
- bi partisan 9/11 Commission [3c]

And just to highlight one of many equally passionate sites out there to counter the corrosive & disingenuous 911 CT [4]

911 CT = Complete Trash

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] http://www.tungate.com/Death_Before_Adam.htm
[1b] http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm
[1c] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
[2a] http://www.stnews.org/Books-2375.htm
[2b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
[3a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Avery#_note-2
[3b] http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
[3c] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm
[4] http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

vikingar @ 304 etc etc etc

Desperately clinging on and so worried that people might waver and start looking and researching - what are you really so scared of?

I suspect the paradigm shift that comes with waking up and seeing what is really going on.

You never commented on the Bush LIE that he watched the first plane hit the tower before entering the classroom, I wonder why not?

Nor on WTC 7's collapse.

Remember:

When two or more people plan to commit a crime, there exists by definition a 'conspiracy'.

Therefore, any theory about who did it, or how it was done, is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'.

The question is then not whether you are a conspiracy theorist, but for which conspiracy theory you find the evidence most compelling.

Vikingar, so scared that theory can become fact.

First up, the Popular Mechanics book ‘Debunking 9/11 Myths’ which supposedly demolishes all the key 9/11 conspiracy theories with the aid of hard facts and science. Have a listen to the guy who fact-checked the book:

The Charles Goyette Show, Wed Aug 2

http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

Lou Dobbs on 'Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission by Thomas H. Kean, Lee H. Hamilton'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUXxrmwZ7bo&eurl=

Vikingar, it's unraveling despite all your efforts and energy in holding it together.

THE RICHARD DRAKE ROADMAP FOR PEACE IN THE NEWSNIGHT BLOG ON INTERNET CONSPIRACY THEORIES

In fact I don't expect us to agree, much less so if I get through all my own stuff. But it would be cool to have some mutual respect in some quarters by the end of my time here.

I've got to wind down the effort as I'm getting busy in other areas. But I do have some things that I want to finish, if possible:

1. Discuss with Bridget Dunne the Reichstag Fire, having summarised the views of historians on whether it was a Nazi false-flag op, coming back to the implications for the current situation.

2. Sketch the implications of various other important contemporary CT issues originally raised in my first post (90)

3. Most importantly, present three areas of concern I have with '911 Truth' as presented by David Ray Griffin.

I choose DRG because I think he's the best presenter worldwide of the evidence for the 911 CT (as defined here, though he would rightly dispute that terminology). Being able to hear him live, then on TV and radio in the UK, has been inspirational in many ways.

I choose Bridget Dunne because she's here and she's a real person, whose name has appeared in a report on 7-7 in The Guardian, for example. She also exhibits some of the characteristics of the hardline 911 Truth activist that I'm very interested in.

I feel I need to stop responding to pretty much anyone else, not least because I know much less about who they are and thus how genuine they are in their motivations.

It sure gets boring reading endless critiques of 'vikingar' as one of the dark forces of disinformation. But he/she sure is annoying in some of what they say.

Let me start my journey away from the shadows of internet pseudonymity back to the real world, then, by addressing vikingar for the last time (unless there's a big change re point 1):

1. Can you please say much more where you're coming from. You've said you're a British Christian. But that's simply not credible to me, at least on its own. The best case in my mind is that you're Jewish and a supporter of Israel (hence you second post). You fear that 911 CTs in the West will inevitably become another disastrous anti-semitic whipping post, especially in the hands of Muslims. That I see is already happening and I view it as very dangerous.

2. Pretty much the dumbest thing you've said, in trying to put casual readers off looking at the 911 Truth Movement, is calling David Ray Griffin a 'creationist'.

On the last point, you refer in 304 to

http://www.stnews.org/Books-2375.htm

and in 150 you provide that reference and also

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

because that is the church DRG started his Christian journey in.

But for people who are not experts - say 99% of those reading this - 'creationism' means the dumb, fundamentalist belief in a literal, six-day creation, as described by Moses in Genesis 1-3.

I challenge anyone to read either reference, particularly the first, which deals with DRG's beliefs today, not when he was a child, and come up with anything vaguely resembling such fundamentalism. Whatever else his grievous faults, fundamentalist creationism is not one of them. It is pathetic to try to stick this on DRG. To repeat such propaganda ad nauseam vastly reduces the intelligence of this whole discourse. By now I have to assume that this is your aim.

I can't believe that any 'British Christian' can be this ignorant. You must be a fraud, in that respect, surely?

The strength of your opposition to 911 CTs may just be motivated by something good. I'm allowing for that in point 1. But without a lot more self-disclosure from you I will turn my attention back just to Bridget now.

  • 308.
  • At 12:55 PM on 13 Sep 2006,
  • Zoran wrote:

hello there,

Since this thread is still alive and going strong, let me briefly rejoin the discussion. Firstly, I'd like to share this with you:

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html

A brand new site, much of it is still under construction - Vikingar, if you're quick enough you may have an honour of being the first to debunk these preposterous American pilots who dare question the 9/11 Commission and the flying credentials of the Tora Bora squad. Also, check this one out - Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts - I bet you like the title, hopefully it will motivate you to actually read the article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13969.htm

---------------------------------------------------

234. At 08:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006, matt wrote:

"pardon me, Richard, i thought the 'swiss tony' analogy was just bit of a chuckle...surely you've seen the fast show ?
similarly, did you not see the 'wink' after my accusations of flying insects being 'garden*hawk surveilance uavs' ?
*as in globalhawk
...more ;)
or was it the serious stuff that was crazy ?"

Matt, I like your humor, and your gardenhawk rap is not far off the mark at all - ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce the Hybrid Insect MEMS:

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/BAA06-22/SynopsisP.html

Now, that's the GeoDick for you Matt, our newest tool in this bloody war for dollar:

http://iraqforsale.org/video_blackwater.php

Needles to say, I take your take on "the serious stuff" just as seriously. Did you know that Halliburton sells soda water to American troops in Iraq, charging $45 for a sixpack. Would it be a surprise if another Tim McVeigh pops up seemingly out of nowhere one of these days, and blows the Halliburton headquarters up for apparently no reason..? -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101459.html

For people who don't like "music" videos, here is more serious stuff, à propos "2 CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Motivation", right vikingar (296)? - check The Dark Side by Michael Kirk:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view

And here comes one for those who like to dig the physics of the whole thing, great title this one, are you still with us Alan? Activity 12: Shake it Up Baby - Crank the Heat:

http://www.concord.org/~btinker/workbench_web/unit1/1-12TempAndKE.html

---------------------------------------------------

243. At 09:32 AM on 07 Sep 2006, Jayhawk wrote:

"Vikingar is actually an A.I. program generating random comments based around several repeating phrases. Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm working on automated response software to combat this; I'll get back to you...."

Agree completely. The program may be using a cutup technique developed by Brion Gysin and William Burroughs, if that can help your work on automated response software. Also, try this cutup machine:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~zoc/cut-up/ctpm.htm

---------------------------------------------------

246. At 01:02 PM on 07 Sep 2006, Bridget Dunne wrote:

"I was just wondering what some of you might make of this statement from 'Strategy on winning the War on (OF) Terror' posted on the White House website"

Very good point Bridget. One shouldn't think that the brave new world unfolds automatically from that statement, but there is a clear intent here, and Cheny/ Bush are doing their best to push such broad and vague notions of who is the enemy and what constitutes terrorism and terrorist activities broadly speaking, through the legal system. Even Francis Fukuyama now calls some of his former neo-con comrades "Leninist":

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8591

which is somewhat of an euphemism considering this rather surreal report:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8272096722231303649&q=FEMA+Camp+footage

Perhaps Newsnight can take a closer look at it..?

Having said that, I would still argue that this is a swan song of the 20th Century with its crude, primitive exploitation of resources augmented by rapid technological development, and its heavy reliance on military power - war as we know it, a massive, industrial scale killing, is a 20th Century "invention". This crude industrial age machinery, nuts and bolts, with all jobs it creates and deaths it causes, is epitomized in individuals such as Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz, or Mickey Mouse for example. But they are all just small potato in this game - the machinery kind of has a life of its own. However, it's maintained by mass consumption which is coming to an end now - the environment cannot sustain such a gobbler anymore. That's the truth of it in a nutshell as I see it. This is not to say that the spirit of the times will take care of everything and that there is nothing to worry about. For one thing, dinosaurs can do a lot of damage when they fall. Additionally, there may be some individuals among the dinosaurs who think if they have to go out, they want go out in style, with fireworks and all. Keep the pressure up.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/keep_up_the_pre.php

  • 309.
  • At 01:35 PM on 13 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Richard Drake wrote (307);
> It sure gets boring reading endless
> critiques of 'vikingar'

A few facts for you Richard;

Andrew’s posts:
Of my 31 posts to this page, 4 include critiques of vikingar (288, 297, 298 and 299: 301 was a repost) who, after c.26 ‘flame-bait’ posts (not counting 72, 127, 148, 285), I finally addressed (from 288 onwards), as I felt he shouldn’t be unanswered for those ‘future generations’ you mentioned (166). I don’t include my post 302, as it supported Vikingar’s position, but he just railed against it anyway (304), I suppose from not actually having read it properly. Even including my 301 repost, that's c.1406 words used on directly responding to vikingar's posts (which includes a paragraph commending your own points raised in 156, 197, and 210)

Vikingar’s posts:
Vikingar, by contrast, uses c.6,483 words (not including source links) in posts 143, 150, 152, 160, 161, 183, 194, 198, 199, 211, 241, 247, 252, 265, 273, 277, 280, 282, 287, 289, 291, 296, 300, and 304, mostly on posts about ‘S.E. Jones et al’ and creationism.

Your posts:
You, yourself, use c.1443 words critiquing vikingar (166, 197, 210, 268), which is more than me, even when I include my repost. And that includes only counting the 66 words of post 166 that directly critique vikingar where you wrote ‘you have been extremely, perhaps deliberately, stupid’ – I should really pick you up on your overstated use of ‘extremely’ there, considering it’s exactly the criticism you like to make of others (293))

Bridget’s posts:
Bridget (excluding 245 & 249 reposts of 244, and only 85 words in 262) uses only 688 words criticising vikingar in posts 244, 250, 262, 284, 290, 305, and 306.

Conclusion:

You’re top of the heap, word-count-wise, on those ‘boring…endless critiques of 'vikingar'’. As you like to point out the subtleties of word usage in other people (whilst ignoring your own, e.g. 166), I think it’s time it came home to roost. You overstate your case using ‘endless’ – a mathematician should know better.

Also, you talk of mutual respect (307) whilst calling other peoples’ posts ‘boring’ – yet others haven’t said anything about the ‘endless’ (to use your term) number of posts you and Vikingar contribute about ‘S.E. Jones et al’ and Creationism, turning a conspiracy forum into a theological college. And nor will I, as mutual respect is more than just two words.

  • 310.
  • At 03:47 PM on 13 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Richard (307),
> But for people who are not experts - say 99%
> of those reading this

What an arrogant, presumptuous thing to write. Your propensity for pulling arbitrary figures out of the air, to describe people you know nothing about, puts you on a par with Viki-99%-ngar (154).

Andrew & Zoran

Nice to see you both came back to the discussion.

Thanks for all the links Zoran, duly noted how there is much unrest in the den of snakes.

I admire your ability Andrew to go back over all the comments and word count and pick up the arguments. Glad to see that I'm not the only one who notices arrogance and pomposity!


Re #309, I included myself in the endless boring critics of vikingar - that was the whole point - and #310, I was speaking of 99% of readers who were not writers here.

I agree that, strictly speaking, the first is not endless (assuming the second law of thermodynamics to be true) and that 99% may overstate the case for dramatic effect. In neither case was I comparing others unfavorably with myself.

Can I take it that you agree with me that it's helpful to know more about everyone's background and beliefs as we try to go deeper on such very difficult matters?

Re #311, I'm conscious that of recent posters Bridget, Andrew, Zoran, Rick B, Jayhawk and I all reject the official version of 9-11.

Of those supporting the OV, Alan and many others have gone. Hopefully Adam still reads this from time to time. Perhaps vikingar's support for the OV has helped those in the Beeb arguing to keep this little track going. Whatever. I remain grateful for the BBC keeping the subject open.

My own unease about the assumption of many of the 911 Truth Movement that they already know who the mass-murderers were that day may also help to maintain some diversity, if we get that far.

But I understand that, for some, it's arrogance and pomposity for me to disagree with them in any way.

@313 Richard "But I understand that, for some, it's arrogance and pomposity for me to disagree with them in any way."

Richard, I personally have no problem with disagreement, only with disagreement expressed in an arrogant and pompous way.

Re Bridget (314).

I'll see what I can do.

  • 316.
  • At 11:13 AM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Richard (313):
> unease about the assumption of many of the 911
> Truth Movement that they already know who the
> mass-murderers were

I share that unease. For example, whilst I think (without any evidence other than personal feeling) the public discourse has been contaminated by a laying-it-on-thick false-evidence trail that shouts very loudly ‘look, these Islamic terrorists did it’, it’s possible the OV still holds with a little post-attack political opportunism thrown in, to strengthen the message (although you have to admire their speed and efficiency if that were the case!)

Also, we musn’t assume who the mass-murderers WEREN’T, which imho is just as bad. It seems to me the BIG taboo in Western society is, of course, thinking that it was a Mossad-assisted op (perhaps using real Islamic terrorists for authentic flavour); no doubt for fear of the ‘anti-semitic whipping post, especially in the hands of Muslims’ you mention (307). But does that mean we have to treat these guys as saints, or keep silent, because anything critical (and I do acknowledge it must be responsible, lawful debate) we say against them will be used by Muslims to cause real harm against Jews?

It seems to me that when an Arabic terrorist gets caught, it’s major Western news (at least these days). But when a Jewish terrorist gets caught…well, take the October 2001 case (just over a month after 911) of Salvador Gerson Sunke (a Mexican, immigrated to Mexico from Israel) and Saer Ben-Zvi (or Saar Noam Ben Zvi, reported by Mexican Department of Justice as a retired Colonel of the Israeli Defence Forces) who got caught in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, in the Mexican parliament, with a high-powered gun, nine grenades, C-4 explosives and, according to the Mexican newspaper Diario de Mexico, PAKISTANI passports (Mexican government source: http://www.pgr.gob.mx/cmsocial/bol01/oct/b69701.html , general source picked from a Google search: http://www.journalhome.com/aspendouglas/12481/ ). Were they brought to justice? No, within days they were quietly DEPORTED, to the outrage of many Mexicans. Now, assuming this story is correct so far (a mainstream Mexican story, got reported on CNN briefly before they dropped it), and refusing to speculate beyond the facts at hand, why is it, I’d like to know, that when you search for ‘Sunke Zvi’ or ‘Gerson Zvi’, etc., in Google News (not Web, just News), not ONE story comes up (at least in the searches I did). And when you search the Web, it's sites like David Irving's, or al Jazeera's that carry the story, tainting it with big dose of anti-semitism/Holocaust Denial, etc., when it was a mainstream Mexican news story. Is this why journalists don't touch it? (guilt by association?)

Now, are we seriously expecting an open and honest investigation into the possibility of ‘false flag operations’ under these conditions? Of course not! It seems to me, the conditions for being neutral, truth-seeking, open to critical analysis of all information, etc., simply do not exist in this crazy world where you’re forced to take sides (whatever the sides are at any one time). Divide and conquer. Try to see the bigger picture and you are ‘assisting the enemy’, etc. Welcome to planet of the apes. Anyway, to go back to your initial point; best not to make assumptions; assumptions of who it was; assumptions of who it wasn’t. My personal view is that I don’t know who did it; maybe it was Islamic terrorists, and the OV could be generally true (albeit with shadowy secrets), but it seems to me the ‘false flag’ or ‘Western assistance’ scenarios (by whomever) cannot yet be ruled out, until we investigate properly – and governments seem averse to that kind of activity, although no doubt our Western governments investigate more openly than elsewhere in the world, thank goodness.

  • 317.
  • At 11:28 AM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

For me CT = Complete Trash.

Some for various reasons wholly reject the OV.

But I am I pragmatic enough reserve the notion of 'Reasonable Uncertainty' = RU

It does not take any significant effort to discredit CT, just the basic act of reading, watching or listening to their concocted web of self delusional lies & imaginative speculation.

Its like a dodgy art fake, it may look like something from distance, its nothing under closer inspection.

- Whether it be the unqualified nature of the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the background of the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the motivation of the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the plethora of issues & other agendas behind the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the wholly unsatisfactory & unconvincing nature of the lie itself.

The absolute clearest example about the above - are those who fabricate & tout issues about British Islamic Terrorists who bombed the capital - 7th & 21st July 2006.

CAVEAT - I am not here to debate the actual CT - rather than to comment on its disingenuous nature, as the CT fabricators & touts feed their creations enough 'oxygen' already.

For example - ref July Bombings in London count the number of mixed & confused causes & theories poorly touted in this recording [1]:

- anti-war
- pro CT
- anti ID
- terror police state contribution
- 'oyster card conspiracy'
- inaccuracy, as the alleged 21st bombs misfired & failed to detonate properly
- describing the 7th July bombers as' poor Muslim men will never have their day in court";
- "so many Americans working for the tube, some of them ex CIA"
- Mo Molam death
- David Kelly death
- the police won't help me, the unions won't help, the journalists won't help me - "basically its down to people on the internet".

However, I will leave it up to 'rachelofnorthlondon' able blog (a Brit caught up in one of the train carriages blown up on 7th July) to counter the numerous self serving July Bombing CT fantasy ramblings [2]

Therefore, one could choose to ignore the CT, but best of all is to consume a portion of CT fabrication - if nothing else it will make you laugh at the end of a hard working day.

If nothing else, no matter ones own reservations & dissatisfaction with government, thank God, those self serving CT fabricator & touts do not hold any real influence.

Beyond which those vulnerable to such fabrications, may have existing prejudices & insecurities re-enforced e.g. various domestic fringe elements & too many within Britain's Muslims Communities (a point alleged to by others).

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[2] http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-you-are-conspiracy-theorist.html

Heartening to see that comment and analysis is becoming increasingly more vocal in the 'your either with us or with the terrorists' USA.

A bit more of this sort of thing on Newsnight wouldn't go amiss.

Keith Olbermann blasts Bush at Ground Zero:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8167480448590639086

Andrew @ 316: Well said.

Vikingar @ 317

Invective and personal opinion do not constitute fact, can I just ask what evidence we've actually seen that supports the OV of 7th July?

Are we so foolish that one image from outside Luton with 3 indistinguishable faces is enough to convict the 4 accused?

Those of us who've researched the train times and forced Dr Reid to announce on July 11th that the narrative was untruthful on this (explanation still not forthcoming) are justified in questioning the OV.

Rachel North has always maintained that 'we know what happened that day, we just need to know why'. I maintain that we do not know what happened that day, the narrative is flawed, inconsistenet and riddled with anomalies and on that basis is insufficient to support the conclusion that 4 home-grown suicide-bombers acting alone carried out these attacks.

Whatever a person's political beliefs, no matter how extreme you consider them, we are all entitled to see that truth and justice prevail.

Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation.

  • 320.
  • At 12:33 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Richard Drake #307

" …. Can you please say much more where you're coming from. You've said you're a British Christian. But that's simply not credible to me, at least on its own. The best case in my mind is that you're Jewish and a supporter of Israel …. I can't believe that any 'British Christian' can be this ignorant. You must be a fraud, in that respect, surely?"

Well, ref issue of Jewish identity - minded of Charlie Chaplains reply ...

"I'm afraid I DON'T have that honor!" - Chaplin 1992 [1]

For the record, British Humanitarian & Christian - lapsed Catholic variety :)

My support for Israel is based on respect for their historical struggle for existence & survival (though not always admiring or agreeing to their methods) esp in the face of the utter radicalisation & scope of efforts of those pitted against them.

I will always side with progressive democratic societies (warts n all) against terrorist states & organisations (of any religion/political persuasion). Palestinians deserve justice, but it is the manner in which how they conduct their struggle which does their cause the most damage.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103939/quotes

  • 321.
  • At 01:52 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Thanks for the link Bridget (318). Heartening indeed. America lives!

  • 322.
  • At 03:33 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 and if not do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions / accusations which the interviewee touted (for ease of ref listed in #317)

I have faith in the various & different government agencies pitted against our countries enemies (great track history in case you have forgotten - that’s why we remain a democratic & progressive society).

Agencies which at the moment involving countering the biggest threat coming from Islamic Terrorism (domestic & international variety) & Extremism.

I have no faith in the various interested parties looking to feed off this threat & impasse.

Some of us who have served our nation, are very much aware of the limits & challenges of the such organisations & agencies.

But highly realistic as to what they would & would not do in pursuit of such defence (given underlying ethos, attitude, behaviour & culture).

And there are far more many fringe groups out there besides the supporters of Islamic Terrorists, who seek to benefit from the promotion of CT - a corrosive discourse:

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups.
- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety, mainly US)
- Islamic extremists themselves
- usual loon brigade.
- others

For them CT enables - for society it disables - influencing the vulnerable via such fabrications, re-enforcing existing prejudices & insecurities re-enforced e.g. various domestic fringe elements & too many within Britain's Muslims Communities (a point alluded to by others).

For those who disagree with government policy, that does not automatically make them necessary supporters of Islamic Extremism (directly/indirectly) unless the manner of their protest enables the enemy.

But nor does it make those who disagree with government policy automatic signatories to CT (which this dishonest protagonists presume & claim - intentionally blurring the messages & definitions).

CT protagonists - presume - you are either with them or not & if you do not support the government, then your one of them - WRONG (yet again)

CT = Complete Trash :)

vikingar

Vikingar @ 320: "My support for Israel is based on respect for their historical struggle for existence & survival (though not always admiring or agreeing to their methods) esp in the face of the utter radicalisation & scope of efforts of those pitted against them."

Israel is an apartheid state whose own roots are in terrrorism and support for the Nazis, built on stolen Palestinian land.

I can state that with certainty and I am not anti-semetic as I am myself a Jewish woman, albeit an atheist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

See also the Stern Gang:

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

It's always well worth searching for the truth behind the myths. Which is probably what myself and many so-called 'conspiracy theorists' have in common.


  • 324.
  • At 04:14 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

[this is a repost, slightly modified, as first post didn't make it, possibly due to use of f word with asterisks - apologies if first one gets approved after this]

Bridget (311): thanks :)

Zoran (308): good to see you back! Thanks for the links.

Richard (312):
> Can I take it that you agree with me that it's helpful
> to know more about everyone's background and
> beliefs as we try to go deeper on such very difficult
> matters?

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this. The reason I don’t reveal my full identity in this forum (I am called Andrew) is that I don’t want to risk my career and income earning potential, however small the risk might be. This isn’t due to ‘they’ll come after me’ paranoia (as I'm a nobody), but recognition of the controversial nature of this subject and the ease with which one's professional relations can be ended if ever there’s even a hint of perception that one could be, in another's eyes, an ‘extremist’. I admire you and Bridget immensely for not being so cowardly. Fyi: I’m a British, middle-class white (although I work on the tan, when I can!) male, born in rural England, grew up loving to climb trees, make dens and watch American films and tv; I love England, especially village life, and still think it’s a jewel of a country, despite the deterioration I see in many areas of life. I have no ties to any religious or political groups, unless you count the CoE label given to me after being christened. I’m sorry I won’t reveal my full identity in this forum, but I would be willing to engage my identity with you and others in a non-public venue, as you seem like nice, genuine people to me.

Richard (313):
> I understand that, for some, it's arrogance and
> pomposity for me to disagree with them in any way

I echo Bridget’s thoughts in 314. I welcome disagreement of any kind in a form that advances the debate. Your input into this debate is very welcome by me, and you’ve made some excellent points, imho. I agree with you that, if it weren’t for the contributions of Alan and Vikingar, this debate wouldn’t have been kept going so long by the Beeb. Btw: I’d especially welcome disagreement (ie. a response of any kind) over my request (288) for the probability of picking the same three stations twice from a total of, say, 70 equally-likely stations. Anyway, it’s no fun being at odds with the OV merely by not taking it ‘on faith’, and I wish the OV would all be explained satisfactorily. It seems we all have to strap in and enjoy the OV-ride into a permanent WoT future.

  • 325.
  • At 05:35 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (304):
> As I have stated the 911 CT premise is a self
> prophesising fabricated cul de sac of an argument

actually, that's a new one for you. a Self Prophesising Fabricated cul de sac, I love it. Wish I could buy a house there.

Vikingar (322):
> Some of us who have served our nation, are very much
> aware of the limits & challenges of such
> organisations & agencies.

Good point. From my own conversations with relatives serving in the police force, they're so understaffed and overstretched, it's frightening.

In response to your list of what kind of people are CTists;

- anti-war (serial variety)

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti 'being lied into a war'. If our government were honest and sincere about the need for a war, and put the facts before the public in a respectful manner, they would most likely have my backing. Instead we're treated as stupid animals, as they whip up fear to irrational levels (45mins until you Saddam nukes you!) until you beg the government to do whatever they want, as long as you're saved. Who cares about the no-bid multi-billion dollar contracts, just save us!

- anti capitalism

Most definitely not - although I am against harmful, extreme forms of capitalism. Not everything should be done for profit, there are other considerations in life, such as protection of the environment. e.g. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12447

and the 'continual growth' mentality of capitalism is silly, imho - as we'll soon find out, regarding oil

- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.

No, not remotely

- pressure/political fringe groups.

don't belong to any such groups

- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety, mainly US)

No, don't practise religion

- Islamic extremists themselves

No

- usual loon brigade.

That can mean anything to anyone

- others

Aha, a category that contains every other single person on the planet

  • 326.
  • At 07:00 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 and/or do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions/accusations which the interviewee touted (for ease of ref listed in #317.

I have faith in the various & different government agencies pitted against our countries enemies (great track history in case you have forgotten - that’s why we remain a democratic & progressive society).

Agencies which at the moment involving countering the biggest threat coming from Islamic Terrorism (domestic & international variety) & Extremism.

I have no faith in the various interested parties looking to feed off this threat & impasse.

Some of us who have served our nation, are very much aware of the limits & challenges of the such organisations & agencies.

But highly realistic as to what they would & would not do in pursuit of such defence (given underlying ethos, attitude, behaviour & culture).

And there are far more many fringe groups out there besides the supporters of Islamic Terrorists, who seek to benefit from the promotion of CT - a corrosive discourse:

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups.
- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety, mainly US)
- Islamic extremists themselves
- usual loon brigade.
- others

For them CT enables - for society it disables - influencing the vulnerable via such fabrications, re-enforcing existing prejudices & insecurities re-enforced e.g. various domestic fringe elements & too many within Britain's Muslims Communities (a point alluded to by others).

For those who disagree with government policy, that does not automatically make them necessary supporters of Islamic Extremism (directly/indirectly) unless the manner of their protest enables the enemy.

But nor does it make those who disagree with government policy automatic signatories to CT (which this dishonest protagonists presume & claim - intentionally blurring the messages & definitions).

For CT protagonists - they presume - you are either with them or not & if you do not support the government, then your one of them - WRONG (again)

CT = Complete Trash :)

vikingar

Vikingar @ 317 & 326

I have to admit I didn't realise that you'd linked to breakfornews, I often don't have the time to read all the links that are posted. Apologies.

As for the groups of people that you claim 'benefit from a corrosive discourse', in my experience groups like Respect will not consider alternatives to the OV. Try listenening to George Galloway on Talk Sport.

IMO, We're all members of the same society, whatever we think or believe, even those of us who would like to see radical change in this society. It's called freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

What I find interesting is how dangerous you think questioning the OV is, whereas I perceive the danger comes from not questioning it.

  • 328.
  • At 09:26 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

For the 3rd time of asking ....

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 [1]

And/or do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions/accusations which the interviewee touted - for ease of ref listed in #317.

They are either your CT words or not

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

  • 329.
  • At 10:14 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (317);
> count the number of mixed & confused causes &
> theories poorly touted in this recording [1]

I have just listened to the interview Bridget did (thanks for the link). She came across as perfectly normal to me - a person asking questions and being open to different ideas to make sense of known information. Her tone was measured and on points she didn't feel qualified to answer, she simply said so, showing humility and honesty, imho.

Perhaps you missed a major point she raised - it's because mainstream media are not tackling these questions and getting to the truth, that citizens feel obliged to try and do it themselves, with almost no resources. The idea you think this is motivated by personal gain at the expense of 'disabling society' I personally find sick. You talk as the defender of democratic society, but speak as if we live in a dictatorship already, and cannot ask questions or seek the truth.

Of course there's confusion, because as individuals, we don't have police powers to investigate, and Bridget has encountered huge obstacles in trying to get information from the proper authorities. With mainstream media in denial, this leaves us in an information vacuum, having to piece together what little information there is available.

  • 330.
  • At 10:34 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (328)
> [Bridget's] litany of CT suspicions/accusations

re: Suspicions - If the authorities release the various CCTV sequences from Luton train station and Kings Cross, it would go a huge way to establishing the truth (I have more good faith that footage is genuine when released by British authorities than I do in videos found in Afghanistan or on internet sites). Considering the OV says the bombers are dead, it wouldn't prejudice their case, and could be used to attract eyewitnesses to step forward, in the same way they show CCTV footage on Crimewatch.

re: Accusations - Bridget talked very carefully of co-incidences when talking of individuals, and seemed to keep to facts (although I'm not 100% sure, as I'm not fact-checking her interview!). I'm sure Peter Power doesn't need you to defend him, and if he sued Bridget for libel, it would at least be an opportunity to have the facts of that training exercise cross-examined in court!

  • 331.
  • At 10:39 PM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (328):
> 'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'
> As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the
> recording provided in #317 [1]

As far as I can tell, Bridget hasn't claimed to find the truth herself, or to have conducted a rigorous investigation herself - she is saying there's a need for rigorous investigation by the authorities (or failing that, the media), and only through such would we arrive at truth - or as near as truth as we can get. By attacking Bridget on these words, you're missing the point she's making, imho.

Vikinar @ 328

Sorry I thought when you posted the link you had already made the connection between me and the radio interview. Yes that was me being interviewed after I received a reply from the Anti-Terrorist squad at New Scotland Yard which basically stone-walled my FOI request. (You can read the exchange on my blog).

Thanks Andrew for your kind assessment of the interview (I'd never done anything like this before!) and also for the reply to vikingar @ 328 which is spot on.

Of course when I say truth and rigorous investigation I mean that if the OV is the truth it will then stand up to rigorous investigation. It has failed miserably already on the Luton train times, it also fails on the sites of all the explosions which are contradicted by the MPS website one-week anniversary recap:

http://cms.met.police.uk/news/major_operational_announcements/terrorist_attacks/one_week_anniversary_bombings_appeal

There appears to be no reasonable explanation for why the MPS information should be in contradiction to the official report, or why the MPS statement is apparantly inaccurate. Perhaps vikingar has an explanation?


  • 333.
  • At 12:52 AM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #319 & #330

I am sure 'Bridget Dunne' appreciates your spirited defence :)

But looking fwd to their denial/acknowledgement of ownership.

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 [1]

And/or do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions/accusations which the interviewee touted - for ease of ref listed in #317.

They are either your CT words or not

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Hey, that was inspiring and helpful, getting to know more about three major posters here. Am I imagining it, or has the quality of debate improved at the same time? (#315-330)

Here, as another kind of self-disclosure, are two people I aspire to be like.

Firstly, George Clooney. Not only to attract the womenfolk! Because of what he said to the UN about Darfur today, and the way he said it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da6800511b8/bb/09012da680051262_16x9_bb.ram

It's not wrong to be concerned about 9-11 truth, or injustices in Israel or anywhere else. But I say Clooney's priorities are right. This is genocide. In our own time. The 'international community' must act. The MSM must help, as the BBC did on its website today. That takes precedence over pretty much everything else.

And here's someone else I want to be like. I hope that you find the story as striking as I did when someone pointed it out to me recently. (This is influenced by the 'Nazi analogy' Bridget raised, and her desire to make a difference. There is more to learn from that desperate time. If we fight for the defenceless in Darfur we show that we have learnt something. But there are things to learn about ourselves too.)


"During the German occupation of France I was in the resistance movement and, coming down into the Ungerground, I was caught by the police. This is one of the most interesting experiences I have had. Leaving aside all the romantic trimmings as to what happened and how it happened, I will put it in more philosophical terms concerning time. What took place at that moment was this: I had a past, I had a future, and I was moving out of one and into the other by walking briskly down the steps. At a certain moment someone put a hand on my shoulder and said 'Stop, give me your papers.' At that moment several things happened. For one thing, I began to think very quickly, feel very intensely, and to be aware of the whole situation with a relief and a colourfulness which I had never before perceived on the last steps of Metro Etoile. The second thing was that I realised that I had no past, because the real past I had was the thing for which I should be shot. So, that past was not there any more. The false past which I was prepared to talk about had never existed, and so I found myself standing there like the lizard who had been caught by the tail and had run away leaving the tail somewhere behind, so that the lizard ended where the tail had been. Then I discovered another thing which was very interesting (though I did not elaborate so much on the philosophy of time at that moment) but what I perceived at once, and what I understood gradually, is that you have a future only to the extent to which you can foresee a minute before it happens, or an inch before you reach it, what will come next - i.e. nothing is coming next because you have no idea of what could come - you are like someone standing in an unknown room in the dark. You stand there and all that's there is darkness pressing on your eyes. There may be nothing ahead of you or infinity ahead of you, it is all the same thing. You end exactly where the darkness begins. So I discovered that living in the past on the one hand and in the future on the other hand was simply not possible. The lizard had no tail, and darkness was on my face. I discovered that I was pressed into the present moment, and all my past, and all my future, that is, all the things that could be, were condensed in the present moment with an intensity, a colourfulness that was extremely exhilarating and which allowed me eventually to get away!"


Now I've read that, I aspire to be like that man. As we together face the deep challenges of the truth that sets free.

Vikingar @ 333 see my reply to you @ 332

Noe perhaps you might answer the question that I asked?

Richard Drake @ 334, I could only think of this quote in response to your post

"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress."

  • 336.
  • At 12:33 PM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Dear Newsnight,

Although it seems Diebold delivered for Bush in Ohio, 2004 [1], we don't have to accept the threat to democracy from electronic voting machines.

You could do a Newsnight report on it - afterall, Princeton should pass muster with you, as a source of reliable information.

"We found that the machine [Diebold AccuVote-TS] is vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces." [2, 3]

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

[2] Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine, 13/09/06 - http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ts-paper.pdf

[3] http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html

PS: Richard, Bridget, Vikingar, et al - sorry for the digression!

  • 337.
  • At 01:01 PM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • Philip wrote:

A short extract from Dr. Steven Greer:

“The 5 trillion dollar industry - energy and transportation - is currently highly centralized, metered and lucrative. It is the stuff that runs the entire industrialized world. It is the mother of all special interests. It is not about money as you and I think of it, but about geo-political power - the very centralized power on which the current order in the world runs. The world is kept in a state of roiling wars, endless poverty for most of Earth's citizens and global environmental ruin, just to prop up this evil world order.

As immense as that game is, there is a bigger one: Control through fear. As Wernher von Braun related to Dr. Carol Rosin, his spokesperson for the last 4 years of his life, a maniacal machine - the military, industrial, intelligence, laboratory complex - would go from Cold War, to Rogue Nations, to Global Terrorism (the stage we find ourselves at today), to the ultimate trump card: A hoaxed threat from space.

So here is the post-9/11 script - one that will be played out unless enough people are informed and the plan can be foiled because they will be unable to fool a sufficient number of citizens and leaders:

After a period of terrorism - a period during which the detonation of nuclear devices will be threatened and possibly actuated, thus justifying expanding the weaponization of space - an effort will ramp up to present the public with information about a threat from outer space”

  • 338.
  • At 04:43 PM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (304):
> And just to highlight one of many equally passionate
> sites out there to counter the corrosive & disingenuous
> 911 CT [4]
[4] http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

Thanks for this link, it was an interesting read. If the information on this site is correct, it shows that the mainstream media need to control this debate, and not leave the field to a 22 year old disrespectful, fame-seeking wanna-be director. Discrediting a young man, or strawman CTs, is not the same as discrediting the genuine questions about 911.

Please watch this superb documentary entreating people to question the official version of the London bombings.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

Moderator:

Where have all the comments gone? I seem to remember the last one being 334.

Thanks moderator they have returned but alas not with this one:

"Ludicrous Diversion

On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

  • 342.
  • At 09:38 PM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #332 & # 340
Ref Andrew #330 & #331

1. ALTERNATIVE MEDIA?

The MSM can only employ so many people & the advances in technology enable most - so the notion of people using media technology to promote a cause is no surprise.

First - CT amateur misinformation exercise - at one end of the spectrum, we have self confessed CT utterances of 'Bridget Dunne' being interviewed on CT website [1]

Second - CT produced misinformation exercise - at the other end of the CT spectrum - we have a more slick CT propaganda video [2] *

* either way, conjecture, spin & theory does not make for credible answers. The mix of message & combination of real events with fantasy & spin is most telling - its been overproduced - its oozes agenda.

1+ people with an agenda & access to s/w does not make for ALTERNATIVE MEDIA (the video in [2] even dismisses the BBC as a credible media sources- ridiculous notion)

A small list of issues raised in [2]:

- litter
- ID cards
- CCTV
- terrorism
- conspiracy
- police state
- kitchen sink (hardly left anything out).

Indeed, the galvanised efforts of this particular strand of CT - demonstrates nothing more than the use of resources & a concerted efforts by the usual suspects, to create corrosive discourse & maximise impact for their own agendas:

It makes by retrospective comparison, the Iraq Dossier - even more credible. - since CT protagonists are asking people to accept this bag of loosely linked superstition & fantasy as an credible alternative?

These CT people have not suddenly just appeared on the scene - they sponsor & highjack causes - serial protesters, the serial conspiracists - THEY HAVE AGENDAS - THEY HAVE A VISION - they are not passive & reactive to events, they are opportunists & in this instance, ride on the back of terrorism to aid their own multiple agendas.

But they can only inhabit the fringe, unable to gain mainstream support - other by seeking to influence & terrorise the 'vulnerable' in our society, open to such manipulation.

This unfortunately includes elements of Britain's Muslims Communities, a faith which at the best of times, does not need any encouragement to feel victimised, unable to take any criticism or conduct reform.

2. WHO ELSE HAS AN AGENDA?

Governments have policy & terrorists have mantra, but so do others …..

The production of [2] is such a concerted effort, its clearly is laid at the door of:

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups
- combo of above *

* although never discount Islamic Extremists masquerading as any of the above … its an Info War after all.

3. SUMMARY

This is not about Conspiracy Theory.

This is about 'radical' propaganda.

The above two instances (AMATEUR & PRODUCED) are testimony to the concerted efforts of people who inhabit the fringes in British Society looking to make parasitical advances on the back of terrorism & the efforts being used to tackle terrorists.

It is as both as inaccurate & it is deliberately corrosive.

Presumably, they think its time to come out into the open on the back of terrorism - either way rather easy to look past the spin - they have a message & they have agenda & are only too willing to act in typically parasitical fashion.

Either way, the notion of the atheist left inhabiting the internet & siding with religious extremism & intolerance - just goes to prove you have not seen it all :)

For those who have been entertain by watching that video '…..why would there be….' - indeed.

Dr Goebbels would have been proud of the radical spirit behind CT latest efforts ref July Bombings - which is readily as dismissed as the other associated CT it claims to support ref 911 - one cancels out the other.

Fortunately for British Society, there are few if any significant takers - except amongst the usual suspects & the vulnerable in our society.

Unfortunately for British Society, those CT protagonist who prefer fantasy to reality, burden society with desperate people looking to make something of themselves out of nothing - but on the back of other peoples suffering & vulnerability.

Wonder who has done more to radicalise the next British Muslim, an aspect of government policy or a piece of CT propaganda primed to make the vulnerable literally explode.

The array of CT links on this blog are evidence of the deliberate production of radical material for 'radical marketing' nothing more - the intent behind which is doing what it is design for - real & actual harm to British Society *

*however limited the damage & peneratrion - they are fringe afterall :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[2] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

  • 343.
  • At 01:10 AM on 16 Sep 2006,
  • CIA wrote:

#341 vikingar

Psst, Psst... It's too late for them vikingar, but you can still save yourself. Get out now, quick..this way...don't look baaaaaaa

  • 344.
  • At 11:59 AM on 16 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Richard, (334): re: "future only to the extent to which you can foresee...living in the past...and...future...not possible...the present moment, and all my past, and all my future...condensed in the present moment with an intensity, a colourfulness that was extremely exhilarating"

Thanks for the very interesting quote. I wonder whether Julian Barbour's ideas about 'time' might interest you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour

Andrew, thanks (343), I'm not a follower of Barbour - rather the opposite - but I am very interested in all the current debates about time, among physicists, philosophers and historians (in their battles about the value or otherwise of counterfactual history). I thought it was really cool to have such a philosophical historical account, shedding such profound light on time as we ought to experience it. All about an incident that, told another way, could easily be a staple of the kind of heroic war films you and I were bound to be riveted by at a younger age.

Unlike some would-be do-gooders, I don't think that our fascination with the Nazi era is an aberration. There is still more to learn from that terrible period. Instinctively we all know that; that's why Bridget raised the Reichstag Fire with me, to try to get us all to think more correctly (as she see it) about the present. The general subject of historical analogies, good and bad, and especially with the Nazi era, has been churning in my mind ever since.

So here's a simple initial question for Bridget first (and anyone else second). In today's papers the Turkish politician Salih Kapusuz said of the Pope:

"He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

Was that a fair thing to say? If not, will it do any damage?

  • 346.
  • At 04:36 PM on 16 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

So basically what vikingar is alluding to, is that there is a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists to mislead the general public for political and ideological gain.

Isn't that a conspiracy theory, and a tad paranoid?

Vikingar @ 341: "The array of CT links on this blog are evidence of the deliberate production of radical material for 'radical marketing' nothing more - the intent behind which is doing what it is design for - real & actual harm to British Society *

*however limited the damage & peneratrion - they are fringe afterall :)"

It would appear to me that the actual harm being done to British Society is being done by the British Government on the basis of an unsupported narrative that 4 young men 'suicide-bombed' the transport system.

'Terrorists' are not harming our way of life, current legislation is.

  • 348.
  • At 05:22 PM on 16 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

James (345); "Isn't that a conspiracy theory, and a tad paranoid?"

CT = Clap Trap
The usual suspects, e.g. various Edinburgh fringe groups, ticket touts, loony brigade, etc., touting self-serve corrosive liquids and prejudices re-enforced by disingenuous pre-fabrications.

A small litany of CT/insecurities;
- Queen is Reptilian alien
- Fake Moon Landings
- Charlemagne never existed
- Proof of Nazi Moon Base in M$ Excel
- kitchen sink, double bowl, in biscuit (serial variety)

CAVEAT - I am not here to answer your question.

CT = Cheryl Tweedy!

  • 349.
  • At 05:33 PM on 16 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Richard (344); "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

I've been in St. Peter's Sq. and listened to Pope Benedict XVI speak to the gathered pilgrims, and it wasn't a Nuremberg Rally. I was impressed by his messages of peace and love, and the inclusive approach of speaking in over ten languages so everyone felt welcome. Maybe he had a nice cup of tea afterwards, though, like Hitler used to.

  • 350.
  • At 05:37 PM on 16 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

[second attempt to post this! apologies if it apppears twice]

Dear Vikingar (341),

You are a wonderful study in the art of repeated smear, not to mention a glimpse into the psychology of how the dominant paradigm can be maintained by outcasting information that contradicts it.

I’m sure we all agree, that with billions of people on Earth, there are going to be people in almost every category you can think of; who but a fool would deny there are pacifists (yes, there is a word for ‘anti-war’!), anti-capitalists, radical, extreme political types, whatever. Furthermore, let’s agree there are some pathological cases who seek to attack our society, to weaken or destroy it. I welcome you to rip into such people, Vikingar. Give ‘em the best you’ve got. Attack, too, those making a hash-job of CT; they are doing nobody any favours.

However, you must recognise there are ordinary citizens, whose belief in democracy and the rule of law leads them to challenge suspected big lies, and the suspected big crimes they cover. Truth stands up to scrutiny. The innocent have nothing to fear from rigorous investigation.

For example, if the U.S. government ‘merely’ engaged in opportunism after 911 by picking up ‘theoretically formulated’ war plans for Afghanistan, as your worldview suggests (#300), that’s alright by me; as you say, you’d expect a government to make the most of it. But how do we fit this 'innocent-opportunism theory' with the following information;

“Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, which were allegedly masterminded by the Saudi-born fundamentalist, a Guardian investigation has established” [1]

“Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” [2]

And so it came to pass, on schedule [3]

Are you saying, to broaden your definition of ‘theoretically formulated’, that senior government officials routinely threaten representatives of other countries with near-term military strikes, as part of war-planning?

You wrote, ‘more than happy to discuss notions of 'Reasonable Uncertainty' regarding 911.’ (300).

Well, let me take you up on it; Do you agree it is reasonable to regard the US' July 2001 warning of military action against the Taliban by ‘the middle of October at the latest’ as, at the very least, a very strange co-incidence? It is the establishing of a large number of very strange ‘co-incidences’ that eventually led me (and many other people by the looks of it) to try and explain them – such as contemplating the idea that global events are often (not always) part of a well-planned global strategy the public can hardly catch a glimpse of (ie. a hidden agenda, from our perspective).

Lastly, your argument that 'The MSM [mainstream media] can only employ so many people' is a ridiculous excuse as to why certain hard questions ("CT") are not being investigated seriously by them. Home make-over, soap operas and ‘reality’ TV genres don’t seem to suffer from resource problems! But then, if they keep the Gamma, Delta and Epsilon classes happy, and society stable, who am I to argue, although I would very much like to chat with the Controllers!


SOURCES:

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1556588.stm

A day coming up that should I think act as an antidote to some extreme forms of CT thinking.

From http://www.wagingpeace.info/?q=taxonomy/term/12

'September 17th PRAY-IN. September 17th will be the international day of action for Darfur. Waging Peace is joining groups around the world in marking the first anniversary since the UN adopted the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine. We are organising a multi-faith gathering, an Active Faith, at the gates of Downing Street to pray for the people of Darfur. Those not affiliated with a religious group are also welcome to join us and to share a moment's silence in honour of the victims in Darfur.

In 2001 our prime minister Tony Blair said we had a duty to act to stop another Rwanda. We know Blair is guided by his faith: it is our duty to remind him of his moral obligation not to let another Rwanda happen. If you are able to join our Active Faith on September 17th please contact Christa.Bennett@WagingPeace.info '


They say 'We know Blair is guided by his faith.' Do we? How does that fit with Blair as arch-conspirator? But aha, today's Independent does indeed suggest that he has been doing more semi-secret deals behind the scenes:

'Tony Blair has launched a behind-the-scenes initiative to bring maximum international pressure to bear upon Sudan to lift its ban on a 20,000-strong UN peacekeeping force being sent into Darfur. The government of Sudan has shown steady intransigence in the face of last week's UN Security Council resolution authorising a peacekeeping mission to the far west of Sudan. It has condemned the proposal as "neo-colonialism" and an infringement of its sovereignty. Sudan's President, Omar al-Bashir, has vowed to fight off UN troops himself, and warned that Sudan would take on international soldiers "as Hizbollah beat Israeli forces". It has also said that al-Qa'ida insurgents would enter Sudan to fight the UN.'


So there we have it. Just another fake false flag op with Al-Qa'ida, do we think? Who was it that was involving or invoking them in this case? As the ultimate threat, in order to keep out the international troops that may prevent between 2 and 10 million black Africans, many of them fellow Muslims, from being slaughtered without mercy in the coming months.

And what about the UN's key addition to international law, "Responsibility to Protect", agreed a year ago tomorrow: that preventing mass murder takes precedence over the old rights of sovereign states? Is that also to be submerged, ignored under the blanket cynicism of certain kinds of anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-UN CT?

Does uniting to stop the following kind of thing matter?

'Jamila Bochra Mohammed, RAPE VICTIM: "When the Janjaweed attacked our village, they came shooting and burning from all directions. I tried to run away, but they told me to stop or they would kill me. I was raped by five armed men. I saw other women raped and many people killed, including my mother and my mother-in-law. They were thrown into a fire while they were still alive, right in front of me. I was later attacked again by the Janjaweed, in a refugee camp in Chad. This time I was shot in the leg. Today, I am a failed asylum-seeker in the UK."'

From http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article1603856.ece


Lastly, let's return to what makes a decent historical analogy. Compared to calling the Pope a new Hitler because he uses some obscure words to object to violence and religion being mixed, including in the life and teaching of the main prophet of Islam, how does this sound?

'Susan Pollack, SURVIVOR, THE HOLOCAUST IN EUROPE: "I was 13 years old when German troops came to my village of Felsogod in Hungary and took my father. I never saw him again. Then they came for me and my family and sent us to Auschwitz. My mother was gassed to death as soon as we arrived. I survived Auschwitz, slave labour, selection at the hands of Doctor Josef Mengele and a death march to Belsen before I was 15. I can still see the mountains of corpses at Auschwitz. After the Holocaust, the world said "never again". Today they are still saying it, but when genocides like Darfur go on unchecked, I'm beginning to wonder if they mean it."'

From http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article1603857.ece


Don't get me wrong, matters like 9-11 Truth also matter. But please, this Sunday, let's consciously and vocally support the good that there still is in our systems of governance. And remember our leaders who have such a grave responsibility at this precise moment to protect the lives of millions.

  • 352.
  • At 06:36 PM on 17 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Hi Bridget,

I've been reading up on 7/7, and have a couple of points to raise, which you might be able to help me with;

1) Although the official account cited the 7:40 Luton>London train, then the 7:48 train (which you've ascertained, quite rightly imho, the 4 suspects couldn't have taken), what's wrong with the theory they entered the station at c.7:21:54, then legged it to Platform 3 to catch the 7:25 (the 7:24 leaving 1 minute late)? I've often arrived at train stations with 3 minutes to spare, and managed to hop on a train at the last second.

2) If Mohammed Sidique Khan did sympathise with the 911 terrorist attacks, and talked of Jihad, etc. (ref: the testimony of Martin Gilbertson and Martin Abdullah McDaid - http://szamko.gnn.tv/blogs/16257/7_7_Update_the_story_of_Martin_Gilbertson ) it certainly puts a big black mark against Khan's character, imho, and makes him a credible terrorist suspect. Do you have any thoughts on this? I'm extremely open to CT (as you know by now), but as a truth-seeker I'm open to all information, including that which supports the OV. If this character testimony about Khan is correct, and he verbally supported terrorism and Jihad against the West, then it greatly narrows down the CT options, imho (and also lends credibility to the authenticity of his anti-Western government video message). I'd then find the 'innocent patsy' scenario much less credible, as I couldn't imagine him wanting to help the authorities improve security by doing a 'dummy run'. Even if he was a Jihadist, I don't think CT would be ruled out; as a credible potential terrorist, I suppose he could still have been setup to take the blame. btw: I read somewhere about maybe all the tube bombs going off at exactly 8:50:00, as that was the time the telephone system went down, or something - but I can't find where i read it. If you have any links to read up on this, I'd appreciate them.

  • 353.
  • At 10:54 PM on 17 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #349

"... However, you must recognise there are ordinary citizens, whose belief in democracy and the rule of law leads them to challenge suspected big lies, and the suspected big crimes they cover. Truth stands up to scrutiny. The innocent have nothing to fear from rigorous investigation .... "

Well who is 'ordinary'?

I say judge the 'ordinary' methods they employ to object to something, then judge how 'ordinary' are they.

If they engage 'radical' methods to object to something, then its fair to judge them as that.

If their argument is 'radical' than more than reasonable to assume 'radical' agenda behind such.

Who says & what make something a lie? surely the minds eye of the assayer has something to do with it? (esp when agendas play their part).

On this blog there are various CT protagonists with different sincerity levels & therefore presumably different standards of what they require for something to become CT.

As we enter the 21st Century, agenda driven individuals/groups class everything as CT, nothing just 'happen' anymore, no one is allowed to make mistakes, fallibility has ended.

For such CT believers, when the radio fails to tune, the morning paper are not delivered & the loo won't flush - is it CT or just one of those things.

CT Reality Check - the establishment is not infallible (it err's it make mistakes) esp the political branches -no matter the 'virtual book repository' argument the CT protagonists are conjuring up for their corrosive discourse.

That does not make for truth & justice - that makes for agenda ridden dishonesty.

CT believers have more faith in the 'powers that be' to deliver - than the rest of us combined :)

Neither is the government beholden at the beckon call of a handful of CT protagonists & their imaginative fantasy's to launch national investigations into ongoing & inter-related threats/cases.

CT = Complete Trash (hashed or otherwise)

btw - Sunday 17.09.06 indulgent two part episode of BBC1 'spooks' must have our domestic CT crowd wetting themselves with joy ( …pppssttt remember its fiction, when you turn off the telly, its back to reality)

vikingar

  • 354.
  • At 08:32 AM on 18 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

[please skip this 'Vikingar critique' if you have found previous ones endless and boring]

Vikingar (352),

Again you fail to answer direct questions (ref: 349) raised in response to your ideas, even though they're backed up by mainstream sources and designed to meet your criteria of 'reasonable uncertainty'. There's no dialogue with you, even when it's attempted on your own terms. Instead you pick up on a word, in this case 'ordinary', and use it as a starting point for your usual tirade.

As a courtesy to you, even though you do not extend it to others, I'll answer your question (although I suspect you ask it rhetorically, considering your taste for monologue); 'Well who is 'ordinary'?'

By 'ordinary citizen' I mean someone who doesn't conform to the extreme, fringe stereotypes you rail against in your posts. e.g. a citizen who is integrated with mainstream society, pays taxes, is loved by, and loving of, friends and family, well-liked by colleagues, responsible for others (e.g. parents), an upstanding member of society (a phrase used by the Passport office), law-abiding, you know 'the usual suspects'. If you cannot distinguish between an ordinary citizen and an extremist, it is you who is on the fringes of society, casting aspersions upon the great British public. In fact, this corrosive idea is propagating throughout society as we speak; 'terrorist until proven guilty'.

When you make the act of asking questions equivalent to 'disabling society', as you do, you are advocating oppressive dictatorship by disingenuous argument, whilst wearing the colours of someone who supports 'democratic societies (warts n all)' (320).

As the terrorists are attacking our freedom, you have to wonder what your agenda is in attacking our freedom to debate, ask questions and hold opinions. 'You have to wonder how many extremists (esp Islamic variety) adopt different guises' (296), to fight their corrosive, covert propaganda war.

@ Andrew 351

I suggest you check out the July 7th website which has a lot of the information you are asking for:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/index.html

The MSK page is in the process of being rewritten/updated but Mind the Gaps has a lot of information

As for Martin Gilberttson, early stories about Iqra state that the computer systems were being encrypted at the request of Martin Abdullah McDaid the ex-SBS anti-terrorist operative who ran the bookshop (it was never 'run' by any of the 4 accused).

You may also be interested in Peter Power's reply on the Newsnight blog (note not on this thread!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/08/which_side_are_you_on.html#c142643

Richard Drake @ 344 I will respond about the Hitler Youth Pope Benedict, I was just waiting to see if there were any outbreaks of "Muslim violence against Catholic' stories emerging, which may well have been the purpose of inserting it in his speech.

I btw had a pile of maggot infested raw sewage dumped in my back garden yesterday by person(s) unknown, which is very strange.

I'm just going to take some photos of it although I doubt if the police will be too interested.

  • 356.
  • At 12:03 PM on 18 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andre #353

hhmmm .....

I read what you are typing but have great difficulty in relating that to the sincerity of the arguments/case you put forward.

As stated in my #353, its rather simple to judge posters by the tone & methods of the arguments they employ to support their position.

Anyone embracing the absolute desperate CT waffle of 911 CT & July Bombings CT is a case in point - as Bridget Dunne #354 sentiments of support ably demonstrate.

.... clutching at straws is an understatement ! more like invent a bale :)

Reasonable Uncertainty (RU) about any event is rather different than Conspiracy Theory (CT).

But the loaded & biased arguments of CT protagonists (bringing so much baggage they need a trolley) undermine their claim for 'legitimate investigation'.

Motivation + Means + Method = 3M

The corrosive 3M of CT informs more about the agendas of the 'believers' than anything 'new' about the actual terrorist atrocities themselves.

vikingar

  • 357.
  • At 12:54 PM on 18 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Thanks Bridget (354) for the links and the info on the McDaid/SBS connection. I’m very sorry to hear you've been the victim of such a disgusting act (the sewage dumped in your garden), and I pray it has nothing whatsoever to do with your publicising of the anomalies around 7/7.

I'm not sure I want to think too much about the shadowy connections between elements of the government, military and intelligence services, and terrorists (which crop up a lot with 911, especially in Florida). Are they all need-to-know strangers upon the 'Hegelian (Fichtean) dialectic' stage, with Powers only at the 'synthesis' end, offering up solutions? How are we ever going to know, because such an hypothesis means the killing-people would kill you before you could bring the mechanism to public notice (not that that would do any good anyway, considering the self-involved, drugged-up hedonistic stupidity of the 'Big Brother TV' generation, and the fact no-one in authority would believe you anyway). All it takes is a D Notice to shut up the media, so we don't really have a chance do we.

I think we’re caught up in Great Games, which is why we have to speculate, and be attacked unfairly for doing so; if enemies are being deliberately created for mass consumption (e.g. Muslims as the new ‘Red Menace’), I wonder why; is it ultimately a resource war, securing Western interests in the face of rising Chinese influence? Richard (350) talks of Blair’s humanitarian efforts for the people of Darfur, but we must remember that energy-starved China is having to do oil deals with countries like Sudan and Iran, buying 50 percent of Sudan's oil exports in 2005 [1]. Chances are, the weapons used for genocide will be Made in China [2]. Are their intentions for a UN presence in Sudan purely humanitarian? Or are they positioning the pieces for maximum advantage before Peak Oil hits? [3] If so, why don't they just tell us? I'm very attached to my hot shower, dishwasher and car, and they'd have my full support!!

Maybe it’s also about having the need for a malleable, easily controlled population in the face of some pending environnmental collapse. Unlike some conspiracy theorists, I think it's likely leaders are motivated by good intentions, but I also note the road to hell is paved with them; means and ends, and all that.

Thanks Bridget also for the link to Power's post; very interesting. Power states: ‘I think anyone familiar with likely terrorist targets will release [sic] our exercise scenario was coincidence rather than conspiracy’ – a statement which ignores the very low mathematical probability of choosing the exact same stations by chance, even if we make the assumption that terrorists live in the provinces, and enter the tube network only via mainline train stations! How can he be sure his company and/or client wasn’t compromised by a very small but ultra-sophisticated group who used it as cover to pull off the attacks?

Otherwise, I find myself agreeing with Power’s assessment (despite his corporate security-speak), and his conclusion about ‘ineffective world leaders’, and a need for a ‘pan global collective body of influential advisors, practitioners and academics’. Undoubtedly, major problems are now pan global, such as the threat of a sixth mass extinction of species [4] and WMD terrorism. But with creative, visionary leadership, there must be a way into the future that doesn’t have to involve resource wars and the end of individual freedom and democracy.

Power talks of the ‘global / corporate radar screen’, but any ‘global radar screen’ should not be based solely on corporate needs, as there is strong evidence the corporation, as currently constructed, is equivalent to a psychopathic personality [5] (without ignoring the good some of them have done, like making this computer I’m typing on!). Power calls for ‘a new approach’ – that approach should, imho, finance a multi-billion pound emergency global project to create a clean, alternative energy technology infrastructure and molecular manufacturing systems (for smart production, no longer relying on cheap foreign labour) to guarantee a peaceful, free tomorrow – not the current spiralling down into spin-and-lie hidden-agenda 'leadership', a police state and the dark future it entails.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

[2] http://www.globalsolutions.org/press_room/news/nytimes_rasul.htm

[3] Greg Palast’s argues oil shortage is artificial, for profit motives, but overall more and more qualified people are supporting the Peak Oil paradigm – e.g. http://www.peakoil.net/

[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

[5] http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=47

Richard Drake @ 350

Darfur?

For another perspective:

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/save_darfur_peace_activists_are_dupes_for_usled_colonial_dom.htm

"There’s one topic that all the forces claiming concern for the people of Sudan never mention: the role of imperialism in keeping Sudan poor and underdeveloped.

Sudan has vast resources and mineral wealth. Washington’s policy toward Sudan has revolved around inflaming national and regional antagonisms in both the south and the west so U.S. corporations could take control of developing the rich oil, gold, uranium and copper deposits that could make Sudan prosperous."

Not everything is as it seems.

Richard Drake @ 350

Darfur?

For another perspective:

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/save_darfur_peace_activists_are_dupes_for_usled_colonial_dom.htm

"There’s one topic that all the forces claiming concern for the people of Sudan never mention: the role of imperialism in keeping Sudan poor and underdeveloped.

Sudan has vast resources and mineral wealth. Washington’s policy toward Sudan has revolved around inflaming national and regional antagonisms in both the south and the west so U.S. corporations could take control of developing the rich oil, gold, uranium and copper deposits that could make Sudan prosperous."

Not everything is as it seems.

  • 360.
  • At 10:05 PM on 18 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (355),
> I read what you are typing but have great difficulty in
> relating that to the sincerity of the arguments/case
> you put forward.

That's just side-stepping the question. Sincerity or no, do you agree it is reasonable to regard the US' July 2001 warning of military action against the Taliban by ‘the middle of October at the latest’ as, at the very least, a very strange co-incidence? (ref: 349)

If we can at least establish that as common ground, we might be able to move forward with the debate.

> .... clutching at straws is an understatement ! more like
> invent a bale :)

love the bale-ful analogy

  • 361.
  • At 01:21 AM on 19 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #358

Sudan? yet another cause, another agenda against your favourite bogeymen?

How about supporting UN & international efforts to save real lives or are your 'values' & your CT propaganda gain more valuable to you than real people [1]

btw - does any of your CT inspired fantasy links #358 not end up linking back to the fringe sites? in this case a member of the radical left (see below)

"Edstrong - This is the blog to visit for radical left, contentious opinion. There\\\'s nothing mainstream about this medium! It includes: Bush & The Neocons, Capitalist Ideology, Consumer Culture, Islam Challenges The West, Western Imperialism, Class Race & We " [2]

A fine demonstration of CT as an enabling tool for the radical fringe - thank you

Funny how everyone linked to July CT (happily quoting your spin btw [3a]) alleges affiliation to 'peace' & a host of other fringe agendas …. [3b]

( …pppsssttt … sure your not misinformation for a government department - your not doing CT campaign any good are you)


... and they wonder why the MSM ignore them :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.unsudanig.org/
[2] http://www.blogtoplist.com/politics/blogdetails-836.html
[3a] http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/CCTV.html
[3b] http://www.declarepeace.org.uk

  • 362.
  • At 01:52 AM on 19 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #359

Ref your #349 link - "The Taliban refused to comply but the serious nature of what they were told raises the possibility that Bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue 10 days ago, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats" [1]

Very talented OBL to have turned around a terrorist mission in a couple of weeks?

Widely acknowledge the US cocked-up its foreign policy prior to 911 - their gloves were most definitely on (if they had not been, after Iraq War I, the US would have rolled on into Baghdad).

The only common ground for me is:

- 911 was caused by Islamic Terrorism

- July Bombings caused by Islamic Terrorism

- various alleged Islamic Terrorism trials/investigations under way in UK

- Islamic Sectarian Fracticide in ME & Asia caused by Islamic Fundamentalism

- numerous cases of terrorist atrocities around the world against certain targets, part of the Islamic Terror Franchise

- CT protagonists out to cause societal disorder & targeting the vunerable - for their other agenda

...... common ground for that YES

…… common ground for opportunistic corrosive CT dialogues - NO

vikingar


SOURCES:

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html

Bridget (358), I feel such a dupe. When on Sunday at my local church I publicly pointed to hearthrob left-liberal George Clooney's passionate presentation to the UN earlier in the week, after he had visited Darfur with his father and they had seen with their own eyes all that was going on, and when I led a deeply agreeing congregation of many different ethnic backgrounds, praying Desmond Tutu's fervent prayer for survival of those under threat in Darfur, I thought, we all thought, that it was totally to do with a united and very urgent attempt to save the lives of black African Muslims, acknowledged as our dear fellow human beings, the very same type that I saw (with no sign, quel surpris, of any Arab faces) on TV that evening, with their blue UN peacekeeper berets worn as symbol of hope in the demonstration at the Sudanese embassy.

But no, I now realise, I was a tool. Just like Clooney and Tutu, well-known puppets of the right, the neocons, the zionists, the fundamentalists, the oil and mineral executives. Poor fools, they had let their deep compassion and desire for the world to avoid the first genocide of the 21st century play right into the hand of ....

Oh, as Paxman would say, get a grip.

And now, hold on, little flower, so easily offended one. I am about to suggest a horrific analogy that I think might well apply to you and those whose webpages you evidently read with approval. And the great thing is this. You can easily make it clear that the analogy doesn't apply to you at all, by simple words of love and concern for those, including women and children, in mortal peril at this very moment in Darfur.

I realised with a start as I read your post and what it pointed to that there were always two kinds of holocaust denier, those that have denied that the holocaust ever happened, after the event, and those that denied that it was about to happen or even that it had begun to happen, in the period 1939-45.

Of the two kinds, though both are utterly repugnant, with the benefit of any true humanity (and with the benefit of easy hindsight compared to the confusions of WWII), the earlier was easily the most damaging. Very sadly the original documents show that there was such denial in the UK Foreign Office and in the US State Department. Such official scepticism went a long way to prevent a proper public campaign and any extended military options to stop that awful slaughter taking place (hard though that would have been to achieve, as Martin Gilbert has honestly documented).

The fact that, in those days, in opposing Hitler and seeking to expose and document his atrocities we would find ourselves 'on the same side', to a degree and for a short while, as the vicious mass-murderer Josef Stalin, with all his evil designs for the world, would have nothing whatever to do with the moral imperative to speak out for those defenceless who had no other voice.

And today it is so much easier to speak out.

It is despicable for the presence of ideological enemies in the camp - and your hatred of them - to prevent you from joining in this vital campaign. (And the political options are extremely difficult, in any case. But that means that it is all the more important to put as much moral pressure as possible on those clearly set to commit mass murder.)

A recent independent study showed that of violent deaths in Darfur, 97% were of the black Africans. There is a 'conflict', yes, but it is like the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, before they had any weapons with which to defend themselves, the Tutsis against the Hutus, the 'intellectuals' against Pol Pot, the Jews against the Germans. To slyly imply moral and practical equivalence is itself shockingly morally corrupt, indeed a deeply corrupting speech act.

Talking of which, I was struck at Speaker's Corner this Sunday that an Arab Muslim openly said to a black person who spoke out in disagreement, to someone who was quite possibly his fellow UK subject, 'You should be our slave.' That was even before I had raised the deeply shameful events in Sudan.

You cited George Orwell earlier in this long debate. How on earth can you not see clearly and cry out for the poor of the earth when you claim inspiration from such a great, clear-sighted, non-partisan humanitarian of the 30s and 40s?

I am ... I was really deeply shocked by this response Bridget. I would genuinely be extremely grateful for clarification that you do of course support any campaign to save the defenceless poor of Darfur, preferably from the broadest spectrum of beliefs in the West and East, to confirm that there is within you a deep fellow-feeling for the natives of West Sudan in their plight, however sceptical you may remain about the motives of some who are highlighting this issue.

Vikingar @ 360

It is not yet a crime to hold radically different views and believe that the causes of humanities suffering poverty destitution and oppression is caused by Corporate Capitalism and Imperialst motives.

What do you think causes it? Islamic Fundemantalism?

As for Richard @ 362

I am not a supporter of Stalin, in fact it was Stalin's murder and suppression of the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union and his characterisation of them as 'social fascists worse the Hitler' that led to the disarming of the workers movement against the Nazis.

As for the charge of denying the Holocaust that is really beneath you Richard. It could never have happened without Stalin, and it required the murder of Communists and Trade Unionists to be achieveable. Think about it.

It seems to me that any incorrect analysis of the causes of events leads us to the wrong solutions.

I obviously hold very different views to both of you, but the difference is I do not jump to judgement in the way that you both do.

As for my love for the poor the wretched the oppressed and the wrongly blamed, that I have no doubt of. I identify different causes and support radical solutions, which is still thankfully legal. Although who knows for how much longer.

Bridget, to be clear, I wasn't saying that you were like Stalin, even by analogy; I was saying that if you ignored the current crisis in Darfur and persuaded others to do so you were like those in the West, including in the British Foreign Office, who refused to believe that the Holocaust was happening in 1942 and 1943, even when there was substantial evidence that it was. It was this kind of 1940s holocaust-denial, not the current kind, that I was referring to. And my main and urgent point stands. Holocaust denial today, though deeply hurtful to survivors or descendents of the victims, kills nobody. Holocaust denial in the 40s actually enabled the mass murder to take place unhindered. That kind of denial is what the West indulged in, largely, as Cambodia and Rwanda descended into slaughter. Those were both in my lifetime, indeed I recall 1976 particularly vividly as I knew somehow from a one sentence news report in Auckland, New Zealand, that something terrible was going on under the newly conquering Khymer Rouge. But that feeling was something I put down to 'God'; and indeed I did pray fervently for Cambodia at that time. Most people in the West had no idea until the awful 'killing fields' were revealed later.

Today, with the warnings of those on the ground, who have no ideological axe to grind, and the imminent departure of the African Union forces from Darfur at the end of the month, we have ample warning. 200-300,000 already killed may easily extend to 2 million or even far more, if the AU and UN do nothing. Every voice counts. That's why I am asking you to make explicit your support for international action to save the defenceless.

  • 366.
  • At 07:11 PM on 19 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #363

" .... It is not yet a crime to hold radically different views and believe that the causes of humanities suffering poverty destitution and oppression is caused by Corporate Capitalism and Imperialst motives"

".... I identify different causes and support radical solutions, which is still thankfully legal. Although who knows for how much longer"

But it is a crime against moral decency if not the law to incite & influence vulnerable members of society with corrosive CT mantra, which you & others have intentionally conjured up for your own benefit, in support of your own multi agendas (ably laid out in this blog).

Domestic misuse of freedom & expression for such radicalising purposes is regretable in peacetime & an offence esp in wartime (defacto 5th Column for own purposes).

I wonder how much fakery (from early Daily Mirror picture examples) too actual deliberate CT is responsible for radicalising the vulnerable in Britain Muslims Communities - just as the CT protagonists & Islamic Extremists wanted.

vikingar

  • 367.
  • At 09:48 PM on 19 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar,

re: (361)
> Very talented OBL to have turned around a terrorist
> mission in a couple of weeks?

Amazing. More amazing still how he timed his 'pre-emptive strike' [1] during precisely those hours when US fighters were taking part in Northern Vigilance, leaving NYC and DC less defended, miles behind them - and when confusing radar injects from the wargames [2] gave the real hijacked planes (well, three of them anyway!) the cover needed to reach their targets without being intercepted by those fighters still left within range. You won't find that in the 911 Commission Report.

re: (365),
> But it is a crime against moral decency if not the
> law to incite & influence vulnerable members of
> society with corrosive CT mantra

You're right, we need to go easier on Newsnight viewers.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html

[2] 'Crossing the Rubicon', Michael C. Ruppert, pps.335-347 - regarding the Northern Vigilance, Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Warrior wargames

  • 368.
  • At 09:16 AM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Nemos wrote:

Ref: vikingar #361.

"Very talented OBL to have turned around a terrorist mission in a couple of weeks?"

I work for the military, at a base in Kent, I heard chatter about an invasion of Afghanistan many months before September 11th and I am just a civilian technician. OBL would have had months to prep.

Now the chatter is all on Iran, I think a war is unavoidable now, US personnel have been told to ready for deployment.

  • 369.
  • At 11:34 AM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Ref: vikingar 365

"But it is a crime against moral decency if not the law to incite & influence vulnerable members of society with corrosive CT mantra, which you & others have intentionally conjured up for your own benefit, in support of your own multi agendas (ably laid out in this blog)."

So yet again, you are implying that there is a conspiracy among 'radicals' to spread deceit for the furthering of personal asperations, yet you think it ludicrous to believe there might be a conspiracy of deceit among power elites to further their own agendas. You are funny.

"Domestic misuse of freedom & expression for such radicalising purposes is regretable in peacetime & an offence esp in wartime (defacto 5th Column for own purposes)."

Do you think it is time to criminalise CTs?

"I wonder how much fakery (from early Daily Mirror picture examples) too actual deliberate CT is responsible for radicalising the vulnerable in Britain Muslims Communities - just as the CT protagonists & Islamic Extremists wanted."

Are you suggestinga conspiracy between CT protaganists and Islamic Extremists, or merely damning CTists on the with te, 'You're either with us or against us' mantra?

Could you also explain why a young Muslim falling for what you perceive as deceit; the idea that Islamic terrorism may not be the problem it is made out to be; would then go out and be an Islamic terrorist? Why would one, outraged at such accusations made against his kine, then set out to give what he perceived as wrongful accusations, basis in fact by becoming the very thing he believed to be fiction, created by those with an agenda against his kind? What an utterly ludicrous suggestion, though one popular with the US and UK governments. Why if CTs are so baseless and valueless would governemts feel such need to attack them and define them a tool of the enemy?

Will you bother addressing any of this?

Richard @ 364 Could the Holocaust have happened without the Reichstag fire event?

How do we end all genocide? Including the one against the Palestinians, slower but surely. Iraq has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, some of it paid for with our taxes, and if Iran is next, what cost in human suffering?

Vikingar @ 365 Radicalising the vulnerable with CT's? CT's not required, just watch the news. It is people of conscience and intelligence that are radicalised, whatever their faith.

Andrew, as always, spot on and great links.

Nemos @ 367 and everyone else, the war in Iran has begun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4nqrNbjfhw

  • 371.
  • At 12:40 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #366

Just to be obsolutely clear .....

- 911 was caused by Islamic Terrorism

- July Bombings caused by Islamic Terrorism

- various alleged Islamic Terrorism trials/investigations under way in UK

- Islamic Sectarian Fracticide in ME & Asia caused by Islamic Fundamentalism

- numerous cases of terrorist atrocities around the world against certain targets, part of the Islamic Terror Franchise

- CT protagonists out to cause societal disorder & targeting the vunerable - for their other agenda

vikingar

  • 372.
  • At 01:06 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Nemos #367

Yep, the whole world knows Islamic Extremism in its terrorist manifestations is responsible - see #361

Unlike Iraq, the international community has had ever opportunity to act, esp given it knows what could happen if the UN fails.

If/when the UN fails, it will be a green light to those who Iran has directly threatened to 'wipe out' i.e. Israel.

Given the scale of the threat & infrastructure & stated aims - Iran 2006 is no Iraq 2001, the case is far much simpler.

Yep, most likely 'Iran' will be next by Israeli action and/or Allied Combo.

The clock is ticking ……...

Q. can UN or Iranian opposition politicians prevent need for such action?

vikingar

  • 373.
  • At 01:10 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Ref: vikingar 370

"CT protagonists out to cause societal disorder & targeting the vunerable - for their other agenda"

Do they have secret shadowy societies where they meet behind closed doors, virtual or otherwise, to discuss their next tactic in their war of deceit?

  • 374.
  • At 03:50 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref James #372

"Do they have secret shadowy societies where they meet behind closed doors, virtual or otherwise, to discuss their next tactic in their war of deceit?"

Presumably many do, as they clearly use the current wave of corrosive CT arguments to bolster their existing multi agendas - alongside the efforts of individuals.

These agendas existed prior to current conflicts & the litany of radical efforts are historical evidence.

Esp the radical left variety - since the 1960's - those street/march posters have never printed themselves :)

... same font, same stylising, same messages ... hhmmmm

Even the Islamic extremists & ex-luddites (whilst denouncing methods & technologies of the west) have caught on to the value of coordinated propaganda/marketing efforts (so they have been westernised to a degree after all) - HAY HO

vikingar

vikingar @ 373

You appear to be very knowledgeable about the so-called 'left-wing' agenda and where it fits in the current climate.

Any thoughts on the right-wing agenda?
I'm talking neo-cons, PNAC, that kind of thing.

As for left-wing agendas, if you have the time, perhaps you could watch this and let me know which bits you disagree with and why:

Michael Parenti: Race, Gender and Class Stuggle:
(ignore the opening music if you can)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4902958711956434701&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en-GB

Do you think that Parenti is addressing the 'vulnerable'?

  • 376.
  • At 08:34 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget #369

"….How do we end all genocide? Including the one against the Palestinians, slower but surely"

Palestinian establishment & parents could stop radicalising & brain washing their own children - abuse is abuse [1a] [1b] [1c]

Then stop making a hash of decision making, for ever snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

btw - 'Bridget' a new Bridget or Bridget Dunne?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html
[1b] http://www.petitiononline.com/pakidkil/petition.html
[1c] http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/Children.htm

  • 377.
  • At 08:48 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Bridget (135),
> have a listen here [to the Popular Mechanics
> research editor] and then consider the credibility
> of this publication:
> http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

Finally got round to listening to it. Astonishing, thanks for the link.

Vikingar (304),
> Q.3 which of the following is produced by competent
> professionals with resources & remit?
> - loose change - Dylan Avery 22 yr old Director from
> Oneonta [3a] - Popular Mechanics - US science/
> technology mag 1st published 1902

The answer is clearly NEITHER, if listening to the Popular Mechanics Research Editor is anything to go by. Have you actually listened to the Research Editor defend his 'research'? The guy's a complete joke! When asked how he verified the 'hijackers alive' story as false, he becomes totally flummoxed (unlike the Der Speigel article - see 302), and then talks about the DNA remains of the hijackers collected 'all over the place'. I had to laugh when it provoked the response, 'are you mad?' from the caller, but the host is much kinder, suspends his disbelief for the sake of argument (more than Vikingar has ever done!) and asks him about the whereabouts of the autopsy reports, or where they got the original DNA from, for the purposes of matching. The Research Editor laughs nervously, and admits he doesn't know. So there he is, asserting truth and certainty, without being able to defend it for a second. And you go on and on about S.E. Jones' lack of credibility! Pot and Kettle.

  • 378.
  • At 09:01 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Ref: vikingar 373.

Do you realise how utterly ludicrous it looks to attack CTists for believing that there might be shadowy right-wing conspiracies while simultaneously accusing them of being part of a shadowy left-wing conspiracy?

  • 379.
  • At 11:49 PM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

A little off-topic perhaps, but I've just caught, whilst channel flicking, Abu Izzadeen on ITV news (they used a youtube video, the times they are a'changin'!), and then switched to Newsnight for the debate between Jeremy Paxman, Haras Rafiq and Anjem Choundary.

Yes, I’m truth-seeking, yes I’m willing to consider all possibilities and weigh up probabilities (a worldview partly inspired by the philosophy of science, al a quantum mechanics), but I have to say Abu Izzadeen and Anjem Choudary came across to me as madmen. To hear Izzadeen talk about ‘retaliation on the community’ was simply astonishing, not to mention the tasteless 911 jokes. When told he’d made a ‘threat’, he responded, ‘no, it’s a warning’. A warning? Who is this twerp? Put the guy in the Tower of London!

Whilst not totally discounting the idea he’s a government plant to prove their point, his words and attitude are abhorrent. Is this guy for real? If so, how big is the problem? When Vikingar talks of Islamic Extremism, I tend to think of Islamic Fundamentalists as relatively powerless (in terms of global geopolitics) and often as Western intelligence assets – afterall, the US (e.g. CIA) built up Pakistan’s ISI, and through them the Mujahideen and bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

However, when I heard these Muslim guys banging on about Sharia Law and wanting to change society, I want to tell them to get stuffed. Relative to other countries, England & Wales have a great body of law, honed by our people over a very long period of time, despite our continual dissatisfaction and improvement of it. In my many contacts with lawyers, I’ve been impressed by how deeply embedded ‘reasonability’ is enshrined in English law. Choudary talked of poor housing for Muslims. Well, I know young people from white families rooted in my area of rural England for centuries, who can’t afford to get onto the housing ladder, so tough! How dare he complain about this, after this country has been open, welcoming and reasonable to immigrants.

Haras Rafiq came across to me as extremely sensible - a voice of reason. But Choudary and Izzadeen? Put it this way; if it ever went beyond the possibility of them being just an odd couple for the government spin-machine, then I would be willing to take up arms to defend England against such maniacs, before ever seeing them foist their values upon our society. What they said was so outrageous, it has to be staged, surely?

vikingar @ 375

Thought we were on first name terms by now.

Andrew @ 378 Staged surely? To be sure! Ever noticed how the more radical elements who are given airtime are mainly converts to Islam?

As for the Sufi Muslim Council, well they are not what they seem either:

http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com/2006/08/neoconservative-sufi-muslim-council.html

As for Haras Rafiq, who is he? The MCB don't know:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1824131,00.html

As for his mention of 'collective responsibility' of the Muslim community! Isn't it time we all woke up to the propaganda and rejected these notions that there is somewhere a Muslim community, a homogeneous whole, who share collective responsibility and collective guilt? Isn't this precisely what was foisted upon the jews?

Newsnight is undoubtedly a tool for such propaganda and needs to question where it's responsibility lies.

  • 381.
  • At 02:53 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #379

Sufi Muslim Council (est 2006) [1]

".... Sufis count among the vast silent majority of Britain's two million strong Muslim community" [2]

What is Sufism [3]

Criticism of the SMC [4]

Surely time to let other Muslim groups in the UK have their say, esp if they make up the majority and/or existing Sunni / Shia groups failing to tackle extremism.

Meantime, around the world why are Sunni & Shia still killing each other - Islamic Fracticide (sectarian massacres the biggest causes of Muslims deaths) [5]

Islam, in the UK, facts and statistics - 1.6 million stated [6]

"Haras Rafiq, of the Sufi Muslim Council, called for more government help to root out extremism, but admitted that the UK's Muslim community must acknowledge there was a problem with extremism. "It's like being an alcoholic - we need to stand up and and have an open and honest debate." [7]

With rational statements like that no wonder certain vested interests amongst other Muslim groups do not like that pragmatic response or challenge, let alone appeasers/supporters of Islamic Extremism & esp the CT protagonists - hardly helpful for the latter two groups corrosive causes.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.sufimuslimcouncil.org/aboutus.html
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5193402.stm
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism
[4] http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_neoconserva.html
[5] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23111-1979333,00.html
[6] http://www.nya.org.uk/Templates/internal.asp?NodeID=92837
[7] http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/67932-print.shtml

  • 382.
  • At 11:56 AM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref James #377

Rather - how ludicrous to dismiss left wing agendas.

CT has come into its own post 911 ref Islamic Extremism v the west.

On this thread up to now, all the main running is done by radicals (in various guises) & virtually exclusively of the left ( if their utterances are to be believed).

Q. why does MSM do not take CT seriously?

Q. why the great unwashed masses that is the British Public either have not heard of CT and/or reject it?

… why because the CT fabricated evidences & inventive speculation is inventive & intentionally divisive perchance?

… its not called fringe politics for nothing :)

Who swallows CT? *
- those who fabricate it
- those with agenda
- those vulnerable members of society targeted by it.

* not forgeting to include efforts of supporters & followers of Islamic Extremism in this infowar.

Its never just about 'CT' soon enough comes along the other AGENDAS (subtly or directly) its rather self evident (when links/videos are examined).

AGENDAS the radicals had in place pre 911 & which the current impasse provided by Islamic Extremism provides the radicals another means to promote their multi agendas.

vikingar

@ Vikingar 381

(notice I have reverted to my full name so as not to confuse you)

You seem very keen on locating and exposing agendas

How about the main one:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The agenda that required a catastrophic event, a new Pearl Harbour (read 9/11).

This is the agenda that is being played out with the help of the British Government and the BBC without the knowledge or consent of the British people.

For those of us for whom the curtain of imagery and fakery lifts and behind are revealed forces who are pulling the strings of the puppets, and that the show we are watching is not what it appears to be, can only come to an understanding of just what an extreme situation we are all in.

I now view everything I read and hear from the MSM as 'manufactured' as opposed to organic, just like the manufactured Sufi Muslim Council and the manufactured extremist, usually converts, Muslim voices that we are all supposed to be so terrified of.

I am terrified by what is behind the curtain, what is on the stage is just farce.

  • 384.
  • At 03:42 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Ref: vikingar 380

"With rational statements like that no wonder certain vested interests amongst other Muslim groups do not like that pragmatic response or challenge, let alone appeasers/supporters of Islamic Extremism & esp the CT protagonists - hardly helpful for the latter two groups corrosive causes."

So there is also a shadowy Islamic/CTists conspiracy to discredit the SMC, and you view the MCB as corrosive. You seem to believe in more CTs than most so called CTists I have met.

What corrosive agenda is it that you hiding behind your CT rhetoric?

  • 385.
  • At 04:22 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridget Dunne #382

"I now view everything I read and hear from the MSM as 'manufactured' as opposed to organic, just like the manufactured Sufi Muslim Council and the manufactured extremist, usually converts, Muslim voices that we are all supposed to be so terrified of"

What? … as opposed to your CT inventive dribble on your recent 'live' interview on a CT site [1]

You even now discount the BBC?

Who would give credence to such inventive speculation, esp when compared to the experiences & opinion of someone actually endured the July Bombings by Islamic Terrorists, who specifically counters such divisive CT [2]

vikingar

[1] http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[2] http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-you-are-conspiracy-theorist.html

  • 386.
  • At 06:23 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref James #383

Since you ask, I view the MCB as ineffective & not wholly representative of the diverse set of British Muslims communities.

That is why another voice like SCB is welcome - someone has to make a difference.

"However, the organisation has faced criticism that a large proportion of UK Muslims do not feel the MCB represents their interests" [1]

On this blog, its interesting to note that those who promote 911 CT & July Bombing CT also look to undermine SMC :)

Even if Islamic Extremism was not churning out domestic terrorists, British Muslim communities still need to reform & integrate. The home-grown terrorism is just the most visible evidence of the failure to engage with the mainstream British society which has given these communities a home (growth of 10,000+ to 1.6 million in 30+ years).

CT in its latest manifestations, is a tactic & tool used by a variety individuals & groups, given the interlinked fantasist post 911 nature of CT - most decidedly corrosive.

The current infowar takes many forms & surely your not that naïve to believe that Islamic Extremisms is not engaging in this infowar, lets alone usual radical rabble?

Same war, different media, evolving methods.

My agenda? a British citizen/subject looking to support the democratic progressive societies (warts n all) which offer the best future for the world, rather than the alternative nightmares of radicals & extremists - who use CT to corrode debate & trust within the societies they hate so much.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5046970.stm

  • 387.
  • At 06:26 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Bridget (382); well said.

Having been exposed to Vikingar's rhetoric for several weeks now, I'm in awe, if that's the right word, at the diabolical protection the 'puppeteers' have obtained by associating our attempted peeks behind the curtain as siding with 'the enemy'.

Many Arabs, including Ahmadinejad and bin Laden (the real bin Laden, in his statement just after the attacks), believe 911 was an inside job. Just the other night, this guy was on Iranian TV, saying the same thing... http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/former-dc-islamic-head-says-911-was-an-inside-job

So, when we ask our 'CT' questions, and make our 'CT' speculations, we're tarred and feathered with Vikingar's 'radical enemy propaganda' brush, even if we're ordinary citizens of the West, without any agenda to pursue (at least, speaking for myself), other than wanting to know the truth.

I thought today, in a moment of weariness, that even if Cheney headed up the 911 attacks, using CIA/Mossad/shadow-government assistance, what can be done about it anyway? Too many people are hypnotised by the psyops, and we'll be plunged into another crisis before the 911 Truth movement gets to critical mass. Sorry if that's overly cynical. We're set on a course, and the once Arab-Israeli conflicts are now Islam vs. The West. it's our war too, now. Is Huntington's Clash becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations).

As we all know, Israel, with its tiny strip of land, is geographically vulnerable without its nuclear arsenal; it's surrounded by Arab oil-rich lands hundreds of times bigger, with a total Arab population dozens of times bigger. With the desire, in some Arab quarters, to see the end of Israel, they see themselves locked in a struggle for survival; and god forbid they ever get cornered, especially enough to use the 'Samson Option', bringing the rest of us down with them ( http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html ).

It seems to me the world is threatened by religious maniacs - or rather, religious monotheistic maniacs. Islamic fundamentalists want Islam to rule the world, whilst some Christian Zionists want Biblical borders for Israel in order to bring on Armageddon and the return of Jesus Christ. God save us from His believers! btw: Is it true that by 2050, Muslims will be the majority in the UK, based on current population growth trends? I read it on a pro-Israel/West, anti-Islam website today, and didn't know what to make of it.

btw: I read on Wikipedia that Al-Muhajiroun did proclaim the aim of establisihing a fifth column in Britain, as a community pressure group to propagate Islam, and get one step closer to the Islamic World Order. This is no doubt one of the sources Vikingar got his ideas from that we're Al-Muhajiroun spawned 5th columnists for asking what Silverstein meant when he said 'pull it'.

  • 388.
  • At 11:40 PM on 21 Sep 2006,
  • bythingjar wrote:

Corrosive discourse vikingar ?

The only corrosive thing in this here forum vikingar, is you

But for those who have woken from the dream, your repetitive bs is 'attacking' an impermeable substance

More amusingly, you are waking people up to the fact that he who argues as hard as you, with such weak material, actually provides some evidence of the fact that there is more to 911 and the like than meets the eye

Before you start, i don't believe in god, am not a member of any group or "sect", do not believe in aliens doing whatever, do not believe in pods, do not believe in holograms instead of planes, not vulnerable or a fifth columnist, not leftwing, not rightwing, that's SO last century rhetoric, not apologist, just simply an ordinary joe, well aware of what is going on, and being unable to prove it at present (or ever) changes my awareness not

Whatever acid or alkali you try to pour in my direction, i'm going to ignore you as you're clearly a waste of time :)


vikingar said:

fifth columnist
corrosive discourse
corrosive discourse
corrosive discourse
corrosive discourse
corrosive discourse
corrosive discourse
corrosive discourse
corrosive discourse
vulnerable "great unwashed"
war time incarceration etc

yawn :)

  • 389.
  • At 12:24 AM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #386

".... by associating our attempted peeks behind the curtain as siding with 'the enemy'

Peek? ... curtain? ... the CT protagonist approach is a fixed game of cluedo, talk about fabricating & planting the evidence which they then 'discover'.

Both Islamic Extremists & other radical groups engage in an infowar, since 911 they specifically use CT (is this blog is anything to go by, let alone copious sites on the net).

In additional they may not agree with each other, but the extremist & many radicals agree on methods (CT) & common enemies:

- The West
- Capitalism
- America
- Israel

Multi agendas at work (which existed pre 911) for those who tout CT, eventually they get round to mentioning it, their sources oozes agenda

Kidding no-one, except the potential to influence the vulnerable in our societies.

Its not called fringe for nothing, the mainstream is not buying corrosive CT goods - NO SALE

That’s not a conspiracy …. that’s called reality & good taste :)

vikingar

  • 390.
  • At 12:34 AM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref 'bythingjar' #387

"... But for those who have woken from the dream"

"... you are waking people up to the fact"

" ... that's SO last century rhetoric"

"... and being unable to prove it at present"

Yep, reads like CT language :)

vikingar

  • 391.
  • At 02:13 AM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • flyingcar wrote:

vikingars helmet has the horns on the inside

  • 392.
  • At 06:20 AM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Euston .... we have a stalker *

* dissociative identity disorder

vikingar

  • 393.
  • At 10:00 AM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

You don’t have to agree with everything Alex Jones says (I don’t), and I think he makes a few slight factual errors, but overall his video Terrorstorm (available for free on http://video.google.com) is worth watching if you’re new to 911 CT and haven't seen it. Terrorstorm includes;

- Historically documented precedent for ‘false flag operations (Reichstag Fire, Operation Ajax (with CIA forming SAVAK afterwards), Operation Gladio. Gulf of Tonkin incident, Cubana Flight 455, Operation Northwoods (includes USS Liberty incident)
- Madrid Bombings
- London Bombings (very interesting John Loftus interview regarding Haroon Aswat, plus interview with Shayler about Bruce Lair’s testimony)
- De Menezes shooting (including ITN reporter’s arrest, govt. lies)
- Iraq 2003 War (objective to create Civil War, Downing St. Memo (including idea to lure Saddam to start war, by shooting down false-UN-plane bait)
- Illegal circumvention of the US 4th Amendment to justify warrantless searches
- Bush’s paying off of reporters to tune of over $1bn in a single year (does this kind of thing happen in the UK?)
- Shayler on MI6 funding al Qaeda operation against Gaddafi
- Former MI5 officers Annie Machon and David Shayler on govt. refusal to take their evidence of MI5/MI6 links to terrorists
- Watson brothers on Doublethink, and Alex Jones’ enrollment in ‘terrorist’ database for speaking near Parliament (before the no-speech zone law)
- Interviews with Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern (former CIA analyst; note who ‘the crazies’ were!)
- Meacher on PNAC, the ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ document, and American desire for ‘full spectrum dominance’.
- Bush’s non-reaction (at Booker Elementary School, with 30mins of non-action after being told America is under attack– still beyond belief, even after 5 years of knowing it)
- Ahmad Umar Sheikh wiring of $100,000 to Atta before 911, at insistence of then ISI director-general Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad (who was in the US, meeting with CIA/Pentagon & State Dept. around time of 911).
- Morgan Reynolds on WTC7
- Steven Jones on WTC yellow-hot molten metaland white ash pouring out of building BEFORE the collapse (if true, would have major impact on Alan’s thesis, see above on this page). He came across very well to me (ref: Vikingar’s long-running attack on Jones’ credibility)
- Charlie Sheen speaking out (and being character assassinated for doing so)

There is, at the very least, grounds for serious debate on all this, and the 'see no evil' position of mainstream media is simply indefensible.

  • 394.
  • At 10:03 AM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (388),
> Peek? ... curtain? ... the CT protagonist approach
> is a fixed game of cluedo

back-stage passes are very hard to come by I'm afraid

  • 395.
  • At 12:07 PM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Ref: vikingar 388

"Peek? ... curtain? ... the CT protagonist approach is a fixed game of cluedo, talk about fabricating & planting the evidence which they then 'discover'."

Isn't this what the CT brigade accuse the government of. Vikingar you are are the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, for instead of blaming small elites, you believe there is a global conspiracy of millions of normal folk, this of course fails one of the most important rules for assessing the possible veracity of a CT, which is just how many people have to be part of this conspiracy for it to work.

Now can I bring you back to a question I posed earlier, which you ignored, as you have with every hard question put to you, I wll be amazed if you answer it rather than just latch onto one line in my post to build your next rant on...

Could you also explain why a young Muslim falling for what you perceive as deceit; the idea that Islamic terrorism may not be the problem it is made out to be; would then go out and be an Islamic terrorist? Why would one, outraged at such accusations made against his kine, then set out to give what he perceived as wrongful accusations, basis in fact by becoming the very thing he believed to be fiction, created by those with an agenda against his kind?

The nature of debate is to, well debate, address what others have to say, break down their arguments, not just repeat your corrosive discourse, ad infinitum, and dismiss them as mere radicals.

Any member of the public coming and reading this dialogue, as I did, will just find themselves confronted by half a debate, as you simply repeat the same assertions and accustaions again and again and again, while either by accident or design missing nearly every point put to them.

See for me the issue with CTists, is the lack of agenda, their minds are too open, they flit from one theory to another, are too easily mislead by unreliable witnesses and evidence, while simultaneously dismissing others. Their groups break, fracture, reform, become scattered and disjointed, the differing politics within the groups often causes major arguments, they dismiss one another's theories....

None of this, none of it strikes me as the behaviour of a band of radicals focused on an agenda, unless of course you are suggesting that behind all this chaos there is a shadowy elite of CTists, controlling like puppets their confused minions, an illuminati of CTists if you would. Or perhaps the confused CTists, are mere pawns of the focused Jihad, directed and manipulated to bring doubt to minds purely through the confusion and doubt they create, allowing the evil armies of Islam to sneak stealthily behind this smoke screen to murder us in our thousands and leaving the state picking up the blame.

Many CTist's minds are too open, and then on the opposite side of the spectrum you have the vikingars of the world with the iron doors slammed between individual neurons.

Let's all get one thing clear: The mainstream media are under the control of the Neo-Cons or just answer 1 question:

Why hasn't any news organization, or group of news organizations done their own investigation on 9-11 with the huge amount of evidence presented by both alternative media and so-called CTs?

Cause they CANNOT EXPOSE THE Truth!

Also, why must they be theories? The story told to us by the US Govt about 9-11 is the biggest conspiracy theory I've ever heard!

Thank God for the number of independant organizations bringing forth the truth, cause the Govt is not going to provide us the truth.

It took a court order to obtain 4 additional frames of footage from the Pentagon security cameras - and only 1 frame shows what is to be the nose of a plane and we are to believe that - and not see any other evidence whatsoever?

The shockwaves recorded by monitoring facilities show all the explosions required for 9-11's demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

But, again, I BEG THE BBC AND OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO STOP SPECULATING TAKE ALL THE EVIDENCE FROM LOOSE CHANGE AND THE HUNDREDS OF CLIPS OF EVIDENCE, DO THE RESEARCH.

IF A BUNCH OF 'CRAZY BASTARDS' can produce hundreds of hours of video on the subject, what the heck could an organization like the BBC, CNN, ABC, CBC or more - do?

WHere were the street vendors on 9-11?

Why did FEMA setup an emergency facility on 9-10?

Why wasn't the NY Disaster Control Center, recently fortified through millions of construction $$ in the year prior, used by the Mayor of NYC as it's intended? Because it was used to EXECUTE THE 9-11 PLAN - then destroyed.

Learn the truth.
Do the research yourself.

And see clearly again.

  • 397.
  • At 11:46 PM on 22 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

New documentary about WTC 'controlled demolition' theory. Very nicely put together, well narrated.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=911%2Bmysteries%2Bdemolition

Shame on you BBC, and the rest of mainstream media, for not tackling these subjects seriously.

  • 398.
  • At 08:18 AM on 23 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref James #395

I refer you to my #296 & #353

CT is not mainstream its fringe (wholly in the minority).

But based around faith, who promotes & believes in CT?

1) handful of converts etc (any/non faith).

2) handful of opportunists, money, ego, influence, reputation …. (any/non faith)

3) handful of extremists …. (any/non faith)

4) non Muslims (atheists) radical left etc (esp those with AGENDA)

5) non Muslims (Jones, Griffin etc, opportunistic 'Christian' fundamentalists) ... AGENDA

6) Muslims: in an infowar would be highly surprised if Islamic Extremists would not similarly engage in CT as its corrosive, to undermine the societies they are at war with ... AGENDA

7) Muslims: unfortunately (as surveys have revealed) far too many in 'mainstream' Muslim communities in UK & abroad, prefer to believe in the notion of government conspiracy than accept that anyone of their faith could be involved …AGENDA of DENIAL [1]

- For example of British Muslims polled by Channel 4 revealed "45% thought that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the USA and Israel" ... see other CT stats [1]

- Hardly surprising given Muslims legendary inability to acknowledge / accept the need for reform or accept any criticism of their religion - Islam.

- Hardily surprising given the views of Britain Muslim communities about how they see themselves & how they believe UK should treat them [2a] [2b] [2c] [2d]

- Hardly surprising given Muslim promotion of the 'empathy' argument …. whilst plainly ignoring the reality that more Muslims are murdered by other Muslims around the world than anyone else (sectarian killings) as Iraq & Afghanistan unfortunately demonstrate [3]

- Let alone purposely ignoring the fact that Sectarian impasse between Sunni & Shia, predates the creation of USA or the British Empires (that was) or allied action in ME & Asia … its an historical evidential fact that sectarian killings have occurred since the factions first murdered each other back in the earliest days of Islam.

- Islamic Fracticide - its not the responsibility of the West & progressive democratic governments - the historical & continuing levels of Islamic Fracticide is the responsibility of MUSLIM's

btw - did people of that faith perhaps consider that the lack of 'empathy' for Muslims problems (by non Muslims around the world - the vast majority), have something to do this denial & this disingenuous position held by Muslims regarding their problems within their faith, adverse cultural practices in their faith (oppression of women) & how such communities practice their faith, esp in democratic progressive societies.

SUMMARY

Corrosive CT serves many causes ….. causes undoubtedly with many AGENDA :(

vikingar

SOURCES:
[1] http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291
[2a] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
[2b] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2254764,00.html
[2c] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/5110364.stm [
[2d] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2046828,00.html
[3] http://iraqbodycount.net/database/

Bridget (370) asked:

"Richard @ 364 Could the Holocaust have happened without the Reichstag fire event?"

Of course it could have. With Hitler already Chancellor, the Nazis were conspiring to turn Germany into a totalitarian state and could have done so with various steps along the way. The Holocaust came out of their longterm, hateful ideology concerning the Jews, which was not affected either way by the Reichstag Fire.


Also:

"How do we end all genocide? Including the one against the Palestinians, slower but surely. Iraq has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, some of it paid for with our taxes, and if Iran is next, what cost in human suffering?"

It sounds good, and caring, but using the word genocide of the Palestinians, after George Clooney and Elie Wiesel have just used it with great moral force at the UN of the black tribes of Darfur, and I have challenged you to speak out, like them, on behalf of these uniquely defenceless ones, is in fact denial of the worst kind.

Where does such denial by distraction end? What about the Kurds in Turkey? The Tamils in Sri Lanka? And hundreds of other downtrodden groups with intractable problems and without a proper homeland?

What about more borderline cases, like the Karen and Shan tribes in Eastern Burma? The way these gentle peoples are being driven out of their villages by government forces and left to die in the jungle IS very close to genocide, according to those who have bothered to care to find out.

There is clearly a terrible spectrum of suffering of people groups. That makes it all the more vital that language to describe such things is not used loosely, just for partisan political effect. Your hero (and mine) George Orwell was the first to criticise such lying, manipulative language from both the fascist and communist mass murderers of his generation, long ago.

Elie Wiesel, since going through the Holocaust himself, has had a noble record of speaking out for those threatened by mass murder by the overwhelming force of the state, including the Bosnian Muslims, The Tutsis of Rwanda and now the Muslim tribes of Darfur.

Having prayed in a number of public meetings for Darfur this week I rejoice that the African Union peacekeeping force is being kept in place until the end of the year. But there is still much to do to prevent mass killing taking perhaps 300,000 already dead to well over a million.

The terrible murders in Iraq are another example of Muslim killing Muslim in the vacuum left after Saddam. Such terror has received massive media coverage compared to the situation in Sudan. It's not yet genocide, partly because the various people groups seem to be armed to much the same extent, partly because the democratically-elected government is not generally complicit but seeking to end the killing. But the targeting of civilians certainly means that this situation involves the same levels of cowardice on the part of the perpetrators.

Just to recap, what has all this to do with conspiracy theories?

It came up because I thought that the situation in Darfur was a very strong antidote to the extreme CTs that cause us to mistrust Western leaders in all circumstances, even when they seek to act to protect the defenceless, as they should.

The Nazis themselves were avid conspiracy theorists. They are a key example of that malignant form which robs the holder of all humanity, all compassion, in their obsession with an enemy that simply does not exist.

That kind of conspiracy theory was a key foundation for the Holocuast.

For me, the jury's out on whether most of the CTs on show here are in the same terrible category.

There again, the WTC buildings came down at near free-fall speed.

Physics, unlike most of the other fields touched on here, doesn't lie.

So I remain convinced that we need some better theories. And more compassionate hearts to go with them.

  • 400.
  • At 10:02 PM on 24 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (398); I think this is your best post yet; you've expanded your categories, and you're less rhetorical. I think you're right to think of there being multiple agendas, including acknowledging some faults within Muslim communities. I still don't find myself relating to any of your categories though; the closest might be "handful of opportunists, money, ego, influence, reputation". It's certainly not about money, nor influence & reputation; being a CTist lessens personal influence in my world. That leaves ego; well, being at odds with the national consensus is not pleasant at all - I believe it's a human trait to want to conform and be accepted by your peers, and I'm no exception. Feeling like you cannot talk to others about what you really think is awful. So, please generate some more categories!

Richard (399); you wrote, "For me, the jury's out on whether most of the CTs on show here are in the same terrible category [of being being potentially a foundation for a Holocaust]"

Very interesting post; I admire your concern for groups around the world threatened by violence and extermination. However, I don't see how thinking 911 was an inside-job, etc., would lead to Nazi-style thinking. If justice is pursued, then investigation would hone in on the perpetrators who, I guess, would be, at the core, no more than a few dozen people. How does this relate to wanting to wipe out whole classes of people?

I'm starting to wonder if we've underplayed the Enron connection to 911. Was it a last ditch effort to stop Enron going under? Is Enron's disastrous $3bn investment in the Dabhol Power Project at all related to a desire to launch war in Afghanistan? What Enron investigation files were destroyed by 911? (e.g. SEC documents in WTC7?) Very speculative, but we all know to what lengths Enron went to deceive, and how closely they were linked to the Bush administration.

The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?
By Ron Callari, Albion Monitor. Posted February 28, 2002
http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/

  • 401.
  • At 12:07 AM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • mymingvase wrote:

RU for real vikingar ? :)

Agenda ? so anyone who isn't convinced has an 'agenda' ? you're so right, but none so bad as your fascist apologist agenda :(

You also continue to expose YOUR attempted corrosive fascist agenda, claiming to know what muslims think

I think you'll find the sectarian violence in Iraq has more to do with government (SAS and other ops) than race hate, as demonstrated in Ireland, it's very easy for a few vested interests to enter a country and set it ablaze, meanwhile the 'good guys' (government) move in and 'fix' it all

The truth in Iraq, ask any returning servicemen, is that the resistance is winning, "sectarian violence" is a necessary dressing for us back home

vikingar - you're in the WRONG PLACE mate :D

This thread IS about conspiracy theories, why are you here ?

You really don't have a clue what an increasing majority now think, if they're all 'agenda infected', then you'd better start worrying, mate :(

The majority may be "vulnerable" as you continuously assert, but they are beginning to get that not only are these 'terrorist' attacks convenient, but that the real puppeteers go right up to daddy Bush and all the other crooked world bankers, who incidentally, think you're a "useless eater" too, so when it turns on you, don't come to us and moan :(

  • 402.
  • At 09:59 AM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Ref vikingar 398

"I refer you to my #296 & #353"

Neither of which answer the quesion I put to you, nor does the rest of your post, so one again...

Could you also explain why a young Muslim falling for what you perceive as deceit; the idea that Islamic terrorism may not be the problem it is made out to be; would then go out and be an Islamic terrorist? Why would one, outraged at such accusations made against his kine, then set out to give what he perceived as wrongful accusations, basis in fact by becoming the very thing he believed to be fiction, created by those with an agenda against his kind?

  • 403.
  • At 10:22 AM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref mymingvase #401

- Well its alarming to be reminded of the blinkered vitriol denial-esque comment in the style of a certain type of posters who inhabit Guardian Talk [1] - J'accuse indeed :)

"You also continue to expose YOUR attempted corrosive fascist agenda, claiming to know what muslims think"

- Nope, but claim the right to comment about how Muslims interact with non-muslins & how they interact with each other - which is plain for all to see (esp the historical tragedy of their continuing Islamic Fracticide).

"I think you'll find the sectarian violence in Iraq has more to do with government (SAS and other ops) than race hate, as demonstrated in Ireland, it's very easy for a few vested interests to enter a country and set it ablaze, meanwhile the 'good guys' (government) move in and 'fix' it all"

- Nope, you clearly no absolutely nothing of the SoP of British Forces or its dominating culture & ethos.

- Are you in denial as a Muslim ref Islamic Fracticide (sectarian murders) or a confirmed lefty whose theories about society & people have yet again failed to work? or both perhaps?

"The majority may be "vulnerable" as you continuously assert, but they are beginning to get that not only are these 'terrorist' attacks convenient …. "

- Now you will enjoy the fictional film Children of Men - happy viewing (decent film despite the subtley laced to blant liberal left agenda - 'right on') [2]

- Ref what others think about the Islamic Radicals & Extremists in the UK - suggest you go & have a gander [3]

But 'mymingvase' you really should be asking, why is it far too many of the Islamic Faith would rather loose their reamining credibility by signing up to Conspiracy Theories rather than facing the reality of violence in their faith, amongst their brethren #398. Whether this manifests itself as:

- murdering people of the same faith - contunuing Islamic Fracticde.
- hostility to other faiths.
- hostility to any criticism of Islam.
- abusing people in Muslim communities (repression of women & alternative lifestyles etc)
- failure to integrate with the progressive democratic societies that have given their communities a home across Europe.

A minority of people from these communities have successfully integrated (welcomed) but the majority have not, the biggest sign of such failure manifests itself as domestic Islamic terrorism e.g. July Bombings (& other cases under investigation & in the courts at present) - NOT CT - its reality.

To remain engaged & part of our progressive peaceful European societies, this reality of endemic violence is the problem for Muslims to address in their communities (whilst they still have that option) rather than remaining denial & hiding behind CT.

Maintenance of failed status-quo in the UK & across Europe - is not an option (suggest you read up on mainstream British & European public opinion)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee80025
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/09/18/children_of_men_2006_review.shtml
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/09/wednesday_20_september_2006.html

  • 404.
  • At 10:28 AM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref James #402

Your question does not make sense, again?

vikingar

  • 405.
  • At 10:55 AM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Andrew #400

"Feeling like you cannot talk to others about what you really think is awful. So, please generate some more categories!"

... hhhmmmm - still a rather big empathic NO to your & others post 911 CT dialogue - now matter how you grease it up :)

vikingar

James @ 402

vikingar doesn't answer questions he just reels off rhetoric/propaganda in 'loop mode'.

Or pretends he doesn't understand (@ 403), perhaps 'It does not compute'.

Answering any questions would require thoughtfulness and insight, does vikingar have these qualities I wonder?

  • 407.
  • At 02:01 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Bridge Dunne #406

"Answering any questions would require thoughtfulness and insight, does vikingar have these qualities I wonder?"

In ans to your #355 [1]

.... any help?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/housing/general-housing-information/flooding-and-drainage.en;jsessionid=aIS51sOKBxzb

  • 408.
  • At 02:29 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Ref vikingar 405

The question makes perfect sense, you are just avoiding it.

  • 409.
  • At 05:11 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • bikingfar wrote:

vikingarOS for dummies

10 ask vikingar a question
20 vikingar replies with innanity
30 goto 10

vikingar

Fascism has always been the most powerful of opiates, so i can understand your need to keep jacking up on it

I suggest you start thinking and cease following, you may find yourself one of those who DON'T want the world to resemble hollywood, i heartily recommend rejecting any form of leadership, you may find yourself

Stop following, for your own sake

Especially i suggest that blindly continuing to be an accidental fascist will only come back on you in the end

...p.s. Newsnight, who's the new illustrious leader being touted tonight, it's not John Reid perchance ? hope not (I'm uncomfortable about giving nazi salutes !)

bikingfar

  • 410.
  • At 05:35 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Newsnight I think it's time you closed the Vikingar thread, it's not going anywhere. Maybe you could reassign him to a different area of the site

  • 411.
  • At 05:53 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • bikingfar wrote:

vikingarOS for dummies

10 ask vikingar a question
20 vikingar replies with innanity
30 goto 10

vikingar

Fascism has always been the most powerful of opiates, so i can understand your need to keep jacking up on it

I suggest you start thinking and cease following, you may find yourself one of those who DON'T want the world to resemble hollywood, i heartily recommend rejecting any form of leadership, you may find yourself

Stop following, for your own sake

Especially i suggest that blindly continuing to be an accidental fascist will only come back on you in the end

...p.s. Newsnight, who's the new illustrious leader being touted tonight, it's not John Reid perchance ? hope not, we've been through the 'bush'es already ;)

bikingfar

  • 412.
  • At 07:40 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

CONSPIRACY "a crispy con" THEORY

Hope this helps others to find courgae to seek some professional help :)

"According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories and conversely for a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory there is a lower probability that he, or she, will believe in another one"

"Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea"

"Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part"

For further asistance [2]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Psychologist
[2] http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=653

  • 413.
  • At 08:14 PM on 25 Sep 2006,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

Do it now Newsnight and put us all out of our misery...

  • 414.
  • At 11:58 AM on 26 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

CONSPIRACY "a crispy con" THEORY

Hope this helps others to find courgae to seek some professional help :)

"According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories and conversely for a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory there is a lower probability that he, or she, will believe in another one"

"Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea"

"Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part"

For further asistance [2]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Psychologist
[2] http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=653

  • 415.
  • At 12:59 PM on 26 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

Vikingar, I'll try asking the question in another way...

Why would a young muslim man, that believes that 911 was an inside job, and is outraged that there is a conspiracy by government to condemn his people as terrorists, go on to become a terrorist, and in doing so become the very thing that he believes his people are being wrongly accused of being?

Why would he give legitamacy to the condemnation of his people, when he expressly believed that Islamic terrorism was being created by the governemnt to discredit his people?

It is not the question that makes no sense, it is the answers you'd have to give to answer it.

  • 416.
  • At 03:10 PM on 26 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar (412);
> "Once [the OV] is cognized, confirmation bias and
> avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce
> the [OV] belief. In a context where a[n OV] conspiracy
> theory has become popular within a social group,
> communal reinforcement [of the OV] may equally
> play a part"

James (415); good question

btw: On Sunday evening, RAI-3, a state-owned TV channel in Italy, aired a Special Report on 911 CTs


  • 417.
  • At 04:40 PM on 26 Sep 2006,
  • buyblingcar wrote:

To the Newsnight crew..."first your mortgages, then your lives"


Well, who say's WE'RE the loonies ?

As predicted, john reid gets the green light from 'valued' voters
(i'm sure i spotted some twitching Dr Strangelove-esque right arms)

Beggars belief it does

"we LIKE john reid, he's not old"
"we LIKE john reid, he's not shifty looking"

"we DON'T like gordon brown, he's too old"
"we DON'T like gordon brown, he's shifty looking"

whoa, am I missing something here ?

Have i just entered the TWILIGHT ZONE ?

Please, illoonynutty, please just stop, it's all been fun, but stop interfering in things, and it'll all be alright, you've overstepped the mark, those 'voter' patsies are so patently labotomised, it' just so obvious

What next ? john bush, sorry, reid has some big 'terrorist' attack here in london ?

you think you're so FUNNY, playing us all for chumps


Dr josef vikingar, happy fascist says:

"Deathcamps or medication, then deathcamps for all !"

...answer the question, Dr vikingar

buyblingcar

  • 418.
  • At 06:02 PM on 26 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref James #369 #415

To me the question (both versions) does still not make sense, esp since its loaded.

Nether the less …...

I have never prescribed to the notion that a reasonable British Muslim will be made into a terrorist by nothing more than false accusation (that is a laughable notion).

I have never prescribed to the notion that a reasonable British Muslim will be made into a terrorist by temporary necessary robust security measures (suitable in wartime) designed to tackle terrorism, even if they are directly affected (that is a laughable notion).

I have never prescribed to the notion that a reasonable British Muslim will be made into a terrorist even if they object to government policy

In respect of these above, I have far more faith in my fellow British citizens, regardless of faith, than the terrorists have & those with CT agenda have.

However, the vulnerable in our society (by age, by circumstance, by maturity issues, by psychological issues etc) are susceptible to the above scenarios & also to mixed messages (the result of AGENDA).

If a vulnerable British Muslims faith in notion of British Society (fairplay & justice - wart n all) is undermined (by the deliberate promotion of CT, 911 and/or July Bombings variety & false arguments about who is killing Muslims abroad etc) they become far more liable to fall under the Islamic Extremists spell, even if the is CT is promoted by non Muslims (but radicals all the same).

How many domestic non Muslim pressure groups (anti war/capitalism/america/israel) in order to make domestic political gain, intentionally promote inflammatory messages & attempt moral fusing between terrorist atrocity & mantra & legitimate government policy & action, have also resulted in radicalising the vulnerable (perhaps not to the extent such groups intended)

The cumulative effective of such mixed message promotions & deliberate corrosive post 911 CT (directly/indirectly) is something I have waxed lyrical 'ad nauseum' why I believe individuals & groups with AGENDAS use it to their own ends which includes the deliberate aim to radicalise & confuse the vulnerable #150 #161 #398 etc

For this reason, in the infowar, there will also be Islamic Extremists out their promoting Post 911 CT, to undermine faith in those societies & the reputations of those societies, to help create & influence the disaffected & vulnerable.

The recent poll of British Muslims revealed 36% believe in the causes behind 7th July bombings (given the communities population in the UK of 1.6 million) 576,000 British Muslims are potential/active supporters in Islamic Extremism - whatever its manifestation [1]

This is the scale of the threat to national security & societal peace in The United Kingdom - this unfortunately is an ANSWER that makes loads of SENSE (even to the enemy).

This is also why such groups (Islamic extremists, CT protagonists etc) are kidding themselves if they think 98% of the mainstream British population will not respond to such real & tangible threats & empower their government to do so (esp in lieu of public reaction & desires to do something).

CT = Corrosive Tripe

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/262

  • 419.
  • At 11:55 PM on 26 Sep 2006,
  • zippedydoodar wrote:

vikingar = CT = Complete Twit

Your "statistics" are probably as unbiased and 'ph neutral' as you yourself are

I suggest, vikingar, that you try to understand that every vote not cast in this country, is not apathy related, it is related to the realisation that in the current situation, a vote for any party, is a vote for more of the same, that things, under politics, cannot ever get better

It is YOUR corrosive fascist agenda, the agenda which you are so representative of, that has got us where we are, where we (and you) are thought of as servants of the government, rather than the government being our servant

The government, unlike you, are not stupid however, they know that the more they show how unrepresentative democracy is, the more they can make the collapse of society a self fulfiling prophecy, enabling (you really like that word, eh ?) any old tripe to be touted (another vikingar fave) as 'mainstream opinion'

And, as the majority apparently suspect, the government is not above blowing things up in order to enable yet more unpleasant laws, and yet more war, dragging not only themselves, but us down

I doubt any of those who voted labour in would have done so with hindsight (no 'stats' required), and the attitudes you espouse are anathema to all the typical people, that in your twisted mind, you assume you speak for

Tory = labour = war = increased poverty gap = more corporate control = death of the myth of democracy = CT = Complete Travesty

zippedydoodar

  • 420.
  • At 02:36 AM on 27 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref zippedydoodar #418 or whichever of your word play guises above

1. Good example of the fringe at play with their many agenda ...

"Tory = labour = war = increased poverty gap = more corporate control = death of the myth of democracy = CT = Complete Travesty"

2. Obviously not without a bit of CT thrown in ....

"And, as the majority apparently suspect, the government is not above blowing things up in order to enable yet more unpleasant laws, and yet more war, dragging not only themselves, but us down"

'majority'? ... of those amongst CT protagnists sure :)

3. Cannot go without mentioning the word fascist (i.e. anyone who does not agree with their spun creed) ...

"It is YOUR corrosive fascist agenda"

4. Don't like stats? in #417?

"Your "statistics" are probably as unbiased and 'ph neutral' as you yourself are"

So here is the same org commissioned by Channel 4 on same topic [1] also some more polls & stats from:
- The Daily Telegraph [2a]
- The Times [2b]
- The BBC [2c]

Also reassuring to a hear from a British Muslim who has made the effort & speaks rather more sense than the radical fringe [3]

SUMMARY

That's the problem with the radical fringe, the mainstream for some reason? never sides with them?

They are an alternative ... to sanity

So they have to use what's available hence their promotion of Post 911 CT to enable their agenda.

Sad, predictable & rather fringe. But no wonder as they do not have any electoral base, they reject the society that rejects them & their loony politics.

It's a real sign of desperation & illustrates the spiralling fall .... from the cause of the Miners in 1980's (real) to promotion of Post 911 CT in 21st Century (fantasy) - rather sad :(

... 'right on' comrade, which way to the commune?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291
[2a] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
[2b] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2254764,00.html
[2c] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/5110364.stm [
[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2046828,00.html

Andrew (400),

The issue is the difference between a CT of hate and one of compassion. With hate comes blindness. You don't feel compassion for those who are desperately deserving but, strangely, you find a fake version for those much less so. The Nazi analogy starkly underlines this.

The Nazis felt - or at least said they felt - great compassion for 'suffering people groups' of their day, for example the 'oppressed' Sudetan German minority in Czechoslovakia. Of course, they cared nothing for the millions of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs soon dying of starvation and extermination under their own hand. Or for those like the Armenians who had gone through the same kind of genocide a few decades before. (Cf Hitler's cynical comment: 'Who remembers the Armenians now?' - cynicism that was a key driver towards the Holocaust.)

That's the worst example in history of such blindness and double standards. But I am not convinced that all 911 CTists are operating from true compassion, to put it mildly. The very real threat of genocide with millions of defenceless victims right now in Darfur is downplayed. And yet such mass murder is the very heart of what the most evil conspiracies on earth are up to. Such lack of concern simply doesn't compute. Perish the thought, but is it because the saintly bin Laden was directly involved in setting the current Sudanese regime on its course from 1989?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1876594,00.html

Instead, the suffering of poor Muslims in places like the UK is highlighted. I'm not saying that, like the Sudetan Germans, such people don't have the odd inconvenience. And, if you listen carefully, not a few explain their trials through highly anti-semitic CTs, based on the same notorious forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that the Nazis used long ago. Then the other week I hear a radical Muslim say to a black man at Speaker's Corner, "You should be our slave." Hmm, that's how the slavs got their name, after all. The parallels are sobering indeed, if we are not blinded by our own version of hate.

Of course, you and I agree that a pure love of the truth is cause enough for anyone to question the OV of 911. That's great, if that's all there is.

But let's talk more about blindness. Even moderate 911 truthers like David Ray Griffin finger the 'Neocons' as a group. This is based of course on one phrase in the notorious PNAC paper of 2000, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses". Note though that such disclosure would be unprecedented in the history of such conspiracies as told by such writers, from the Reichstag Fire to Operation Northwoods. In this highly anomalous case we are asked to believe that the intention of those at the heart of the evil cabal was expressed publically on the World Wide Web just a year before the event itself. Such wacky reasoning leads those less sophisticated than David to say that these men clearly were the mass-murderers of 911. And thus (it seems to me) to hate and remain blind.

This comes out very strongly in the piece Bridget pointed to, rather than speak a word in support of the black peoples of Darfur, when I first raised that issue:

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/save_darfur_peace_activists_are_dupes_for_usled_colonial_dom.htm

'The international campaign to pressure Sudan has among its sponsors the very political forces who were the strongest supporters of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. ... Some of the groups expressing great concern for refugees in Darfur were silent or were active supporters of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon that created over 1 million refugees. ... Although the Save Darfur Campaign lists many religious and civil rights endorsers, the campaign is an initiative of the most right-wing evangelical Christians and major Zionist organizations. The Jerusalem Post of April 27, in an article entitled “U.S. Jews Leading Darfur Rally Planning,” described the role of prominent Zionist organizations in a similar “Save Darfur” rally in Washington, D.C., on April 30. The National Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Alliance and other religious groups that strongly support Bush are the other major force in the coalition for Darfur.'

I hold no brief to defend 'right-wing evangelical Christians' or anyone else mentioned. But who cares who was involved, working alongside many concerned left-liberals like George Clooney and Desmond Tutu? The need is so great. If any of the above were touched by compassion - or even if some have mixed motives - no problem. It's the suffering poor in Darfur that count. And stopping those conspiring to murder them.

The 'Neocons' are deeply distrusted by 911 Truthers. But was John Bolton really a mass-murderer speaking from the dark heart of cynicism when he introduced George Clooney and Elie Wiesel to the UN the other day?

http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=25099@kcbs.dayport.com

Listen to it yourself. The real conspirators rejoice in all genocide, all that creates more human suffering, hatred and conflict for them to manipulate and control. At least that's the way I've seen it since 1976, when I first knew that the Cambodian genocide was happening and first investigated such dark matters. In this case Bolton meets Clooney at a dinner just after he and his father get back from Darfur, hears about their deep concern to get the word out and finds a way to give them a global platform to plead for the defenceless. Not the kind of plotting that I'm in the habit of praying against.

But you'll miss all that and not take part in one of the most important moral struggles of our generation if you're blinded by wrong theories of 911. And that really matters.

  • 422.
  • At 12:32 PM on 27 Sep 2006,
  • pipingchar wrote:

Laugh Out Loud vikingar...WHO believes what the mainstream media has to say thesedays ?

vikingar, you cannot fool all the people all the time, unlike you, I have confidence in peoples ability to read and realise, think for themselves who and what they really are, rather than be 'coerced' into siding with fascism...you REALLY think you're living in Starship Troopers don't you ? :D...The irony is, that in many ways, our glorious leaders wish we were that far down the road to a global unified fascist planet

Richard Drake...That's a lot of nice words, covering up the fact that you're deliberately misunderstanding Bridget Dunne, not so very Christian as you pretend...I took her point to be that the application of "peacekeeping" forces are A) Applied more where there are assets for the G8 etc to 'protect', or political gains to be made, and B) Usually, once it's all gone off the mainstream news radar, these 'peacekeepers' mutate into 'protection' for 'reconstruction' in the affected place, these are fronts for what is actually the takeover of the soveriegn nation

To clarify, just incase vikingar tries to paint me as fringe (wrong again, vikingar, not a muslim either - is that your biggest talking point? calling everyone religious names, or threatening ?)...

...I believe in the idea of democracy, but this thing we have is a fake...I do not believe in any overpowering deity, nor do i feel the need for anyone to have superiority over me...I support our fighting forces, but not what they've been set about doing...I think, it's all too clear, that all our modern myths (freedom, sophistication in society) are blown clear out of the water, this has become a feudal lordocracy, 'Pharmaceuticorpworld', the land of the power in the hands of the few, home of the coward [vikingar], land of do as we tell you, or be called a terrorist

This IS nOT the way it should be

pipingchar

  • 423.
  • At 02:01 PM on 27 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Richard (420);

> You don't feel compassion for those who are
> desperately deserving but, strangely, you find a fake
> version for those much less so.

You have taken an absence of words in this conspiracy theory forum, regarding the people of Darfur, as equal to my not feeling compassion for them. I suggest you examine your logic, the title of this blog, and an apology wouldn't be amiss either for this, and implying I think like a Nazi.

You also got on your high horse with Bridget (363, 365), implying she's into Holocaust Denial, because she didn't respond to your request for clarification. You seem to have a predilection for libel, imho. Assuming The Guardian article about Bridget is correct, I do wonder what you have achieved in life, in order to have the moral upper-hand on a foster care worker. In case you are operating on the assumption that people must respond to your requests, I suggest you analyse your own behaviour with regard to my request in 288 and 324.

Also, your logic that 911 CTs are solely driven by hate is, imho, faulty - do you make the claim that all crime investigators are driven by hate? Woe betide the justice system if you reformed it.

  • 424.
  • At 04:03 PM on 27 Sep 2006,
  • Andrew wrote:

Vikingar is singing from the same hymn sheet as a recently declassified Key Judgement from a US National Intelligence Estimate;

"Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint." [1]

With regard to [1], Valtin commented yesterday:
"This sinister amalgam is to equate leftist, nationalists, anti-globalization activists, etc., with fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. It assumes such terrorism will occur, and, as such, is a set-up for a crackdown on such groups.

If the suspension of habeas corpus, the spread of state terror through the use of torture, and the labelling of U.S. citizens as "combatants" isn't enough, this quote should remind us of how the government is thinking of handling those who won't follow the Decider's dictates. This is ominous." [2]

One good thing about Vikingar (I like to see the good in people!) is that at least he represents the official US view, if such thing there be.

SOURCES:

[1] "Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006 - http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

[2] http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/26/205814/469

Andrew (422)

>You have taken an absence of words in this conspiracy theory forum,
>regarding the people of Darfur ...

as absence of real interest, or at least lack of passion on the subject, I fully admit. And if Bridget takes the trouble, in response, to post a link to a page which only criticises current campaigners, like Clooney, Tutu and Wiesel, and seems to offer complete moral support to the murderous Sudanese government - a page that I was very shocked that anyone outside of Islamism could have even written - then I take that as a very strong public statement that either she does not care about the genocide or (I can only surmise) that she thinks that it is an illusion created by the pernicious mainstream media.

For me, at least, conspiracy to commit mass murder, or to gain power or make money from such atrocities, is more important than, for example, whether the moon landings were faked. Of conspiracies involving mass murder, 300,000 already dead (Darfur) is more important than 3,000 (9-11). Although the latter was awful and all its disturbing anomalies should be thoroughly investigated.

I did read the title of the blog and I've been speaking to it. Where did anyone say that this page was solely about 9-11 and 7-7? Who's trying to broaden the theme into the most pressing areas of humanitarian concern and who's trying to shut that effort down, because the issues raised are far too challenging?

I note that you do not pick up on the challenge just of John Bolton's recent actions, let alone of others styled by their enemies as neoconservatives.


>Also, your logic that 911 CTs are solely driven by hate is ...

neither what I said nor what I believe. I don't think, for example, that any of Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin or Steven Jones are driven by hate. But I have some real concerns about some of the many others that I've read or met.

I take it from your post that you accept my point that any conspiracy to commit genocide is worse than that to rob a bank and that, on reflection, you are grateful for that basic observation.

What was perhaps not clear in my earlier post was that the 'you' in the first paragraph was generic. The challange applies to all of us, if we let it. It takes a real moral effort to avoid this trap of hatred, of becoming much too like the conspirators we seek to expose.

  • 426.
  • At 11:09 PM on 27 Sep 2006,
  • the cure wrote:

THE BIG 'AIR-CON'

THERE IS A CURE for 'global warming', which is a hilarious 'psy-op' joke on you all, designed to make you feel guilty and 'right-on' when you pay ever more money for dirty fuels for you cars and heating

when on the 11th september 2001, the wtc was attaked, the u.s. ran its long mooted excercise designed to determine the real world effects of high altitude air pollution, all 'useless eater' flights were cancelled, and guess what ? america got hotter

make the fuel cleaner in jet aircraft

and then, IF things start hotting up, we got your solution right here pal...

"got global warming ?...send up the jets"

IT'S TOXIC POLLUTION, POISONOUS FUELS/EXHAUST PRODUCTS, AND HARMFUL FOOD AND FACTORY PROCESSES WE SHOULD BE FIXING

P.S. birdflu is another psy-op, it's a fake

  • 427.
  • At 05:15 PM on 28 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

DARFU & CT

The massacres in Darfur (at the behest & hand of Islamic Extremists) in pursuit of religious political zeal, continue & the threat loams large of real full blown genocide (not just acts of such).

In respect of this blog, Darfur provides a regrettable but useful real world example to gauge many Post 911 CT believers general attitudes, let alone other AGENDA.

They should hang their heads in same, again.

Impossible we known, propped up as it is by the rigamortis of intransient beliefs & agenda.

Again, others real world suffering, providing another tactical prop to misuse & misrepresent in their in pursuance of their aims & agenda.

vikingar

  • 428.
  • At 09:33 PM on 28 Sep 2006,
  • mimingparp wrote:

yet again vikingar stands up as proud PR man to the CIA backed "islamic" terrorism used all the world over, this has nothing to do with islam

the global coup rolls on

islam is the current CIA nom de guerre

and also, it seems, is 'vikingar'

mimingparp

  • 429.
  • At 02:32 AM on 29 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

When all this clap trap (CT) gets pushed & touted by those with agenda (which this blog gloriously demonstrates) we should be reminded about REAL issues & REAL responsibility/culpability (all round, not just the favourite bogeymen).

ISLAMIC EXTREMISM - the 'enemy within' progressive democratic societies

For example, why was it the left & many of the liberal left, pursued beliefs & policies which enabled Islamic Extremism to take root pre 911 within progressive democratic societies.

Post 911 they have been equally absent from the debate, refusing to take sides against such terrorism (& at times acting as PR Commissars & apologists for such, given their moral equivalency & mixed message arguments).

Pointedly, the Left & the Liberal Left have failed to side with the very progressive democratic societies that enables the rights they take for granted (& in many cases have helped to establish). Rather its all been about anti-war & the other bolt on issues & agendas [0] intentionally ignoring the continuing significant societal threat in our midst - why?

- unable to admit they got it wrong (again) on society, people & politics e.g. multiculturalism [1]
- egos before pragmatism?
- other 'right on' agenda?

Rather they look to legitimise & promote the 'we started it' argument which they argue inflames terrorism, instead of asking why is it non indigenous sections of our society are so vulnerable & combustible (culturally speaking - 'tinder box dry') & how did that come about since these communities are relatively so new in these shores.

A welcomed revised British view [2a] [2b]

A welcomed revised American view [2c]

THE LIBERAL LEFT & THE LEFT v ISLAM (voices of dissent)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali a good example about when liberal left does decide to take a view on Islamic Issues, as commented on by The Daily Telegraph in 2002 [3].

The Guardian (often great but when not its really bad) as usual was trying to have it any & all ways in 2002 [4a] then in 2005 [4b] then changed gear in 2006 [4c] before issuing its 'coup de grace' 2006 [4d]

The world has suffered Islamic Terrorism [5] the litany of actual atrocity & thwarted attacks (in court & under investigation from the US, UK, EU, Australia etc) … so does the Liberal Left now have an opinion?

Yes, even the Liberal Left on occasion does have a view on radical Islam & that view is …… [6a] …even The Guardian promotes one [6b]

SUMMARY

Much better to spend time & effort examining these REAL issues which have REAL bearing on our societies, than indulging fantasy CT of too many sad people with internet connection …. & above all AGENDA.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[0] http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/Kammreview.html
[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1695604,00.html
[2a] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_klug/2006/04/unholy_alliance_the_left_and_r.html
[2b] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1833390,00.html
[2c] http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008951
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/05/12/do1209.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/05/12/ixop.html
[4a] http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1485350,00.html
[4b] http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,1654553,00.html
[4c] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/native_misinformants.html
[4d] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1779723,00.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TerroristAttacksAlQaeda_06.png
[6a] http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=1012
[6b] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_murray/2006/07/muslims_and_the_left.html

  • 430.
  • At 09:23 AM on 29 Sep 2006,
  • shiningspar wrote:

Well, dear reader

Yet again, vikingar has a hell of a lot of info for a concerned citizen, doesn't he now ?

He's just doing his job, 'cos he's stupid and thinks that by working for the Fascist, he'll get a microchip that doesn't tell him what to do, unlike (he thinks), the rest of you

Yes, the plan has got that insane, yes, they do want to turn you into overt slaves. FOREVER.

Don't be fooled by vikingars swathes of 'information' and 'opinion'

The guys whose bidding he is doing, believe in the devil, and basically ARE the devil

If this is a free society, there won't ever be a growing superstate, and if i'm wrong, then you'll all know that the world is going how you think it should

It self evidently is not going how it should

The established powers only intervene in Genocide once they've managed to get it going, and only if it suits them to do so, that's reality, it is vikingars facts that are the fantasy

No matter what vikingar replies with, he's trying to combat your freedom of thought, he thinks he's getting somewhere by vomiting out his rubbish over and over, if he's just a concerned citizen as he would like you to believe, he won't engage directly with me as i'm clearly mad

If he tries to argue, call me names or responds with another ton of 'useful opinion', then you have your final proof that all the stuff about 911 being part of the plan to create a new world order, that all these "wars on terror" are part of the global new world order plan, and that a new world order will be the end of civilisation as we know it (dressed up as the finest civilisation in all history), they think they're going to succeed, they want to turn you and your children into overt slaves. FOREVER.

You're already in a slave society, get yourself informed, and save yourself and the world can be saved too

Stop believing that the problem has not been covertly created by the government, like vikingar, they are working for someone more powerful, in the hope of having some gain themselves

Stop believing that the enenmy of the day is real, it is assembled by groups like the CIA, to have the appearance of being real, then the overwhelmingly controlled 'news' disseminates the lie

Stop believing that the savior is your 'leaders' they don't work for you, they work for someone else

The war on terror is intended to go on FOREVER and EVER, and is based on lies, it might move location, but it will NEVER END

Start looking beyond the walls the likes of vikingar think you're confined within

Our 'leaders' don't listen to us because that would interfere with their AGENDA, a centralised global fascist government, don't wait until they've succeeded to realise it's happening

This isn't about supporting the BNP or Labour, or Conservatives, or UKIP or Sharia Law, or terrorism, these and more stem from the same centralised control structure

vikingar is HERE to help prevent you from breaking out of the virtual prison, before they can make the prison real by YOUR OWN HAND

Social decay is a deliberate, intentional byproduct, of the 'governments' "best efforts", they want you to run to them to save you from an enemy within, and an enemy without, but you'd be running to the murderer to get justice for the murder

By the way, don't consume products with aspartame, it's a killer and they know it

The world has gone mad, and vikingar is a symptom, and he wants to keep your infection critical and paralysing

Me, i stopped believing in diseases like vikingar a long time ago

vikingar has a helmet
but the horns are part of his head
he thinks you won't notice
but his humanity's already dead
if he does what they say
he thinks his life it will save
never mind that they'll take his family
on another day
and so he battles on
witless to his ruin
the only thing he's guaranteed
is his doom a little less soon

What tac next time vikingar ? happy fascist with smilies, or linksville armageddon , or both ?


shiningspar

  • 431.
  • At 09:49 AM on 29 Sep 2006,
  • hypinguar wrote:

Read the guardian much do you vikingar ?

Or do you work in marketing FOR the guardian ?

Oh, by the way, wikipedia also has about as much integrity as fudge in the sun


hypinguar

  • 432.
  • At 09:49 AM on 29 Sep 2006,
  • James wrote:

In Al Gore's film, An Incovenient Truth, he asserts that there is a conspiracy among the powers that be, to hide the truth about global warming. This conspiracy includes the active supression and persecution of scientists and the administration forcing scientists to change conclusions or add material they did not write. He believes there is a conspiracy to commit active science fraud. It is also touted by the US government that there is a junk science conspiracy to promote the, at least in their publically stated opinion, flawed theories of global warming.

Both of these stances are conspiracy theories, are they considered to be so nuts when they come from such figures, well outside the 'fringe'?

Al Gore is effectively asserting that the US government is putting the lives of billions at stake, knowingly, to serve short-term business and political interests. Is he wrong?

Is it such a leap to extrapolate that the US government may be willing, through inactivity, to risk thousands of New York residents lives, in order to serve business and political interests?

  • 433.
  • At 01:42 PM on 29 Sep 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref shiningspar #430 (& the others multiple IDs above)

"If he tries to argue, call me names or responds with another ton of 'useful opinion', then you have your final proof that all the stuff about 911 being part of the plan to create a new world order, that all these "wars on terror" are part of the global new world order plan, and that a new world order will be the end of civilisation as we know it (dressed up as the finest civilisation in all history), they think they're going to succeed, they want to turn you and your children into overt slaves. FOREVER"

Pardon?

Well someone has a high opinion of themselves :)

Believe you would be far happier venting on www.guardian.co.uk/talk believe the Newsnight audience a tag bit non radical fringe for this type of creative fantasy speculation.

….pssst … you have to make a coherent point, even if people don't agree with what you say, you at least have to make sense

CT = clap trap

vikingar

(Cross posted from Newsnight Review blog.)

Thanks to Johann Hari for one priceless anecdote last night: of US police recently demanding, politely, that he move out of the way so that some "Stop the Police State Coalition" could exercise their freedom by marching through shouting 'Pigs!' at them all.

James Billington has written of the global obsession with Illuminism in the early 19th century (with Shelley obsessing more than most in the UK). He wryly points out that where such proto-revolutionary occult groups had the least presence, the USA, there was the most concern from the paranoid right about their secret influence.

What a delicious example of a nearly perfect mirror-image of the problem in the early 21st century from the paranoid left.

  • 435.
  • At 06:05 AM on 01 Oct 2006,
  • hypinguar wrote:

vikingar...only one smilie and only one, incomplete link ?...you're not exactly trying are you ?

Laugh Out Loud, I didn't write all the above synonym comments, i think you're facing more than one adversary here

Easily confused, huh vikingar ?

I think the above made perfect sense, you're a shill, you're so determined to keep arguing over a harmless conspiraloon, you provide proof that you're doing this for a reason beyond simple concern, you threaten myself and others with incarceration for being dangerous, and also suggest myself and others should seek medical assistance for being less than capable

In your earliest postings, you remained polite, then as you got less and less respectful, losing your 'OV' credibility on the way, you made the thread into one where apparently anything can be said, as rude as you like (as long as it's 'on message' with Newsnights "truthseeker" mission)

so now you're partially locked into this by wanting the final insult, and that makes you a loser, and your (try not to get aroused by your favourite word here) AGENDA becomes a self killing prophecy...tell the reader that anyone who isn't naive enough to believe this al-quada tosh is an idiot and they'll get back into line ? amusing notion, and i'm sure you're right ;)

You fire link after link at these discerning readers who you claim already have it all worked out - and therefore don't need your GCSE level critique :D

You love that Guardian, eh, vikinguard ?

Or do you work in marketing FOR the guardian ?

Oh, by the way, wikipedia also has about as much integrity as fudge in the sun

vikingar said..."believe the Newsnight audience a tag bit non radical fringe for this type of creative fantasy speculation.

….pssst … you have to make a coherent point, even if people don't agree with what you say, you at least have to make sense"

...yep, i think you did an admirable job of proving your own point there, nice one

vikingar said "Well someone has a high opinion of themselves :)"

err, you're the one with the pompous pseudo-intimidatory nomenclature, you have such a high opinion of yourself that just because it's YOU choosing a team, it's alright to choose fascism, i'd rather choose no team, and be willing to ask questions, you keep going with the CT = whatever bit, along your "case closed" line of argument, but you know by now, that no matter how often you try to put the lid back on the box with your 'judgement', it is out of desperation rather than the power you covet or fantasize you possess

here's one for you vikingar...CT = Continually Trying (as in getting nowhere)

What is fantastic and makes you powerless is that no-one needs to openly report to you that they've started to see through this media manufactured 'reality', they don't need to get your approval, they can just look, read and watch, to whatever extent they want, and you don't need to know, it is precisely that which allows your delusions of grandeur and delusions of being on the same page as the majority, a majority most of which are in the groups you threaten, but they are simply peaceloving, righteous and well adjusted people, and you just cannot stand that, can you ?

I think that the Newsnight viewer is quite discerning too, vikingar, that's why they aren't rushing to agree with you, they also know that Newsnight is 'on message', thanks to their discerning minds

I'd go further actually, vikingar, and say that those same discerning viewers mainly watch Newsnight because they prefer their propaganda a little less 'Kaplinsky', but they still see it, and you for what it and you are


Richard Drake, the point is that the police are people just the same as anyone else - same as a soldier, but they can both be put to serious misuse...i bet you would never expect the treatment described if you stood outside a police station yelling "pigs"

the police, like the army, are nice when it suits them, when it doesn't suit them (and often without just cause) they can be total thugs, it's all a matter of orders

hypinguar

Dearest vikingar soundalike

I wish that you wouldn't do that soundalike stuff. Like the numberless others that you claim are doing the same. When we address you, which person do we mean? It makes me sound stupid even trying. (Me, of all people!) Well, I suppose that you're not numberless in the end. It's just that no continuity can be assumed. Let's start again.


Dearest number 435

The point is not that police anywhere in the world, in any age, sometimes misuse their powers or are used by others to that end. It is that Johann Hari had an experience in real life that showed how little those who believe that the USA is already a police state (in the same sense that Nazi Germany was, say) are living in the real world. And that such people (as I assume you to be, number 435) don't seem to get either the humour or the gravity of being that out ot touch with reality.

This was nowhere better expressed than on an pioneering wiki that I once moderated:


"Richard K: You can't expect people raised in a police state to respect non-violence, egalitarianism and human freedom. Even Americans who profess peace and non-violence easily become rabid and vicious, threatening people who disagree with them with physical violence.

Tom K: Yes, a police state, that's what the USA is! Why, I remember when I wanted to move across the country, I had to get permission from the local -- oh, no I didn't, I just moved. But I do remember when the government told me which university I was going to attend and what my major -- wait, no, wrong country. It must have been right before I was drafted... except, that's right, the USA doesn't have a draft. But how could I forget that midnight knock on the door after I voted against the party in power -- except it wasn't jackbooted thugs come to toss me in prison incommunicado for a month, it was my roommate who had left his keys on the kitchen table. No, no, I have it now! I once ran a red light, and I got a ticket in the mail, because they had a camera on the intersection, the Filthy Fascists!

So tell me, Richard, how many years have you spent festering in detention under the American Police State?"

-- http://clublet.com/why?SoMuchRubbish


I'm proud to have made just that one interaction possible in January 2002. And that Mr Kreitzberg, of Washington, a Dominican lay preacher, is someone I still think of as a friend.

It's best to get real. Learning to laugh at the ridiculousness of one's own prejudices and foibles is as a good a way as any.

  • 437.
  • At 12:59 PM on 01 Oct 2006,
  • hypinguar wrote:

in reference to the last line you wrote, Richard..."quite"

and that is precisely what I have been saying to vikingar and HIS rhetoric of be afraid, and trust in your leaders

The murder of Jean Charles DeMenezez, was symbolic of the way we, and the police and special forces, can be whipped into a frenzy in which terrorism, rather ironically, can be released instead of prevented

Let's look at the Corpseboard
'terrorists' allegedly 5,000 - 'good guys' conservatively - 150,000...who's the real terrorists then ?

The police and military forces are increasingly fulfilling a near identical role, that of out of control lawmen, the army is supposed to exist to fight wars, then the u.n. started reformulating the military as 'peacekeepers', now they are apparently, nothng more than 'camoflaged police'

Forgive me, but i don't and will not ever find the shooting gallery that still is Iraq funny

We're also losing in Afganistan

If the police state is so funny, why aren't you laughing at the government ordered and ongoing Operation Iraqi Deathsquad ?

These are 'police', keeping false evidence in their humvees, and killing, at will, innocent men, women and childen

Torture has become "acceptable" in our sick and twisted society, and all you appear to suggest in remedy is disbelief and prayer

Guantanamo Bay is a deliberate (and intentionally publicised worldwide - especially in the east) attempt by america to wind people up into making the terrorism real

Smiling policemen at your end, rape, pain, murder and explosive rounds, and depleted uranium shells at the other, you still have 'friendlies' in the main, because of who and where you are, as a christian, you should regard your Iraqi and Afgani cousin higher than yourself...and even if your Christianity is of the 'prayer, no action, let the day of judgement come' variety, you're in a minority if so, the greatest part of the peoples of the world, KNOW what's happening, and will not let it pass unchallenged

The rigorous control and manufacture of the worlds media leaves you in a position to doubt...the masses in Madrid converged after the Madrid bombs because they knew the government did it, far from being in support of the government, they were trying to send the pseudodemocracy a clear message, one you were blocked from receiving, either from within or without

As a matter of preservation, even if you have no care for children blown apart in the name of a lie, you should be outraged and actively trying to bring Blair to prosecution for HIS warcrimes

As a sentient being you should be outraged by the fascism of Blair

Instead you seem to be the acceptable face of Christian dissent, one of the groups i notice vikingar won't seriously respond to either, IT IS ONLY THOSE WHO WILL NOT ENTER ONE OF THE SHEEP-PENS, THAT VIKINGAR ATTACKS with most persistence, he's the bad sheepdog and you're the good sheepdog, the real good news, is that FEWER AND FEWER PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO ENTER THESE SHEEP-PENS, AND ARE INCREASINGLY FORMULATING THEIR OWN, OPEN EYED IMAGE OF THE WORLD, and that makes them 'dangerous' to the NWO, and i, and many others say "good" to that...whether 'FEAR FEAR FEAR', or 'Come into the house of the Lord', all those control paradigms are dying a death, they are failing, and given the fact that fearmongering and religion have never brought about any real change, this can only be a good thing

While you laugh at the very intelligent souls who know how sick the political corporate death machine is, and apologetically give it the 'Let It Happen On Purpose' line, you're in effect saying that YOU know what is going on, same as anyone else, but that the removal of bush would be a cure all

Not until one considers the insideous nature of things, and their depth, will one be adequately concerned, and appropriately reacting

Bush senior runs america. through little bush, Clinton was a puppet president, and so will Hilary Clinton be, when Bush is 'Thatcherised', and Clinton is 'Blairised'...the hole in the voting percentages, will be the indication of voter enlightenment to this (made a little smaller however, by the computer generated fraudulent ghost votes)

Religion is in real trouble when "those with eyes" do not see the truth, and instead mock the knowing rather than facing the danger

  • 438.
  • At 08:32 PM on 01 Oct 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref #437 authored by MPD / DID *

* with ref to numerous other multiple poster IDs as above - presumably to reflect some disorder and/or lack of sincerity & belief in their own pseudonym /virtual handle [1]

" …… ...the masses in Madrid converged after the Madrid bombs because they knew the government did it …."

…ah …. Tapas Post 911 CT [2]

Q. does that also come with choice of wine from our socialist hosts?

Meantime [3]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.psycom.net/mchugh.html
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1873054,00.html
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5160162.stm

Re 427

>As a sentient being you should be outraged by the fascism of Blair

Ah yes, outraged by his fascism. Including presumably

1. Putting you, no 427, in jail, then torturing and killing you if you don't recant from attacking him publically

2. Suspending elections and taking all other steps, including killing his political opponents, so that he no longer loses power next year and ultimately becomes head of state

3. Beginning genocide against all Blacks, or Muslims, or any other such minority, in the UK.

In talking of a police state I made clear that I meant similarity to Nazi Germany. In launching such a randomly confused and morally twisted attack on that more light-hearted post you switched to the word fascist. But I have to take it that you agree on Hitler as the model. You believe all the above about Blair. It's going to happen. If it doesn't, your political judgment is shown to be totally wrong. Correct?

Whereas I don't believe that any of the above is going to happen. I don't call Blair a fascist. I believe that to be a far more accurate description of the current rulers of Sudan. They gained power through violence in 1989, since when they have planned and have increasingly been carrying out a ruthless genocide against those that they consider racially inferior.

Why does it matter? You may be right, I may be right. He may be fascist, they may be fascist. That's what Internet discussion, especially of conspiracy theories, is all about, surely?

No, only one problem. The cries of the defenceless, completely real men, women and children of Darfur. Their only hope is what you and I can do on their behalf. In my judgment - and I'm far from alone - there is no equivalent political evil and consequent humanitarian disaster in the world right now.

Don't say that Christians like myself are not active in combatting such evils. Come with me to the orphanages of Romania and Thailand, to the ravaged villages of Eastern Burma, to remote earthquake-devastated Muslim communities in North West Pakistan, to the worldwide hospice movement pioneered in the UK, to refugee camps all over the world where Christians are in the forefront of caring practically for the victims of all kinds of natural disaster and political violence.

The difference is that we seek to discriminate, between hateful fantasy and urgent need. In doing so we show that we care. Just as we do about any evil. We simply reject the fatuous option of blaming all such evil, worldwide, on a handful of soon-to-retire elected leaders of highly affluent countries whose precious freedoms were won through the sacrifices of much better men and women than either of us.

  • 440.
  • At 06:35 PM on 02 Oct 2006,
  • bribingblah wrote:

You're deteriorating steadily, vikingar

Still living in the past ?

Thinking you can brand people with an independant mind as socialist, eh ?

The only ist here, dear, dear, poor deluded vikingar, is you...FASCist

Every one of your pens flies the Swastica flag


Richard, they don't need to act like that here, but they do some of the violent stuff you describe abroad

And they all work for the same organisation, so Blair IS complicit

  • 441.
  • At 06:37 PM on 02 Oct 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref Richard Drake #439

(think you meant #437 non #427)

But in general ref your #439 .... hear hear

(esp last paragraph)

vikingar

  • 442.
  • At 07:30 PM on 02 Oct 2006,
  • bribingblah wrote:

You're deteriorating steadily, vikingar

Still living in the past ?

Thinking you can brand people with an independant mind as socialist, eh ?

The only ist here, dear, dear, poor deluded vikingar, is you...FASCist

Every one of your pens flies the Swastica flag


Richard, they don't need to act like that here, but they do some of the violent stuff you describe abroad

And they all work for the same organisation, so Blair IS complicit

  • 443.
  • At 08:01 PM on 02 Oct 2006,
  • Mork Anthony wrote:

To quote Gerard Holmgren:

"Fruitloop

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. 'The CIA killed Hendrix', 'The Pope had John Lennon murdered', 'Hitler was half Werewolf', 'Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone' etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.


So its hardly surprising that the events of September 11th, 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is -- sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th -- and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs -- is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they 'hate our freedoms.'

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks -- linked to the CIA -- the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about nineteen Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposterous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as 'the fruit loop' and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, nineteen Arabs took over four planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID -- but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities -- they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange", thinks the security officer, "that's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask ... and why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess ...."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there! They exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented! And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?" "You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers! And so on ....

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational skeptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen.

This is another favorite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The 'improbability drive', in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens -- just about all the time in their world. There is a principle called 'Occam's razor' which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the nineteen invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that September 11th, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, and spraying gas -- after they had attached their masks, obviously -- but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of 'our freedoms', it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -- really impeccable Islamic behavior -- and then got up at 5 o'clock the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to U.S. intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vaporizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable, quite remarkable. Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically Kerosene, and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 degrees Celsius has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing sixty-five tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around fifteen tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of Kerosene -- let alone the boiling point -- which is what would be required to vaporize a plane. And then there's about fifty tons of aluminum to be accounted for. In excess of 15 lbs of metal for each gallon of Kerosene.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as 'mumbo jumbo'. This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of Kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vaporized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.

"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact", they state with pompous certainty, "watch any Bruce Willis movie."

"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation -- other than Bruce Willis movies?"

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning back flip.

"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling, " they counter with a sly grin. Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vaporized into nothing. "But not big planes, with that much fuel", they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vaporize.

"Yes but not hijacked planes! "Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?" "Now you're just being silly."

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vaporize into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "It's a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves -- if not too many other people -- that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vaporization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop.

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of Kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning Kerosene.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose Kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporizing a sixty-five ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees centigrade for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of Kerosene is enough to:

- Completely vaporize a sixty-five ton aircraft

- Have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel -- melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel

- Still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building

This Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those Kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporized. And never again will I take Kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp -- the next -- kapow! vaporized into nothing along with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning Kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the black smoke coming from the WTC indicates an oxygen starved fire -- therefore not particularly hot -- they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 degrees centigrade, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of September 11th. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why. "Muslim terrorists stole my notes, Sir." "No Miss, the Kerosene heater blew up and vaporized everything in the street, except for my passport." "You see, Sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term 'creative science' and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly Kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat -- although 2000 degrees centigrade isn't really required, 100 degrees centigrade will generally do the job. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right, if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporize a sixty-five ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporized by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between. Each ring of building is about 30-35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 foot diameter through three rings -- six walls. A little later a section of wall about 65-feet wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell -- why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is 'mumbo jumbo'. It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it 'must be wrong' although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavor.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vaporized by its exploding fuel load, and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. That's a wonderful fruit loop. Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 foot deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building -- even though the building shows no sign of such damage. As for what happened to the wings -- here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly -- ignoring the undamaged lawn -- while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an 'irrecoverable angle.' How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As America gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on September 11th, and the subsequent war crimes committed in 'retaliation' are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about September 11th."

I'd say that just about covers it

  • 444.
  • At 03:26 AM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref #442 authored by MPD (#438)

"Still living in the past ? .... Thinking you can brand people with an independant mind as socialist, eh ?"

err ... no you turkey, The Spanish Government is Socialist - PSOE 43% of vote [1]

Well appreciate inhabiting your own CT world in parallel too reality that the rest of us live, may eschew you view but .... come on purveyors of Post 911 CT, at least know you basics, otherwise your AGENDA will get bypassed :)

The latest Post 911 CT from MPD (#437 & #442) ref Madrid bombings:

- the new socialist Spanish government PSOE did it
- the previous Spanish administration PP did it

Come on make up your mind !!!!!

The REALITY that the Madrid bombings the responsibility of alleged Islamic Extremists on trial & the Islamic Extremists who blew themselves up [1] - not convenient to Post 911 CT protagonists.

Turkey flavoured Tapas CT indeed

vikingar

SOURCES;

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3511280.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2004/madrid_train_attacks/default.stm

  • 445.
  • At 06:04 AM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • tryinhard wrote:

yep, you're definately coming apart, vikingar, and no error

:P

  • 446.
  • At 06:36 AM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • niketarp wrote:

You see, vikingar, you're STILL going on about politics and elections like they mean anything, because you're trying to keep this thread within the bounds of unreality, but you sorely underestimate the depth of your situation, people are waking up to the fact that socialism was backed by the same money nazis as all the other 'political persuasions'

You know, like how the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers caused the great depression, and financed Lenin, all that stuff

Whoever was voted for, the actual leadership of [insert any nation] are the same people who finance, arrange, and allow the [insert method of terrorism], and basically everyone knows it

No matter how long you try, you're trying to backfill a bottomless pit

Sigh, just one more CT for you, mentally defunct propaganda tool...CT = Conspiracy Truth

  • 447.
  • At 10:09 AM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • James wrote:

Vikingar could you address this...

In Al Gore's film, An Incovenient Truth, he asserts that there is a conspiracy among the powers that be, to hide the truth about global warming. This conspiracy includes the active supression and persecution of scientists and the administration forcing scientists to change conclusions or add material they did not write. He believes there is a conspiracy to commit active science fraud. It is also touted by the US government that there is a junk science conspiracy to promote the, at least in their publically stated opinion, flawed theories of global warming.

Both of these stances are conspiracy theories, are they considered to be so nuts when they come from such figures, well outside the 'fringe'?

Al Gore is effectively asserting that the US government is putting the lives of billions at stake, knowingly, to serve short-term business and political interests. Is he wrong?

Is it such a leap to extrapolate that the US government may be willing, through inactivity, to risk thousands of New York residents lives, in order to serve business and political interests?

Although I've come to admire some of the style as well as the substance of vikingar, his snappy and witty moniker for the soundalikes, MPD, also refers for me to real people who have suffered grievously at the hands of others.

I believe, you see, that Valerie Sinason, Jewish poetess and brilliant child psychotherapist and adult psychoanalyst originally at the Tavistock Institute, has been dealing for the last decade and more with something very real and very evil.

http://www.valeriesinason.com

Not through her choice or any Christian fundamentalist prejudices - she doesn't have any of those. A very disturbing syndrome - what is now called DID - presented and she was intellectually honest, caring and courageous enough to face up to its terrible causes, however alien the territory that took her into.

An extremely relevant theme for this page, except that it also demands the greatest sensitivity. That's the whole problem with this area. If there is anything at all to any of these CTs, even one part of one of them, lurid approaches to the subject matter, or mockery, or overstatement, or carelessness with the words used, or with the evidence presented, are simply disastrous. And, as normal, we've had the lot. More of that in a moment.

Yet I have to agree with vikingar that there is also something funny about some of this stuff. Hopefully I brought that out in my account of my first meeting with Jon Ronson, in 2001

http://clublet.com/why?LearningFundamentalist

Certainly the line "I'm a Christian fundamentalist and I'm here to learn" got a roar of approval and laughter from a mixed audience that day. I hope that I still live up to it.

But I now need something of the kind vikingar has for the soundalikes. From here on in VSO stands for the latest Vikingar Soundalike and (where appropriate) Other previous ones. Just like in Plan 9 from Outer Space, continuity can be difficult but it should be possible to keep track of the basic story this way.


VSO (422) wrote

"Richard, they don't need to act like that here, but they do some of the violent stuff you describe abroad. And they all work for the same organisation, so Blair IS complicit."

That just won't do VSO. You've just admitted that Blair isn't a fascist at all. If he isn't one at home he isn't one. He might still be a warmonger. Some of his friends might be war profiteers - an old category that surely needs to be revived in our day. But a fascist he ain't and you should admit that.

Meanwhile, the single organisation they all work for is called WHAT? Who exactly, to the last man or woman, are THEY? How do you know exactly who? How do you come by such certain knowledge when I am so unsure about so much? Only if you were working for THEM yourself could you know. And so the ridiculous paranoid-circularities go on.

Vikingar has done a very good thing (like it or not, those who consider it certain that he works, like Blair, directly for THEM) in pointing to TWO current CTs in relation to the Madrid mass murders of March 2004. Maybe I should come clean and let him and you know my instinctive attitude on that.

With most of these terrorist incidents, I do assume that Muslim extremists are involved. Note that even David Shayler freely admitted when I questioned him in person at Brixton on 10th September, the day that he'd appeared live on BBC TV telling of the glaring anomalies in the OV of 9-11, that the 9-11 attacks were planned by the nineteen Islamists who are blamed in the OV. It's just that, in his view, they had no chance of success without a helping hand from certain parts of the US secret services and others.

Although I am probably less certain than David is on who helped and in what way, I am with him on the fact that 19 Al-Qaeda guys planned the attacks and (solely because of the physical impossibility of the collapse of the buildings through damage and fire) that the terrible result was an "inside job" of some sort.

Scary.

So, as Madrid happened, I was open to the possibility that this too was a joint effort between Muslim extremists and more powerful (and quite likely more evil) people in the shadows.

I don't have cast-iron evidence like the 9-11 building collapses that these 'controllers' who are not Muslims were involved in Madrid, I hasten to add. But one thing was quite clear to me right away. If such people were involved, the attack was in large part revenge for Jose Maria Aznar's support for Bush and Blair in the invasion of Iraq. It had the desired effect. He was removed from office.

Although the phrase 'cui bono' is grossly overused by CTists, because of the pervasiveness of the law of unintended consequences, the timing in this case, and its effect, seemed stupid to ignore in any theory developed, however tentative.

The socialists benefited but, in either of my two schemes

1. Islamist extremists alone

2. Islamist extremists paid for and helped by the shadowy others who helped with 9-11

they were not the perpetrators.

Speculation but the kind of thing that goes through one's mind in the circumstances.

  • 449.
  • At 12:25 PM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref MPD #446

Nope, with that latest effort, you are trying too hard:

1. windup merchant
2. other :)

ENDEX

vikingar

  • 450.
  • At 01:05 PM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref James #447

Have not yet seen Al Gore's film, An Incovenient Truth, so too date can only by the reviews etc, so reserve right to alter my opinion [1]

But based on what I have learnt around the subject & issue too date ……...

GLOBAL WARMING (GW)

Having worked for global US firms, perfectly willing to believe they are willing to indulge in certain types of activity (lobbying, bending the rules, manipulating the agenda e.g. its what political administrations & groups with vested interests do).

For example, the litany of evidence from Smoking debate in the US is evidence enough:
- commercial position (lobbying)
- pseudo science (to deny link with cancer)
- intransigence (legal defences etc)

Ref GW I sign up to the idea that rises since industrial age can be linked to man's activity.

As too the efforts of those engaged in industries responsible for GW (besides the products & services which we as consumers buy which is equally contributing) its logical that this will happen, they will spend money & engage in efforts to preserve their position & mitigate risks.

To the extent that industries, US government & agencies sign up to this defence of GW denial?:

- GW industries YES
- parts of the administration YES
- agencies … hhhmmmm

However, pseudo science/fraud in the US has roots (used by all types of fringe: religious/political) :
- Intelligent Design / Scientific Creation / Creationism [2]
- Post 911 CT [3]

SUMMARY

Some wish it all & any way:

- pseudo science for Creationism & pseudo science for Global Warming denial (same camp)

- pseudo science for Creationism & pseudo science for Global Warming support & pseudo science for Post 911 CT

The issue & problem revolves around those willing to use science, then too tout & fabricate pseudo science to support a position/cause - is damming of the state of overall 'science' in the US.

For the inverse argument (those Post 911 CT believers) if the US admin does GW denial can it do 911 - the too are not logical or self fulfilling.

The former YES, the latter NO.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5345808.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4152374.stm
[3] litany of links & verbiage on this blog

  • 451.
  • At 01:11 PM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • Mork Anthony wrote:

Hi James

I can address that for you

Global Warming (as we understand it to be) is a fake, and the 'forced' changes of evidence are good ol' double bluff

Big Oil is funding both sides of the confusion, because they think you cannot work it out

Global Warming is necessary to make us pay more for poisonous fuels and not complain about it

Global Warming is necessary to keep us feeling scared and under pressure

Global Warming is needed to pressurise you into accepting Global Government, which I can assure you is a very bad thing

Unlike the War on Terror, unlike the wars on drugs and wars on poverty before, the WAR ON GLOBAL WARMING is going to be 'won', but only because it is not a real problem

Solar activity is understood to be the main controling factor when it comes to Global Warming

Al Gore is in on the joke...but a joke, is what it is

Global Warming is another psy-op, and must be ignored, it's the poisonous food we eat (all gluten/casein/msg/soya - all powerful glues, 'morphines', antidotes and stomach destroyers)) and toxic chemicals which should be concentrated on, but don't expect real action from the wholly NWO controlled Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc

It's all and always about the NWO

Don't buy the Global Warming psy-op

  • 452.
  • At 02:03 PM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref 'Mork Anthony' #449 a.k.a MPD #446

1. windup merchant
2. other :)

ENDEX

vikingar

  • 453.
  • At 02:35 PM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • slidingdar wrote:

Hey loverboys, the multiple names are a reflection of vikingars totally unwitty, pompous, assinine name of pseudo-import

How else are opinions to evade the fools personal attacks and pro-neurotic idiocy ?

As much as he may dislike it, vikingar cannot single us out as one entity, therefore he grabs at various acronyms desperately trying to reassert his 'dominion' over this thread, as he is given to see himself as deserving

In fact, you two think you can divide this whole 'discourse' between the two of you, a bit like a two headed monster arguing with itself, in this case, dreading that anyone dares to think outside of your two tone box

Ahh, so now the veil lifts, and Richard Drake, Christian, and vikingar, Fascist, link arms and wander off into a brave new future, in self assured smugness that they will survive, because they put their heads in the lions mouth willingly

How long have you two yearned to drop the facade of being 'enemies', must be a relief to finally admit that fascist leanings and christianity are in the modern world, truly mutually inclusive

'They' are those who choose to rule all, and be known by none, call them Rothschilds, Rockerfellers, call them Masons, call them Illuminati, call them Bilderbergers, because they are real, and any weak dross you can conjure to suggest that there is nothing to see, in the area of secret government and masonic power clubs, changes the fact not, and no, they're not reptilians or aliens, they're human parasites, who mock the host, and the people are more aware than ever in history, and that makes 'them' scared

My congratulations to you both on your coming out ;)

Here's something supportive for Mork Anthony on global warming (452):

"The doomsters' favourite subject is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national fascism.

All this suggests a degree of calculation ..."


In fact from that point on the author backs down, quite rightly in my view, from an overblown CT of how the global warming 'consensus' has arisen. But then she would. She's been there and knows how it goes, at all the international conferences and behind the scenes power broking. And (I believe) she stood resolutely against worldwide, supra-national fascism in all of them.

Except, of course, in the original she said "worldwide, supra-national socialism". It makes no difference to me which it was. I was just trying to be culturally sensitive here.

And at a time the Tories and their little tree are going so green, the dangers Thatcher sees in this part of the global environmental agenda are surely for real. Thus I find that I have much sympathy with Mork's big point:

"Global Warming is needed to pressurise you into accepting Global Government, which I can assure you is a very bad thing"

The post may have been a tad more simplistic than Thatcher's carefully considered section entitled 'HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING' (p449-58, Statecraft, Harper Collins, 2002).

But that central point about Global Government was well made. I'm with you on that.

  • 455.
  • At 03:58 PM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref a.k.a MPD #453

1. windup merchant
2. other *

* mumblings of 'matt' - methinks :)

Typical of the fringe unable to influence REAL debate & REAL issues - to adopt default fall back position for those with armed AGENDA but without influence :(

... inventive imaginative CT supported by fabricated pseudo science & blends of fact & fiction - then tout mixed messages

Irrespective or which road the 'reader' takes e.g. Post 911 CT, WO CT etc, eventually the other AGENDA will be touted.

As sad as it is predictable - Hay Ho

vikingar

  • 456.
  • At 04:15 PM on 03 Oct 2006,
  • Mork Anthony wrote:

Vikingar, you really are an ill-informed prat, and , upon reading the most recent of your drivel, that you're letting your guard down as to your (north american) location, nice one, as you say over there, 'jerk'

Global Warming is the wind-up here, it's just designed to give us more pressure on our already pressurised existence, but like you, vikingar, it is a puff of smoke, and nothing more than that

vikingar, you're seriously paranoid aren't you? Thinking I am other people here too? You REALLY ARE LOSING THE PLOT

Keep up the dour work my pitiable friend

To the VSO in 453: I assume like vikingar that you are 'matt'. If so, I have this word of advice for you.

You have been blinded by your hatred. Whatever his faults, including lack of wit and disagreeing with you, perhaps in that order, it seems highly unlikely to me that vikingar is the epitome of evil in this world.

I realise that my saying anything positive about him was a shock to you, given where your self-centred paranoia had already taken you. But that's what happens when you let hatred focus on one person, as it always does in the end. It blinds you. Even if vikingar is CIA, Illuminati or worse, he's not the heart of it all, I feel sure of that, despite the obvious importance of the Newsnight website in the global scheme of things. (Sorry guys.)

As for me, I know very little. But I do know that if we met I would think of you a friend. Don't lose that possibility. Hatred blinds. Always does. That puerile trap wastes so many peoples' lives.

That's irrespective