Talk about Newsnight

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?

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.

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!

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?

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?

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...)

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

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!!

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?

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?

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!)

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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."

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?

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

#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?

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!

#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.

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!

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.

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.

The blog disappearences !!!!!

Surely a conspiracy :)

vikingar

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

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..?

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?

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

#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.

#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

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.

#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?

#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!

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%?

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.

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.

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::

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

[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.

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

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

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/

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.

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......

#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.

#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.

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."

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

#127 Alan

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

Springgrove

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.

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.

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

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...

#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.

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.

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"

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

vikingar

please back your assertion that 99% believe the 911 OV

i don't believe that for a moment

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!

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

Ref newsnight blog contributors.

Anyone believe in BOTH A & B:

A - Intelligent Design / Scientific Creation / Creationism

B - 911 CT

vikingar

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

you mean the OT-CT ? which is a CT itself, what with its convenient findings of a passport as 'proof' ?

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

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??!!

i have noooooooooooo idea ! :D

am i supposed to ?

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

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 ?

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)

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?

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'

'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

#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….

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

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

#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?

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

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

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

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

okay, if this has turned into a 'lets repeat post-a-thon, libel this...

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

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 ?

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 ?

#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.

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

"electricity floating around in the wtc" ?

hmm, interesting :)

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

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

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

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"

#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…

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

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

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

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

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

jolly good, any chance of us wierdies getting an on air rant about the NWO ?

:D

#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.

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....

Alan

do i get to bring my calculator ?

;D

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 ?

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

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 ?

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

#207 matt

You have a calculator!! :o

Matt - 209

See 107.

In East Sussex? Something very fishy was going on....

Kumbayah......

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

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.

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

#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

more melting irony Adam ?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Gordon Brown orchestrating a coup? Come on Newsnight, less of the conspiracy theorizing....

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

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 ?

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

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

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....

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

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

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]