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(https://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:

https://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? https://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?

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

https://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 https://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm%29.

> 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. https://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."
https://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?
https://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.
https://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;

https://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?

https://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? -

https://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?

https://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"?

https://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 - https://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 ( https://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... https://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.

https://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:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO502B.html
https://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.
https://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.
https://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:

https://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 (https://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.

https://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"
https://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" https://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
https://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?
https://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"
https://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:

https://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? -

https://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ezoc/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 ?)

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

https://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.

https://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 https://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 ?... https://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..

https://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:

https://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..

https://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;
https://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!

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

https://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. https://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: https://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 https://arcticbeacon.com/3-Dec-2004.html , the living hijackers https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm (stolen identities?) , the magic crash-proof passport https://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 https://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:
https://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!

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

https://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.
https://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 https://arcticbeacon.com/3-Dec-2004.html , the living hijackers https://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 https://www.prisonplanet.com/multimedia_priorknowledge_firefighterstape.html , the magic crash-proof passport https://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:

https://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] https://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

https://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... https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=529253447051382848&auto=true

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

...and this even has alex jones, the character from skys conspiracies 'illuminati' programme... https://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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
[2] https://www.lds.org/
[3] https://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724
[4] https://www.tungate.com/Death_Before_Adam.htm
[5] https://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
https://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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciples_of_Christ
[1b] https://www.stnews.org/Books-2375.htm
[2] https://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 https://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. https://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.htm%29.

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 https://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

https://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) https://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:

https://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 -

https://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.

https://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 ?

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6246148295258152003&q=discussion+in+firehouse

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=in+plane+sight

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206291362863434922&q=alex+jones+bilderberg

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358319439993514946&q=bohemian+grove

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=steven+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=911+cover+up

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7048572757566726569&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4559472852690653060&q=alex+jones

https://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 ?

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6246148295258152003&q=discussion+in+firehouse

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=in+plane+sight

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206291362863434922&q=alex+jones+bilderberg

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358319439993514946&q=bohemian+grove

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=steven+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=911+cover+up

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7048572757566726569&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4559472852690653060&q=alex+jones

https://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...

https://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] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm?ls
[1b] https://www.bilderberg.org/tonyhom.htm
[1c] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg
[2] https://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 https://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 https://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

https://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 ;) https://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] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/html/bombers.stm
[2] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4762313.stm
[3] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5154714.stm
[4] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4130314.stm
[5] https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2197754,00.html
[6] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/14/do1401.xml

255 Bridget you are so right. There is no real investigative journalism about any of these things. It's well known that the Guardian lost large amounts of advertising revenue after printing a 9/11 truth article, and the reality is that nobody can afford to take the risk. Why has the inquest into Jean Paul de Menezes' death suddenly been delayed until "probably 2008"? Any article that covers these things always sticks to the OV ultimately. We no longer live in a free country with a free press, it's crept up while we were looking the other way.

Vikingar - your software needs debugging.

in regard to the july '05 bombings

watching the 'martyrdom video', and taking stock of what we've been told and not [mainstream]

here's a theory...

the chap who appeared in the video, was displeased by recent events, he appeared in that video to prove a point, to say things not only muslims might agree with

he and his cohorts, decided upon a plan to risk getting themselves shot, to be martyrs, but not by blowing themselves up, instead, by going to london with fake bombs and bulky rucksacks

instead of this, they (as may be theorized) were patsies, whose plans were known by groups who had the means to set devices in the transport the four were going to travel in, and the motive of re-igniting patriotism and a submissive electorate

this would account for the phrasing used in the video, it would also explain the bodyparts

remember folks, this is a conspiracy theory thread, so you're going to hear theories, i put it to you, that as disturbing and unlikely as this theory may be, it is surely in the realms of plausibility, given some of the shenanigans embarked upon by the state in recent decades

it is also noteworthy, that in both the case of 911, and 77, there were exact duplicates of the 'real' terrorist events being acted out by security and/or military and/or consultancy organisations

that's exercises of the real event, on the same day, and in advance of the tragedies, in both cases

i would remind vikingar that this is a thread titled 'on internet conspiracy theories', not 'internet pointless insults'

if he has any interest in finding out what really happens whether conspiracy, negligence or unavoidable tragedy, he will avoid repeating the usual religion/mermaids line, and put his objections in a clean, factual and reference based manner, otherwise the only conclusion to draw, is that he is employed to obfuscate, in the hope that these questions will be diluted and dissolved

which would be a desperate and ultimately doomed enterprise

Ref Bridget Dunne #254, #255

You really are entertainment value.

-----------

"Vikingar makes the point about the 21/7 'no-bombs' bombers. Have you ever wondered how no-bombs and no-one injured or killed leads to 43 arrests and 17 on trial compared to 7/7 where 52 are killed and yet no-one else is arrested or charged?

Where are the investigative journalists and why are they not asking these questions"

-----------

'Dunne' over or what :)

vikingar

Vikingar said:

But then again he would say that. But he's getting nearer the mark wouldnt you say?

pseudo science vikingar ?

pseudo science this

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q=in+plane+sight

and this

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change

or this

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6246148295258152003&q=discussion+in+firehouse

three and a half hours for the following harmless (unless you're working for thr nwo) post not to appear ?...now that's a conspiracy...

it doesn't cost anything to watch these films

https://truth.provostdesigns.com/

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1551348336255792191&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7752483415674202196&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2500924140588760933&q=alex+jones

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2366503626387827974&q=alex+jones

the truth will set you free

911 CT ANNIVERSARY BLUES

With the 5th Anniversary of 911 how inconvenient for the CT believers whose 'mantra motivations' coupled with their worship at the pseudo science altar of Elder Jones aka. Prof Steven E Jones.

Sorry …… Jayhawk, Bridget Dunne, matt et al & Richard Drake (though after something resembling lucid thought #231 #236, risks being kicked out of the CT Conspiratorial Club).

1. BBC1 7/9/06 retold the terrorist atrocity o f11th September 2006 (9/11: The Twin Towers) in an excellent drama documentary (based on recorded first hand experiences/testimony of building engineers real time observations of the gradual 'meting' of WTC & degrading from the cause of fire) & much more besides [1]

2. then old Osama Bin Laden releases a video (a format matt will surely enjoy) of OBL glad handing the Islamic terrorist cowards, who murdered all those people (taken pre 911) also couple of 'martyr video' releases from two of the hijackers [2]

Meantime, new BBC conspiracy blog for those who cannot get enough (CT believers happy to shadow & counter paste your spin) [3]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=yesterday&service_id=4223&filename=20060907/20060907_2235_4223_57514_45
[2] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5325590.stm
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/05/conspiracy_theories.html

like newsnight, you know there's some truth in the fact that 911 is full of holes, but although newsnight is forced to be complicit by fear of mortgages, you just love the idea of what might come if people aren't informed, and yes, allowed to make their own judgement

keep at it, for every reader you manage to turn off, you get ten more to question the voracious, fearful nature of your attacks, they'll dig, and it's all thanks to you

the essence of the forum rules are something you just don't think apply to you, and far from being some bastion of high standards, newsnight has allowed you to persue a shameful and offensive obfuscation and libel campaign, the likes of which would cause uproar if transmitted on television

all you are vikingar, is a happy face painted on the boot in the face, and newsnight, you're just metallic paint on a cruise missile

mildly distracting

but that's it

vikingar - like newsnight, you know there's some truth in the fact that 911 is full of holes, but although newsnight is forced to be complicit by fear for mortgages, you just love the idea of what might come if people aren't informed, and yes, allowed to make their own judgement

keep at it, for every reader you manage to turn off, you get ten more to question the voracious, fearful nature of your attacks, they'll dig, and it's all thanks to you

the essence of the forum rules are something you just don't think apply to you, and far from being some bastion of high standards, newsnight has allowed you to persue a shameful and offensive obfuscation and libel campaign, the likes of which would cause uproar if transmitted on television

all you are vikingar, is a happy face painted on the boot in the face, and newsnight, you're just metallic paint on a cruise missile

mildly distracting

but that's it

and what IS going on with this forum ? my last post needed six submissions over five hours to make it show, and the above was hardly quick to appear either, being originally submitted some hours ago, so assuming it doesn't ever appear, here it is /\

vikingar - like newsnight, you know there's some truth in the fact that 911 is full of holes, but although newsnight is forced to be complicit by fear for mortgages, you just love the idea of what might come if people aren't informed, and yes, allowed to make their own judgement

keep at it, for every reader you manage to turn off, you get ten more to question the voracious, fearful nature of your attacks, they'll dig, and it's all thanks to you

the essence of the forum rules are something you just don't think apply to you, and far from being some bastion of high standards, newsnight has allowed you to persue a shameful and offensive obfuscation and libel campaign, the likes of which would cause uproar if transmitted on television

all you are vikingar, is a happy face painted on the boot in the face, and newsnight, you're just metallic paint on a cruise missile

mildly distracting

but that's it

and what IS going on with this forum ? my last post needed six submissions over five hours to make it show, and the above was hardly quick to appear either, being originally submitted some hours ago, so assuming it doesn't ever appear, here it is /\

matt (as in door mat)

#267 #269 #230

.... 3rd time paste just for luck?

Yes? we have watched in awe the legions of CONVERTS to your 911 CT, flood to a Newsnight blog to support you.

Ref Newsnight, I have to presume we are somewhat amoeba under the microscope, a NCA social networking exercise of sorts & too damm right, its a great idea.

As your such a creator of fiction & a supporter of fabricated flawed pseudo science for 911 CT …. matt its rather amusing to see you getting so prissy over the rights/wrongs of others treatment & reaction to your fantasy meanderings.

Laugh ….. I nearly clicked on one of his home made video links :)

vikingar

Ref matt (is my name) #267 #269 #230

As a dedicated 911 CT believer matt .... surely not this 'matt911' [1]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.podcastpickle.com/casts/15624/

Richard

yes, makes sense, but so does the following...

"wild, unprovable words" is apt, very apt indeed, as a description of the 'official' version' of events of say, 911

yes, of course i get what you're saying

but although i may not personally be equipped with proof for these comments, they are 'widely believed facts' (another ironic josh, ref Futurama)

we could say that bush IS AT an 'associate' of moloch

i am not particularly concerned if people regard me as crazy, the whole world is crazy, i am arguably slightly less mad, as a know to ask myself if i am so

oh no, i have always presented Steven Jones in a manner that would make it perfectly clear that he is not 'crazy', quite the opposite, you're thinking of vikingar there

you say that i was reasonable about Jones, but not about Bush, this was simply to my mind a necessary reversal of the third reich-esque propaganda, of the seething "you're with us, or a terrorist" mantra of the overthrown democracy

your quote, is to my recollection, my response to an attack on Steven Jones credibility, rather than random good guy bad guy rhetoric without reason

i doubt i will ever be classed as a 'decent scholar', but i have a good instinct, hardly demonstrable to you, but it is often said by others to me - "god, you had that exactly right, how did you know ?", or "you know too much", and these are not ironic observations

i greatly respect the scholar, truly i do, but it is an approach, that has rarely served my particular (i'm sure very limited) skills, indeed, i find that for me personally, too much info clouds the visual/abstract/analytical parts of my mind

i thought this was about internet conspiracies, about raising relevant issues, if i had known it was my responsibilty to publish all the underlying data, i would have done so

surely, newsnight DOES have the access and researching tools to find the evidence, in detail for these various, yet potentially connected activities ?

i got involved with this thread to ask my own questions, and newsnight has answered one of those questions for me

you say i've posted possibly more than anyone else - well, how can i apologise for that when much of the posting has been in response to personal attacks from our friend, if my ramblings are so inneffective at getting to the issues, why his campaign ?

clearly you do not know me, this is after all, a strange form of communication, but actually, YES I DO just assert things, once i am satisfied that is the way things are, you may dislike it, but it clearly frightens vikingar in some way, judging by the manner of his amusing attacks

my assertions have caused me much trouble in my life, but as much as it has been to my cost on many occasions, i can feel vindicated that this and that were as i thought, you may be thinking arrogance, but it's saved my life more than once, i embrace being wrong, no problem with it at all, i am simply observing that my instinctive response has served me well (by instinctive, i mean letting the mind do the hard work in the background, rather than feverishly chin stroking in the hope of conscious revelation)

bad science/theory is openly debunked on occasion on newsnight, but when it comes to corporate and state royalty, where the biggest debates lie (at least on the internet), there is a deafening silence occasionally punctuated by small revelations, but a distinct lack of real engagement, this is the answer to one of my questions, i am sure you can figure out what that question might be ?

all the films i have linked to are perfectly self explanatory

they merit further investigation, that they are left in the cold wastes of the internet has less to do with validity, than hereticism, in the broadly accepted scientific sense (earth is a sphere, sun is the centre, evolution, four billion year old earth, nwo/occult control system - no precedent for that is there ? unless one includes roman, chilu, mayan, inca, pharoahic just to name a few)

all of the three readers of this thread will take in what they choose, and filter it through their knowledge of history, to whatever degree they possess such information

as i'm sure you'll agree, there are some interesting, and not immediately apparent skulls and bones in many closets of the powerful, i could not and would not ever apologise for bringing a few of these to the attention to the one of the three readers who was not aware of them, as i say, it is both easy and accessible to get the basic gist of these things by viewing the back catalogue of the films/seminars of Alex Jones, and to the more learned types such as yourself, for whom solid paper is preferable, there is the excitement of rooting these out for oneself (who doesn't have a latent Indiana Jones lurking within ?)

i make no apology for a small, and insignificant part in informing the one of the three readers who may now be digging this stuff out for themself, "one person at a time", as a certain man once said

the films of Alex Jones, may, just may, have played a part in slowing the onslaught of the very things he is rightly indignant and alarmed about, so it is a matter of honour for me to assist 'spreading the word'

i noticed a distinct lack of mention of him, so, seeing as how he is an important proponent of issues of concern/[state] conspiracy, i thought we should have him discussed here

here's a real issue of concern, why does it take five to six hours, and five or so submissions, for a harmless, and brief post to be displayed, when subversive, insulting posts duly arrive in moments ?

it is this FIVE hour wait, coupled with many attacks, which left unanswered give some form of credibility, that can be apportioned much of the blame for the implied 'thread hogging'

i appreciate the recommendation of prayer, but my way is to use my big fat mouth here

if you must raise the issue of prayer, i personally always found action or words achieve more

as an example, you, apparently well read in the area of thule, order of death etc, are FINALLY engaging in adding your knowledge to the debate

thanks to my big fat mouth

SINCERELY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN I CAN SAY "WELL, I HAD THAT ALL WRONG", LET'S HOPE [PRAY] SO

and apologies for the post/length, i guess you wanted a reply

well newsnight, i was misled, i thought you had 'something' to do with this website

with my posts disapearing at random and the inexplicable "moderation"

and the continuing 'acceptability' of 'the idiot' being left to continue, i'm out of here, what a shame, newsnight, i thought better of you

i leave the field open to vikingar, victorious over justice, long may his type reign over us all

Posts #270 & #275 essential reading for a classic demonstration in 'scaring the horses' :)

Ref matt #275 - "….. but i have a good instinct, hardly demonstrable to you, but it is often said by others to me - "god, you had that exactly right, how did you know ?", or "you know too much", and these are not ironic observations"

… presumably, this took place in front of a mirror, in a room of one?

Ref matt #275 - "SINCERELY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN I CAN SAY "WELL, I HAD THAT ALL WRONG", LET'S HOPE [PRAY] SO"

… surely any day since 11th September 2001 will do?

Ref matt #275 - "….. i leave the field open to vikingar, victorious over justice, long may his type reign over us all"

Well that’s very kind of you, but hardly merited, you defeat yourself & undermine your 'cause' with a laughable combo of delusion, denial, pseudo science, paranoia, inventive myopia & a self imposed creative detachment from reality, whilst alienating those around via an abuse of the norms & behaviours of relationship (virtual kind between strangers) ...... consequence? not so much a rallying cry to your cause but a nuremberg-esque rally of one.

…. have you considered a career in screen writing :)

vikingar

VIKINGAR

Been following your activities here.

Do you honestly expect to create a public point of view with your PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN ?

Why would people who see through you want to enter into debate with you here ?

You do not represent the millions of people for whom, you are simply a time waster with nothing to say, and no influence.

HA HA HA, How desperate :D

Ref WHAT A JERK #279

"Why would people who see through you want to enter into debate with you here ?"

Ahh ... herm

Not here to enter into a debate with zealots, rather to counter their disingenuous efforts at CT (various motivations & hidden agendas) esp aimed at the vunerable.

I'll happily engage with those in the middle ground not polarised to the extremist borders.

Its the simplest & most honest of methods, if CT posters aligned their CT arguments to the pseudo science of certain persons, the we are duty bound to examine the previous work & gauge the credibility of such authors of CT 'evidence & research' (Jones, Griffin et al).

Don't blame me if inventive CT is even further undermined by the 'scientific answer' that has to be doctored to the loaded CT question (but we know that already - given the original inventive premise).

"ha ha" indeed ….. methinks :)

vikingar

VIKINGAR

I couldn't agree with you more ! :)

Bearing in mind that all those who say there is something deeply wrong with the world are wrong, it would be more balanced of you to include Bush, Chenie, Rumsfeld, Blair to your list. :)

They are also disingenuous zealots who indulge in CT - "Give us your freedom or there'll be terrorism". :)

How hilarious is that ? Almost as laughable as suggestions that there is some dark New World Order intent on total domination, seriously, what possible reason is there to suspect such as thing ? :)

Yes, absolutely valid to examine the previous work and gauge the credibility of such authors of evidence and research, but you should include yourself, as well as United States Government :)

You underestimate the reader. :)

Straw poll round the office - nine out of thirteen said of VIKINGAR - "Definately not what he pretends to be" :)

BYE BYE ! :)

Ref WHAT A JERK #281

'straw poll' = conversation with self

'office' = bedroom

'13' = 1

..... presumably :)

Ref 'New World Order' ? best ask matt ref his/her use of the terms in #204, 208, 229 264, 275 … his CT territory.

Ref Bush & Blair, no favourites of mine, but as a Brit I support the teams, not the captains. As for the 'neo-cons' a way over estimated group, with a finite shelf life given the nature of our societies, what influence they 'ever' had diminishes daily (but the Left & anti-war brigades require a definable bogeyman, so they must give it a name & attribute influence to it).

The current main threat to progressive democratic societies is Islamic Extremism, the domestic variety/international variety & also the disingenuous pressure/political groups, typically the of the left (anarchist, communists, socialists etc), liberal left & elements of the supposed illiberal intelligentsia.

Such are feeding off this impasse, deliberately blurring the lines of debate with a combo of mixed message, attempting fusion of parity & moral equivalence arguments between terrorist mantra & atrocity & the legitimate policy & action of progressive states (who may make mistakes, but who are accountable to the people they defend).

For many CT has become an enabler, a means to get across their own messages by hijacking what may be legitimate concerns & reservations about governement policy (more so in the US, but hardcore in the UK).

Consequence, the vulnerable in our societies & esp those in our Muslims communities can become confused & easy prey to be radicalised (not only by the terrorist variety, but by extremists period).

Governments have the right & responsibility to ensure peacetime rights/entitlements are protected, but in wartime such can be legitimately suspended/curtailed, esp given nature of the conflict. The trick is to get them back in the same/similar format as when they are given up.

As for the anti-war, anti bush, anti blair, anti west brigades … they will not have it both ways.

As the conflict undoubtedly escalates (the west v religious extremism), when the terrorism ramps up atrocities in progressive societies, the peacetime right to protest (esp by the serial protesters of multiple causes) must be voluntarily transformed into responsible criticism under wartime conditions, otherwise the state will be forced to act & some will be enjoying custodial entertainment - hay ho.

vikingar

I said "BYE BYE" :)

WE aren't interested in what you have to say, and WE can leave you alone, WE can ignore you, you ARE discredited !

Although a colleague may respond to you, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you :)

Laugh.....The length of your post shows you're rattled (As well as plain wrong) :)

Laugh....."Progressive" :D
Laugh....."Democratic" :D
Laugh....."Accountable" :D
Laugh....."Defend" :D
Laugh.....'Trust in Politics' :D
Laugh.....'The old Left/Liberal-Right Paradigm/Lie' :D
Laugh.....'No freedom in wartime' - this is a 100 years war, we'll all wait that long :D
Laugh.....You just threatened most of the country who do dissent :D

Laugh.....You're so out of the game :D

Laugh.....You may have the last word, but not the last Laugh :D

Laugh.....Huge laughter at you :D

This is OUR last GOODBYE ! :)

BYE BYE :)

Ref WHAT A JERK #283

Rattled no, willing to counter the spin of the multi vested interests behind CT - yes, yes & yes - hence length of posts. But interesting to see you employ the collective 'WE' when criticising, supposedly the kudos in numbers argument, whilst then accrediting my lone prose, action & motivation to being part of a state agency - flattered but no). But it sounds like my criticism of the left, liberal left & anti war & Islamic Extremists/Muslims communities has somewhat touched a nerve :(

BACK TO THE THREAD TOPIC ... bit of a long post

Ref my #127 which Richard Drake was kind enough to mention in #268

Two opposites: CT & OV.

Q. but what is in-between?

How about RU (reasonable uncertainty) which would require legitimate & credible investigation to address such queries.

Q. how to make a distinction between OV - RU - CT:

- (a) what can be deduced from seeing all the footage, esp live (e.g. WTC) which becomes central & core to the OV.
- (b) a spun interpretation of a recorded event from a packaged selection of footage touted as CT (which may or not have been doctored further to support the premise of the CT).

Before the 911 CT believers wet themselves, ref WTC collapse, the world collectively experienced (a) whilst the 911 CT believers make great play of (b)

OTHER EXAMPLES

Case in point, two examples from the Israel v Hezbullah conflict in Lebanon & the efforts of Hezbullah propaganda campaign.

1. The Ambulance

Hezbullah & certain groups (home & abroad) & even parts of MSM & certain made great play of the Israeli attack on IRC ambulances.

A battered ambulance with a round hole in the roof was shown globally by Mainstream Media (MSM) as being evidence to such an attack (though where did they get the footage?) [1a]

Further investigation revealed the hole manufactured hole was where the flashing light/venting unit normally is in the same model of Lebanese ambulances, but a correction has never been widely made [1b]

Also there were queries about the part that 'paramedics' with supposed injuries played on that day, given they where bandaged up one day on a trolley & bounding around the place without mark or scars the next day.

Also questions about how the casualty in the ambulance had obtained their injuries given the lack of damage to the ambulance not attributed to a missile strike (which did not occur).

2. Choreographed Emergency Services - 'Green Helmet Guy'

This one is a very interesting example of un packaged/total footage becoming the undoing of Hezbullah OV.

German News Agency Zapp have shown footage from a 'known' person who was seen & heard directing the recovery of a dead child from damaged building into an ambulance. Then unhappy with the shot, 'the man in the green helmet' choreographed the event again, taking the dead child out of the ambulance down onto the ground then lifted onto another trolley & put back into the ambulance [2a]

The Green Helmet Guy turns out to be one 'Salam Daher' an alleged Hezbullah supporter, who has form for stage managed choreographing such events from 10 years earlier [2b].

However, at the time what was released to the MSM was a packaged selection & the Hezbullah media campaign is more slick for that part of the region, than people had thought (but MSM should have known better

AP & Reuters to name but two MSM org's criticised by bloggers [2c] [2d] & also both agencies allegedly using related photographer & journalists (twin brothers) in the region, questioning the impartially of reporting [3]

SUMMARY

Therefore, using examples 1 & 2 …...

Q. what say you - CT or RU?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] https://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html
[1b] https://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
[2a] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc
[2b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Daher
[2c] https://newsbusters.org/node/6933
[2d] https://www.sirhumphreys.com/al/2006/aug/12/green_helmet_guy_salam_daher
[3] https://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/ap-photographer-and-reuters-reporter.html

Ref Bridget Dunne #284

"you claim to be centre but you come across as extreme right. Perhaps that's where the centre is now"

Never claimed that?, happily inhabit the centre right (liberal conservative).

The vast majority of British Society are mainstream centre to centre right, whilst the minority (various left incarnations, others & extremists of all persuasion) wrestle for the remainder.

Perhaps as you are in this minority , everything else by default seems extreme to you & your belief/mantra?

I agree the centre is 'more' rightmost, but it has not had to journey far.

vikingar

Catching up on two weeks of posts has been extremely entertaining. As pointed out by Jayhawk (151, 230), Richard Drake (166), Matt (251) and others, Vikingar disrupts the forum with a deluge of ad hominem attacks against ‘conspiracy theorists’. According to him, all non-OV CTs are fabricated, flawed, inventive, creative, questionable, wishful fantasy, hot air, based on pseudo science, disingenuous efforts, pseudo research, fantasy claims, dubious bias, non credible falsehoods, imaginative speculation, and are propagated by zealots, extremists, fanatics, believers, sad/naïve fools and dishonest fabricators. Phew, that’s quite a list and enough to put anyone off, who’s casually browsing the blog.

I doubt that Vikingar is a U.S. govt. employee as Matt suggests (201), or an A.I. program, as Jayhawk suggests (243) – although, regarding the latter, I have no idea what the state-of-the-art can achieve these days, especially when one considers the Pentagon’s will to engage in ‘information operations’ https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4655196.stm . From the puerile way Vikingar (198) brings up ‘zionism, aliens, Elvis and the lock ness monster’, I’d say he/she may be a BBC employee (remember the photo chosen for this blog!)

The one CT that Vikingar has argued for is the anti-Israel staged photos (127), which Richard Drake commended (268) for its contribution to the debate; which I do too – although we musn’t forget Vikingar’s support for his ‘own, very novel CT’, as described by Richard Drake (210), nor his defence of the grand OV 911 CT (the fact the 911 OV is a CT has been pointed out many times, e.g. Matt (162) and Bridget (249)).

Vikingar’s ‘case closed’ mentality seems to me at odds with his/her/(its) acknowledgement of ‘reasonable uncertainty’ and a call for ‘legitimate & credible investigation (285); a legitimate, credible investigation, now wouldn’t that be a refreshing change! The tactic to tie all 911 CT (e.g. 241) to ‘religious sect academics’ ignores the research done by others. Even if 911 CT was exclusive to the people Vikingar attacks, Richard Drake makes the salient point (156, 197, 210) that great scientific achievements have been made by the religiously-minded, and that questioning S.E. Jones’ religious beliefs does not mean, a priori, his 911 CT ideas are invalid. Nor has Matt’s challenge (157) to Vikingar’s statement (154) ‘real world believers in OV make up the vast majority (99%)’ been addressed by Vikingar. Yet here’s a source which states the opposite of Vikingar -https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

To use the loaded anti-CT language used on this forum, I see that Adamliv (253) ‘clings’ to his suicide video theory to ‘prop up’ the OV. I agree with Bridget (254) and Jayhawk (257) there’s a complete lack of investigative journalism.

With regard to the debate on what caused WTC 1, 2 & 7 to collapse; Arguing for the OV, I think Alan has done an excellent job addressing the issues, and he has won me over to the idea that the molten metal could have been due to the energy released from the collapse, although the thermite explosion theory sounds plausible to me too (e.g. as argued by Zoran, Richard Drake, etc.). Whilst I’m not qualified to judge the plausibility of these theories, I do think the debate needs to be broadened to tackle other information, such as the seismic spikes before each collapse (as recorded by Columbia Uni’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, NY), and eyewitness reports of ‘bombs’ going off.

Thanks Bridget for the info on the Whitehouse statement (246), which I find extremely disturbing.

In the Kelvinesque spirit of working with numbers (ref: Alan, 110), I’d like to ask Richard Drake, with his Cambridge mathematics degree (191), whether he could work out (for the sake of future generations! Ref: 166), the probability of the 7/7 Visor Consultants training exercise choosing exactly the same tube stations as the real attacks – under a conservative scenario that, say, only Zone 1 stations (c.70 stations?) were equally likely to have been picked – and perhaps an even stricter scenario, if you can think of one. It must be thousands to one, at least.

Besides the questionable motives of those who tout 911 CT, none can agree on a single alternative 'motive' & means/method'.

According to them there was a queue of people with different motives & different methods doing different things simultaneously …. get in queue & take a ticket :)

But you cannot divorce:

1) 'Motivation'

from

2) 'Means & Method'.

If you rely on pseudo science (given the questionable past works & current beliefs) of Jones et al to validate your 'Means & Method' - CT has failed before the race started (as it would, given its fantasy).

Then where are CT believers left on the Motivation front?

This is where the CT believers completely looses the plot, their ideas will never fly outside the fantasist turkey coup. The mainstream is not interested, but CT may have success with the vulnerable in our society.

Whereas, a straightforward & basic understanding of the litany of recent historical events provides the unpalatable answer.

An answer rather unfortunate for the various 'motivations' promoted by those who tout & fabricate CT ideas & evidence.

The reality of recent history of the modern world, is far more simple & straightforward:

- bad decisions
- domestic distraction
- ineffectual & poor foreign policy
- failure to deliver v intransigence
- all combined with rising Islamic Extremism

......... led to 911.

What has happened post 911 is another situation entirely.

But ref 911:

1. Perhaps it was too much to expect those with an axe to grind in our own societies (political/fringe/pressure groups & the 'challenged') not too take advantage of the such events & others suffering …. & construct fantasy CT to assist their aims.

2. Perhaps it was too much to expect those vulnerable in our society not to be effected by CT, given changes within our societies & the means of popular communication by which those with agenda can disproportionaly promote their mantra.

3. Perhaps it was too much to expect that those drawing up the strategy & the tactical response to rising Islamic Extremism would be as less then successful about it.

When the response of government to extremism is not wholly satisfactory & does not deliver in a timely manner (expectation of the modern world) any wonder the same CT protagonists will attempt to weave this into their opened ended CT equation as well - linking pre-911 to 911 to post-911.

But complex fantasy does not a credible argument make (in the face of recent historical events).

vikingar

Ref Bridget Dunne #290

Suggest you ask the serial simpleton directly [1]

But before that, watch his other public gaffes [2]

According to Bush he was 'trained by Alqueda' 20 sec into the video.

Really ... trust your CT built on better bushism that that :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg

5th ANNIVERSARY - 911 - 11th September 2001

RIP - the 2,973 innocent victims of an Islamic Extremist terrorist atrocity.

911 Overview [1]

The 4 high jacks [2]

How the Towers Fell [3a] [3b]

9/11 - The Report [4]

Who did it - Alqaeda [5]

Finally, with ref to the subject of this thread, the consequences of intentional & deliberate domestic CT [6]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2006/11_september_five_years_on/default.stm
[2] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456983/html/default.stm
[3a] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5298746.stm
[3b] https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml
[4] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm
[5] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm
[6] https://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=303

Hello Richard,

ref: 293

> But even if you and I greatly disagree with it, one
> erroneous government web page is not the same as
> detention, torture and execution for saying
> different. "Extremely disturbing"?

If it's one erroneous government web page, that's fine of course. I take your point about the use of the word 'extremely', but if it's the logic of Western society to come, I find it disturbing (is that better?) that our activity in openly discussing and perhaps supporting some alternative ‘conspiracy theories' equates to contaminating the public discourse with false and corrupted information which engenders a population from which terrorism can spring.

I found it especially disturbing in the light of ‘conspiracy theorists’ already being persecuted in the US;

In July, Michael C. Ruppert of www.fromthewilderness.com left the US for good, stating, ‘I had humiliated the government one too many times, I understood two things. I was too old to go on fighting these increasingly ugly and dangerous battles. And there was nothing left in the United States worth fighting for. The next battle would surely mean death for me.’
https://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081606_burning_bridge.shtml

In August, 911 investigator Chistropher Bollyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Bollyn) was beaten up and tazered on his front lawn by police.
“I have every reason to believe it is because of my journalistic investigation into 9/11. I have been threatened before in my career as a journalist, but this is the first time I have been intentionally beaten and abused—by the cops…. I intend to seek asylum in Norway or Switzerland. I can read the writing on the wall.”
https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/170806Bollyn.htm
https://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm

Before Vikingar beats me to it, even if you find Ruppert's 'US govt. did it' conclusions, or Bollyn's 'Zionists/Mossad did it' conclusions, distasteful, does that mean he should be beaten up by the police for expressing a view?

Three days ago, this story appeared about Greg Palast facing Homeland Security charges for filming an Exxon site for his documentary on Hurricane Katrina.
https://www.gregpalast.com/palast-pascarella-face-homeland-security-criminal-charge

Is this just the beginning of a trend? I hope not.

btw: Dear Moderator - I would like to know what happened to my reply to Vikingar (289) that I posted this morning. It hasn't appeared on the blog, yet Richard Drake's 4.08pm post has.

QUOTE:

"In countries where associations are free, secret societies are unknown. In America there are factions, but no conspiracies" Alexis de Tocqueville - (1805-1889) French social philosopher.

3 PERIODS:

Period 1 - Pre 911
Period 2 - Events of 911
Period 3 - Post 911

2 CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Motivation
2. Means & Methods

ANSWER? - the CT:

CT believers interlink all three periods in a dizzying myriad of fantasy & conspiracy but are unable to agree on a single alternative 'motivation' & means/method' (surprise surprise given their fantasy premise)
- fantasist motivations
- pseudo science means & methods.

According to CT believers there was a queue of people with different motives & different methods doing different things simultaneously …. get in queue & take a ticket [1]

- it was not muslims, it was Jews, it was Amercians, it was Neo Cons, it was the CIA (but it was ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in PLANES)
- it was insurance fraud, it was oil barons, it was military industrial compex (but it was ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in PLANES)
- it was missiles, they were not planes, it was bombs, it was cutting charges (but it was ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in PLANES)

ANSWER - the reality:

A straightforward & basic understanding of the litany of recent historical events (Period 1) provides the unpalatable answer & the reality of recent history of the modern world, is far more simple & straightforward which led to the events of 911 (Period 2):

- bad decisions
- domestic distraction
- ineffectual & poor foreign policy (backing the wrong group, arming, training & funding etc).
- failure to deliver v intransigence
- all combined with rising Islamic Extremism

PERIOD 3 - Post 911:

Given the changing nature of the Islamic Extremist threat - are targeted progressive democratic societies ....

- entitled & duty bound to react - YES
- entitled to make such a reaction as part of an overall strategy (roadmap etc) - YES
- entitled to secure support for an overall strategy (from all quarters) which encompass more then basic reaction to an instance of terrorist i.e. the causes & heart of such mantra - & offer an alternative - YES

Do the citizens of progressive democratic nations, reasonably expect the following:

- EXPECTATION [1] government actions bring success - YES
- EXPECTATION [2] government actions bring timely success - YES
- EXPECTATION [3] government actions bring timely success in a affordable way (fiscal & human cost) - YES

Given the current impasse, with such EXPECTATIONS not being readily met, the less than satisfactory total response of those who have authorised the 'War on Terror' is at question, their judgement & competency (a consequence of democracy, something radical Islamic extremism goes not dare entertain).

The history of world war has taught us that the initial reaction of those under attack often takes a while to get going, but setbacks were overcome & sorted out & the response was deadly & brought success:

- 20th Century - Europe: BEF withdrawal, collapse of France, German occupation then back with D-Day to Victory in Europe.
- 20th Century - Pacific: Pearl Harbour, Japanese occupation to Victory in Japan.
- 21st Century - Post 911: its ongoing :)

DOMESTIC DIFFERENCE:

What is the domestic difference between the circumstances of two World Wars & our societies now. Then soceity bred/allowed constructive criticism but its socities did not give birth to such domestic intransigence amongst various groups with an axe to grind (abusing peacetime entitlements in wartime environment) as we now endure.

Many domestic protagonists demand the freedoms of society under threat, whilst making a disingenuous argument to deny the said governments of such societies the freedoms to defend such societies.

But the point to which those touting non constructive criticism gives direct succour to an enemy & promotes uncertain & untruths making the 'vulnerable' in our societies prone to the influence of extremists - are the acts of a 5th Column (the difference being individuals & groups not agreeing on final objectives, but agreeing on any means to bring down common bogeymen: the west; certain political figures; capitalism; US, Israel).

The right to question the actions of one governments is a right & entitlement for citizens of progressive democratic societies.

But there are virtually no headline CT individual/group which do not have a litany of other agenda (simple analysis of their previous/current activities reveal this e.g.):

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups.
- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety)
- Islamic extremists themselves
- usual loon brigade.

SUMMARY:

There are other factors which have undoubtedly influenced history & society (aims & desires of governing elites & their supporters to the societal engineering policies of liberal elites).

But headline CT individuals/groups are not there doing a civic services, they are embroiled in self service (ego, aims, kudos, money).

The internet enables mass dissemination of a CT message, enabling people prone to such beliefs to be interlinked & enabled - but still it’s a very small but disproportionaly vocal minority.

Willing not only to invest time & resources promoting CT fantasy, but invest time & money fabricating CT evidence, to fill the blanks.

CT believers in essence have an axe to grind in our own societies & 911 has presented them with an opportunity far too tempting not too take advantage of the such events & others suffering.

PSE NOTE:

Given this is an covert information & propaganda war as much as a overt military war, you have to wonder how many extremists (esp Islamic variety) adopt different guises & intentionally look to actively promote CT due to its corrosive undermining of consensus in progressive democratic societies.

Deny the victim (society) the right to accuse & undermine their right to defend themselves, serial abuse will follow.

CT protagonists also have aims & agendas, which 911 CT enables :(

And in the face of this tangible & damaging underhand combo of domestic intransigence & Islamic extremism (in all its forms) - I trust & dearly hope the governments of progressive democratic societies, are playing suitably dirty & the gloves are off - though we need to ensure they are put back on - at some point :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A652277

Dear Vikingar (289),

> Besides the questionable motives of those who tout
> 911 CT

‘Tout’. You’ve used it ten times so far (in 150, 161, 173, 199, 285, 289, 296), and are the only person to have used it; such a fabulous word, with connotations of dodgy trading and petty exploitation.

> none can agree on a single alternative 'motive' & means/method'.

I find it incredible that you expect the millions of people around the globe who question the 911 OV to agree on a ‘single alternative’.

> According
> to them

It’s ‘wishful fantasy’ there is a single group of people to attribute your idea to!

> there was a queue of people with different motives & different
> methods doing different things simultaneously

I have yet to read 911 conspiracy theorists (apart from perhaps the multiverse crowd!) who accept a mixed bag of scenarios as all being true, even when there are multiple suspects.

> But you cannot divorce:
> 1) 'Motivation'
> from 2) 'Means & Method'.

You can treat these as separate phases of an investigation. Establish who may have had a motive, then see if they had the means and opportunity. Alternatively, analyse those with the means, and see if they had the motive and opportunity, or those with the opportunity, to check whether they had the motive and means. Suspects with all three attributes are worth serious investigation.

> If you rely on pseudo science (given the questionable past works & current
> beliefs) of Jones et al

Why are you so focused on Jones et al? They are Jonny Come Lately’s to 911 CT (nothing wrong with that, of course).

> Then where
> are CT believers left on the Motivation front?

I find it ironic that you use the word ‘believers’ to describe those who question the 911 OV, when you seem to me to be the ‘believer’ (in the OV) opposing people who have openly said they don’t have preconceived conclusions and are attempting to get to the truth.

> This is where the CT
> believers completely looses the plot

Another moment in your constructed narrative. You’ll find there is no shortage of motivation that doesn’t fit the OV – well you would if you actually debated the points raised by others!

> their ideas will never fly outside
> the fantasist turkey coup.

Insult upon insult. We’re turkeys in a coup. Thank you for the inspired debate; remember this is supposed to be a high-brow forum!

> The mainstream is not interested,

How do you know what the mainstream is or is not interested in? Even Adam Livingstone admits, in the introduction to this blog, that ‘the official version (OV) is no longer shifting copy like it did’. Perhaps by 'mainstream' you mean 'mainstream media' - that would make sense.

> but CT may
> have success with the vulnerable in our society.

First we’re turkeys in a coup, and now we’re the ‘vulnerable in our society’. IMHO, these kind of comments tell us more about your own psychology than about the people you’re referring to.

> Whereas, a
> straightforward & basic understanding of the litany of recent historical
> events provides the unpalatable answer.

I, for one, don’t deny Islamic extremism, or the threat posed by it to the West. But there are many forms of extremism, some you seem unwilling to consider as a possibility.

> An answer rather unfortunate for
> the various 'motivations' promoted by those who tout

‘tout’ again

> & fabricate CT ideas
> & evidence.

It seems to me that you’re the one unwilling to consider evidence that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of how the world should work.

> The reality
> of led to 911.

It may be the ‘simple & straightforward’ version you’d like to believe, but imho there are more ingredients in ‘reality’; bad/good, ineffective/effective, failure/success – it all depends on what one’s actual goals are, not what the public was told.

> 1. Perhaps it was too much to expect those with an axe to grind in our own
> societies (political/fringe/pressure groups & the 'challenged')

You seem to have a preset notion of who you’re addressing. I’m not a member of any political, fringe or pressure group. That leaves your category the ‘challenged’, whatever that may mean!

> not too
> take advantage of the such events & others suffering ….

What advantage? The ones I see taking advantage of 911 are politicians and businessmen.

> & construct
> fantasy CT to assist their aims.

All your ad hominem attacks can be turned around to point in the other direction, so why bother using them? I could say that the OV has constructed a fantasy CT to assist in its aims. We’re no further forward in the debate.

> 2. Perhaps it was too much to expect
> those vulnerable in our society not to be effected
> by CT,

Slur. No debate.

> those with agenda can disproportionaly promote
> their mantra.

Disproportionately? A forgotten Newsnight webpage compared with 24/7/365 global mass media? Mantra? Tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout, tout sounds like a mantra to me.

> …strategy & the tactical
> response to rising Islamic Extremism would be as less then successful
> about it.

At the high level of global strategy, the rise of Islamic Extremism may be a strategic goal to foment war.

> any wonder the same CT protagonists will attempt
> to weave

Attempt to weave? According to you, 'CT protagonists' even fail home economics class.

> complex fantasy does not a credible argument
> make (in the face of recent historical events).

Back at you - the complex fantasy needed to maintain the OV in the face of recent historical events does not a credible argument make.

RIP - the innocent victims of 911. May your families be successful in their pursuit of truth, justice and acccountability through the courts (those still able to do it, by having been able to refuse the government ‘drop your case’ compensation).

Vikingar, the amount you repeat yourself in 289 and 296 amazes me - perhaps Jayhawk is right afterall about the A.I.!

Your posts are slur piled upon slur, and you lash out at groups I would never identify myself with. Why are you not able to debate? If you're so confident the OV 911 CT is the truth, you should be able to win your arguments on the facts.

> Given this is an covert information & propaganda war
> as much as a overt military war, you have to wonder
> how many extremists (esp Islamic variety) adopt
> different guises & intentionally look to actively
> promote CT due to its corrosive undermining of
> consensus in progressive democratic societies.

You have just implied that I, and other people on this blog, may be extremists, probably Islamic extremists, fighting a propaganda war against democratic societies. I invite anyone reading this blog to think very carefully about where this logic would lead democratic society. Vikingar has just demonstrated the same logic as contained in the NSC strategy doc that Bridget linked to. 'Erroneous web page' Richard? How long before we can put 'extremely' before 'disturbing'?

Over two hours, and still my 2 'within moderation rules' posts don't appear - vikingar, like yesterday, gets the last word for hours with his no-debating attack pieces. Is it the BBC coming up with their own hurriedly-written posts to "balance" the forum in line with impartiality rules?

I'd like to invite Vikingar to be consistent and attack the 911 widows who appear in this just-released documentary https://www.911pressfortruth.com as 5th Column enemy propaganda extremists. Or will he/she, not wanting to come across as an extremist, just use the PlanB 'vulnerable in our society' argument for them? I suggest listening to what they have to say.

Ref Andrew #298 & #299

(fyi - appreciate the time & engeries to pull #288 together)

As previously stated #280, I am not here to debate with CT believers & zealots, to indulge their creative fantasies & thereby 'validate' imaginative speculations which they seek to actively work into the normalcy of mainstream society.

The CT myth is not like other endearing ones - Father Christmas, fairies & pixies - at its worst, its an intentionally disingenuous & corrosive political exercise which undermines social cohesion at a time when such turmoil can only give succour to our societies collective enemies - Extremism, esp Islamic variety.

Its like perverting the national curriculum, whereby shcools are foreced to promote 'creationism' alongside Darwinism in science - of utterly pointless use to the mainstream & provides not value only fictional distraction - leave it to the radicals & the flat earth society to play around with.

In case anyone needed reminding, CT Fantasy & Creationism - funnily enough two topics of research interested the main pseudo science fabricator Jones et al.

Next you will be wanting the public to take seriously a discussion on the merits of USS Enterprise v the Shuttle Enterprise (one fiction, one fact) & propose we should be have a treaty with the Klinongs (just in case) & offer state sponsored language courses in Klinong, which children could take after they have finished their Creationism classes (though not sure the two could co-exist? - what do the radicals say about aliens in their version of the bible?) [1]

However, more than happy to discuss notions of 'Reasonable Uncertainty' regarding 911.

To the extent that the US caught off guard (whole host of historical reasons) with its proverbial pants down, used the opportunity of the Islamic Terrorist attack to redeemed itself & launch a strategy, which may or may have not already been theoretically formulated (given all governments engage in different war scenarios & war game exercising - just in case).

A scenario Richard Drake alluded to #293

Personally, rather disappointed if governments did not have something to pull out of a hat and/or could not respond to tragedy & potentially turn it into opportunity.

Nothing wrong with that - unless they balls it up - but that’s not Conspiracy in Theory, that’s called Incompetence in Action.

..... unless of course the CT believers have been watching too much '24' & 'X' file reruns (collector editions, the Directors Cut - all seasons etc)

CT - a generation primed to be sceptical, conditioned by the fiction of the popular media, indulged by liberals & fantasy enabled by the internet - any wonder so much time & energy is spent pursuing any number of 'rainbows'.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://klingonska.org/links.html

As my post 299 appeared and then disappeared, here's an obliquely worded alternative;

Considering Vikingar's PSE Note in 296, as commented upon in 298, I wonder if Vikingar would regard those interviewed in this newly-released documentary
https://www.911pressfortruth.com/story/
as 'extremists' fighting a covert enemy propaganda war. I suggest to anyone who thinks questioning the OV is the province of 'extremists', to start by watching this documentary.

You'll like this Vikingar,
Here's a very recent 5th anniversary critical analysis of 911 CT

https://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html

I came across it whilst checking the background to the old BBC news stories that some hijackers were 'alive and well' - e.g. https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm - (which naturally leads to thinking the FBI may have got their list wrong, and the question; so who the hell were the real hijackers then?). Part 2 goes into the subject of discrediting the 'some hijackers are alive and well' stories.

Andrew - very good point about "9/11: Press for Truth". I found this documentary about mainstream political and financial questions and information surrounding 9/11 much more shocking than any "conspiracy theories" about controlled demolition or remote-controlled planes etc.

Ref Andrew #301 #302

With ref to my #300

As I have stated the 911 CT premise is a self prophesising fabricated cul de sac of an argument, wholly dishonest.

So total is their myopia that they embrace any & all inventive 911 CT (slightly whacky to wholly unbelievable) - beggars cannot be choosers :)

I have no desire at all to debate such disingenuous theories.

The world is witness to what happened on that day #292 - those with other agendas choose to remain in denial, hence their efforts since to fashion & invent a 'reality' that suits their purposes.

Families of those affected have earnt the right to question but CT does not offer answers - it promotes lies.

But the right to question of the bereaved has to be put into the context that the vast majority (verging on all) of people affected that day accept the realities of that day & accept the reality & the answers of their government, 9/11 commission etc.

Now for those rational posters interested in a simple argument (supported by links):

Q.1 which of the following is true based on research of same religious sect academic?

- Argument [1] Prof Steven E Jones - Creationism [1a]
- Argument [2] Prof Steven E Jones - "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" [1b]
- Argument [3] Prof Steven E Jones - 911/CT [1c]

Q.12 which of the following is true based on research of same religious sect academic?

- Argument [1] David Ray Griffin - Creationism [2a]
- Argument [2] David Ray Griffin - 911/CT [2b]

Q.3 which of the following is produced by competent professionals with resources & remit?

- loose change - Dylan Avery 22 yr old Director from Oneonta [3a]
- Popular Mechanics - US science/technology mag 1st published 1902 [3b]
- bi partisan 9/11 Commission [3c]

And just to highlight one of many equally passionate sites out there to counter the corrosive & disingenuous 911 CT [4]

911 CT = Complete Trash

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] https://www.tungate.com/Death_Before_Adam.htm
[1b] https://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm
[1c] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
[2a] https://www.stnews.org/Books-2375.htm
[2b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
[3a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Avery
[3b] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
[3c] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm
[4] https://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

hello there,

Since this thread is still alive and going strong, let me briefly rejoin the discussion. Firstly, I'd like to share this with you:

https://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html

A brand new site, much of it is still under construction - Vikingar, if you're quick enough you may have an honour of being the first to debunk these preposterous American pilots who dare question the 9/11 Commission and the flying credentials of the Tora Bora squad. Also, check this one out - Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts - I bet you like the title, hopefully it will motivate you to actually read the article:

https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13969.htm

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

234. At 08:23 PM on 06 Sep 2006, matt wrote:

"pardon me, Richard, i thought the 'swiss tony' analogy was just bit of a chuckle...surely you've seen the fast show ?
similarly, did you not see the 'wink' after my accusations of flying insects being 'garden*hawk surveilance uavs' ?
*as in globalhawk
...more ;)
or was it the serious stuff that was crazy ?"

Matt, I like your humor, and your gardenhawk rap is not far off the mark at all - ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce the Hybrid Insect MEMS:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/BAA06-22/SynopsisP.html

Now, that's the GeoDick for you Matt, our newest tool in this bloody war for dollar:

https://iraqforsale.org/video_blackwater.php

Needles to say, I take your take on "the serious stuff" just as seriously. Did you know that Halliburton sells soda water to American troops in Iraq, charging $45 for a sixpack. Would it be a surprise if another Tim McVeigh pops up seemingly out of nowhere one of these days, and blows the Halliburton headquarters up for apparently no reason..? -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101459.html

For people who don't like "music" videos, here is more serious stuff, à propos "2 CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Motivation", right vikingar (296)? - check The Dark Side by Michael Kirk:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view

And here comes one for those who like to dig the physics of the whole thing, great title this one, are you still with us Alan? Activity 12: Shake it Up Baby - Crank the Heat:

https://www.concord.org/%7Ebtinker/workbench_web/unit1/1-12TempAndKE.html

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

243. At 09:32 AM on 07 Sep 2006, Jayhawk wrote:

"Vikingar is actually an A.I. program generating random comments based around several repeating phrases. Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm working on automated response software to combat this; I'll get back to you...."

Agree completely. The program may be using a cutup technique developed by Brion Gysin and William Burroughs, if that can help your work on automated response software. Also, try this cutup machine:

https://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ezoc/cut-up/ctpm.htm

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

246. At 01:02 PM on 07 Sep 2006, Bridget Dunne wrote:

"I was just wondering what some of you might make of this statement from 'Strategy on winning the War on (OF) Terror' posted on the White House website"

Very good point Bridget. One shouldn't think that the brave new world unfolds automatically from that statement, but there is a clear intent here, and Cheny/ Bush are doing their best to push such broad and vague notions of who is the enemy and what constitutes terrorism and terrorist activities broadly speaking, through the legal system. Even Francis Fukuyama now calls some of his former neo-con comrades "Leninist":

https://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8591

which is somewhat of an euphemism considering this rather surreal report:

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8272096722231303649&q=FEMA+Camp+footage

Perhaps Newsnight can take a closer look at it..?

Having said that, I would still argue that this is a swan song of the 20th Century with its crude, primitive exploitation of resources augmented by rapid technological development, and its heavy reliance on military power - war as we know it, a massive, industrial scale killing, is a 20th Century "invention". This crude industrial age machinery, nuts and bolts, with all jobs it creates and deaths it causes, is epitomized in individuals such as Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz, or Mickey Mouse for example. But they are all just small potato in this game - the machinery kind of has a life of its own. However, it's maintained by mass consumption which is coming to an end now - the environment cannot sustain such a gobbler anymore. That's the truth of it in a nutshell as I see it. This is not to say that the spirit of the times will take care of everything and that there is nothing to worry about. For one thing, dinosaurs can do a lot of damage when they fall. Additionally, there may be some individuals among the dinosaurs who think if they have to go out, they want go out in style, with fireworks and all. Keep the pressure up.

https://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/keep_up_the_pre.php

Richard Drake wrote (307);
> It sure gets boring reading endless
> critiques of 'vikingar'

A few facts for you Richard;

Andrew’s posts:
Of my 31 posts to this page, 4 include critiques of vikingar (288, 297, 298 and 299: 301 was a repost) who, after c.26 ‘flame-bait’ posts (not counting 72, 127, 148, 285), I finally addressed (from 288 onwards), as I felt he shouldn’t be unanswered for those ‘future generations’ you mentioned (166). I don’t include my post 302, as it supported Vikingar’s position, but he just railed against it anyway (304), I suppose from not actually having read it properly. Even including my 301 repost, that's c.1406 words used on directly responding to vikingar's posts (which includes a paragraph commending your own points raised in 156, 197, and 210)

Vikingar’s posts:
Vikingar, by contrast, uses c.6,483 words (not including source links) in posts 143, 150, 152, 160, 161, 183, 194, 198, 199, 211, 241, 247, 252, 265, 273, 277, 280, 282, 287, 289, 291, 296, 300, and 304, mostly on posts about ‘S.E. Jones et al’ and creationism.

Your posts:
You, yourself, use c.1443 words critiquing vikingar (166, 197, 210, 268), which is more than me, even when I include my repost. And that includes only counting the 66 words of post 166 that directly critique vikingar where you wrote ‘you have been extremely, perhaps deliberately, stupid’ – I should really pick you up on your overstated use of ‘extremely’ there, considering it’s exactly the criticism you like to make of others (293))

Bridget’s posts:
Bridget (excluding 245 & 249 reposts of 244, and only 85 words in 262) uses only 688 words criticising vikingar in posts 244, 250, 262, 284, 290, 305, and 306.

Conclusion:

You’re top of the heap, word-count-wise, on those ‘boring…endless critiques of 'vikingar'’. As you like to point out the subtleties of word usage in other people (whilst ignoring your own, e.g. 166), I think it’s time it came home to roost. You overstate your case using ‘endless’ – a mathematician should know better.

Also, you talk of mutual respect (307) whilst calling other peoples’ posts ‘boring’ – yet others haven’t said anything about the ‘endless’ (to use your term) number of posts you and Vikingar contribute about ‘S.E. Jones et al’ and Creationism, turning a conspiracy forum into a theological college. And nor will I, as mutual respect is more than just two words.

Richard (307),
> But for people who are not experts - say 99%
> of those reading this

What an arrogant, presumptuous thing to write. Your propensity for pulling arbitrary figures out of the air, to describe people you know nothing about, puts you on a par with Viki-99%-ngar (154).

Richard (313):
> unease about the assumption of many of the 911
> Truth Movement that they already know who the
> mass-murderers were

I share that unease. For example, whilst I think (without any evidence other than personal feeling) the public discourse has been contaminated by a laying-it-on-thick false-evidence trail that shouts very loudly ‘look, these Islamic terrorists did it’, it’s possible the OV still holds with a little post-attack political opportunism thrown in, to strengthen the message (although you have to admire their speed and efficiency if that were the case!)

Also, we musn’t assume who the mass-murderers WEREN’T, which imho is just as bad. It seems to me the BIG taboo in Western society is, of course, thinking that it was a Mossad-assisted op (perhaps using real Islamic terrorists for authentic flavour); no doubt for fear of the ‘anti-semitic whipping post, especially in the hands of Muslims’ you mention (307). But does that mean we have to treat these guys as saints, or keep silent, because anything critical (and I do acknowledge it must be responsible, lawful debate) we say against them will be used by Muslims to cause real harm against Jews?

It seems to me that when an Arabic terrorist gets caught, it’s major Western news (at least these days). But when a Jewish terrorist gets caught…well, take the October 2001 case (just over a month after 911) of Salvador Gerson Sunke (a Mexican, immigrated to Mexico from Israel) and Saer Ben-Zvi (or Saar Noam Ben Zvi, reported by Mexican Department of Justice as a retired Colonel of the Israeli Defence Forces) who got caught in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, in the Mexican parliament, with a high-powered gun, nine grenades, C-4 explosives and, according to the Mexican newspaper Diario de Mexico, PAKISTANI passports (Mexican government source: https://www.pgr.gob.mx/cmsocial/bol01/oct/b69701.html , general source picked from a Google search: https://www.journalhome.com/aspendouglas/12481/ ). Were they brought to justice? No, within days they were quietly DEPORTED, to the outrage of many Mexicans. Now, assuming this story is correct so far (a mainstream Mexican story, got reported on CNN briefly before they dropped it), and refusing to speculate beyond the facts at hand, why is it, I’d like to know, that when you search for ‘Sunke Zvi’ or ‘Gerson Zvi’, etc., in Google News (not Web, just News), not ONE story comes up (at least in the searches I did). And when you search the Web, it's sites like David Irving's, or al Jazeera's that carry the story, tainting it with big dose of anti-semitism/Holocaust Denial, etc., when it was a mainstream Mexican news story. Is this why journalists don't touch it? (guilt by association?)

Now, are we seriously expecting an open and honest investigation into the possibility of ‘false flag operations’ under these conditions? Of course not! It seems to me, the conditions for being neutral, truth-seeking, open to critical analysis of all information, etc., simply do not exist in this crazy world where you’re forced to take sides (whatever the sides are at any one time). Divide and conquer. Try to see the bigger picture and you are ‘assisting the enemy’, etc. Welcome to planet of the apes. Anyway, to go back to your initial point; best not to make assumptions; assumptions of who it was; assumptions of who it wasn’t. My personal view is that I don’t know who did it; maybe it was Islamic terrorists, and the OV could be generally true (albeit with shadowy secrets), but it seems to me the ‘false flag’ or ‘Western assistance’ scenarios (by whomever) cannot yet be ruled out, until we investigate properly – and governments seem averse to that kind of activity, although no doubt our Western governments investigate more openly than elsewhere in the world, thank goodness.

For me CT = Complete Trash.

Some for various reasons wholly reject the OV.

But I am I pragmatic enough reserve the notion of 'Reasonable Uncertainty' = RU

It does not take any significant effort to discredit CT, just the basic act of reading, watching or listening to their concocted web of self delusional lies & imaginative speculation.

Its like a dodgy art fake, it may look like something from distance, its nothing under closer inspection.

- Whether it be the unqualified nature of the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the background of the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the motivation of the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the plethora of issues & other agendas behind the person posting the lies.

- Whether it be the wholly unsatisfactory & unconvincing nature of the lie itself.

The absolute clearest example about the above - are those who fabricate & tout issues about British Islamic Terrorists who bombed the capital - 7th & 21st July 2006.

CAVEAT - I am not here to debate the actual CT - rather than to comment on its disingenuous nature, as the CT fabricators & touts feed their creations enough 'oxygen' already.

For example - ref July Bombings in London count the number of mixed & confused causes & theories poorly touted in this recording [1]:

- anti-war
- pro CT
- anti ID
- terror police state contribution
- 'oyster card conspiracy'
- inaccuracy, as the alleged 21st bombs misfired & failed to detonate properly
- describing the 7th July bombers as' poor Muslim men will never have their day in court";
- "so many Americans working for the tube, some of them ex CIA"
- Mo Molam death
- David Kelly death
- the police won't help me, the unions won't help, the journalists won't help me - "basically its down to people on the internet".

However, I will leave it up to 'rachelofnorthlondon' able blog (a Brit caught up in one of the train carriages blown up on 7th July) to counter the numerous self serving July Bombing CT fantasy ramblings [2]

Therefore, one could choose to ignore the CT, but best of all is to consume a portion of CT fabrication - if nothing else it will make you laugh at the end of a hard working day.

If nothing else, no matter ones own reservations & dissatisfaction with government, thank God, those self serving CT fabricator & touts do not hold any real influence.

Beyond which those vulnerable to such fabrications, may have existing prejudices & insecurities re-enforced e.g. various domestic fringe elements & too many within Britain's Muslims Communities (a point alleged to by others).

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[2] https://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-you-are-conspiracy-theorist.html

Ref Richard Drake #307

" …. Can you please say much more where you're coming from. You've said you're a British Christian. But that's simply not credible to me, at least on its own. The best case in my mind is that you're Jewish and a supporter of Israel …. I can't believe that any 'British Christian' can be this ignorant. You must be a fraud, in that respect, surely?"

Well, ref issue of Jewish identity - minded of Charlie Chaplains reply ...

"I'm afraid I DON'T have that honor!" - Chaplin 1992 [1]

For the record, British Humanitarian & Christian - lapsed Catholic variety :)

My support for Israel is based on respect for their historical struggle for existence & survival (though not always admiring or agreeing to their methods) esp in the face of the utter radicalisation & scope of efforts of those pitted against them.

I will always side with progressive democratic societies (warts n all) against terrorist states & organisations (of any religion/political persuasion). Palestinians deserve justice, but it is the manner in which how they conduct their struggle which does their cause the most damage.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103939/quotes

Thanks for the link Bridget (318). Heartening indeed. America lives!

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 and if not do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions / accusations which the interviewee touted (for ease of ref listed in #317)

I have faith in the various & different government agencies pitted against our countries enemies (great track history in case you have forgotten - that’s why we remain a democratic & progressive society).

Agencies which at the moment involving countering the biggest threat coming from Islamic Terrorism (domestic & international variety) & Extremism.

I have no faith in the various interested parties looking to feed off this threat & impasse.

Some of us who have served our nation, are very much aware of the limits & challenges of the such organisations & agencies.

But highly realistic as to what they would & would not do in pursuit of such defence (given underlying ethos, attitude, behaviour & culture).

And there are far more many fringe groups out there besides the supporters of Islamic Terrorists, who seek to benefit from the promotion of CT - a corrosive discourse:

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups.
- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety, mainly US)
- Islamic extremists themselves
- usual loon brigade.
- others

For them CT enables - for society it disables - influencing the vulnerable via such fabrications, re-enforcing existing prejudices & insecurities re-enforced e.g. various domestic fringe elements & too many within Britain's Muslims Communities (a point alluded to by others).

For those who disagree with government policy, that does not automatically make them necessary supporters of Islamic Extremism (directly/indirectly) unless the manner of their protest enables the enemy.

But nor does it make those who disagree with government policy automatic signatories to CT (which this dishonest protagonists presume & claim - intentionally blurring the messages & definitions).

CT protagonists - presume - you are either with them or not & if you do not support the government, then your one of them - WRONG (yet again)

CT = Complete Trash :)

vikingar

[this is a repost, slightly modified, as first post didn't make it, possibly due to use of f word with asterisks - apologies if first one gets approved after this]

Bridget (311): thanks :)

Zoran (308): good to see you back! Thanks for the links.

Richard (312):
> Can I take it that you agree with me that it's helpful
> to know more about everyone's background and
> beliefs as we try to go deeper on such very difficult
> matters?

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this. The reason I don’t reveal my full identity in this forum (I am called Andrew) is that I don’t want to risk my career and income earning potential, however small the risk might be. This isn’t due to ‘they’ll come after me’ paranoia (as I'm a nobody), but recognition of the controversial nature of this subject and the ease with which one's professional relations can be ended if ever there’s even a hint of perception that one could be, in another's eyes, an ‘extremist’. I admire you and Bridget immensely for not being so cowardly. Fyi: I’m a British, middle-class white (although I work on the tan, when I can!) male, born in rural England, grew up loving to climb trees, make dens and watch American films and tv; I love England, especially village life, and still think it’s a jewel of a country, despite the deterioration I see in many areas of life. I have no ties to any religious or political groups, unless you count the CoE label given to me after being christened. I’m sorry I won’t reveal my full identity in this forum, but I would be willing to engage my identity with you and others in a non-public venue, as you seem like nice, genuine people to me.

Richard (313):
> I understand that, for some, it's arrogance and
> pomposity for me to disagree with them in any way

I echo Bridget’s thoughts in 314. I welcome disagreement of any kind in a form that advances the debate. Your input into this debate is very welcome by me, and you’ve made some excellent points, imho. I agree with you that, if it weren’t for the contributions of Alan and Vikingar, this debate wouldn’t have been kept going so long by the Beeb. Btw: I’d especially welcome disagreement (ie. a response of any kind) over my request (288) for the probability of picking the same three stations twice from a total of, say, 70 equally-likely stations. Anyway, it’s no fun being at odds with the OV merely by not taking it ‘on faith’, and I wish the OV would all be explained satisfactorily. It seems we all have to strap in and enjoy the OV-ride into a permanent WoT future.

Vikingar (304):
> As I have stated the 911 CT premise is a self
> prophesising fabricated cul de sac of an argument

actually, that's a new one for you. a Self Prophesising Fabricated cul de sac, I love it. Wish I could buy a house there.

Vikingar (322):
> Some of us who have served our nation, are very much
> aware of the limits & challenges of such
> organisations & agencies.

Good point. From my own conversations with relatives serving in the police force, they're so understaffed and overstretched, it's frightening.

In response to your list of what kind of people are CTists;

- anti-war (serial variety)

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti 'being lied into a war'. If our government were honest and sincere about the need for a war, and put the facts before the public in a respectful manner, they would most likely have my backing. Instead we're treated as stupid animals, as they whip up fear to irrational levels (45mins until you Saddam nukes you!) until you beg the government to do whatever they want, as long as you're saved. Who cares about the no-bid multi-billion dollar contracts, just save us!

- anti capitalism

Most definitely not - although I am against harmful, extreme forms of capitalism. Not everything should be done for profit, there are other considerations in life, such as protection of the environment. e.g. https://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12447

and the 'continual growth' mentality of capitalism is silly, imho - as we'll soon find out, regarding oil

- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.

No, not remotely

- pressure/political fringe groups.

don't belong to any such groups

- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety, mainly US)

No, don't practise religion

- Islamic extremists themselves

No

- usual loon brigade.

That can mean anything to anyone

- others

Aha, a category that contains every other single person on the planet

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 and/or do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions/accusations which the interviewee touted (for ease of ref listed in #317.

I have faith in the various & different government agencies pitted against our countries enemies (great track history in case you have forgotten - that’s why we remain a democratic & progressive society).

Agencies which at the moment involving countering the biggest threat coming from Islamic Terrorism (domestic & international variety) & Extremism.

I have no faith in the various interested parties looking to feed off this threat & impasse.

Some of us who have served our nation, are very much aware of the limits & challenges of the such organisations & agencies.

But highly realistic as to what they would & would not do in pursuit of such defence (given underlying ethos, attitude, behaviour & culture).

And there are far more many fringe groups out there besides the supporters of Islamic Terrorists, who seek to benefit from the promotion of CT - a corrosive discourse:

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups.
- religious fundamentalists (Christian variety, mainly US)
- Islamic extremists themselves
- usual loon brigade.
- others

For them CT enables - for society it disables - influencing the vulnerable via such fabrications, re-enforcing existing prejudices & insecurities re-enforced e.g. various domestic fringe elements & too many within Britain's Muslims Communities (a point alluded to by others).

For those who disagree with government policy, that does not automatically make them necessary supporters of Islamic Extremism (directly/indirectly) unless the manner of their protest enables the enemy.

But nor does it make those who disagree with government policy automatic signatories to CT (which this dishonest protagonists presume & claim - intentionally blurring the messages & definitions).

For CT protagonists - they presume - you are either with them or not & if you do not support the government, then your one of them - WRONG (again)

CT = Complete Trash :)

vikingar

For the 3rd time of asking ....

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 [1]

And/or do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions/accusations which the interviewee touted - for ease of ref listed in #317.

They are either your CT words or not

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Vikingar (317);
> count the number of mixed & confused causes &
> theories poorly touted in this recording [1]

I have just listened to the interview Bridget did (thanks for the link). She came across as perfectly normal to me - a person asking questions and being open to different ideas to make sense of known information. Her tone was measured and on points she didn't feel qualified to answer, she simply said so, showing humility and honesty, imho.

Perhaps you missed a major point she raised - it's because mainstream media are not tackling these questions and getting to the truth, that citizens feel obliged to try and do it themselves, with almost no resources. The idea you think this is motivated by personal gain at the expense of 'disabling society' I personally find sick. You talk as the defender of democratic society, but speak as if we live in a dictatorship already, and cannot ask questions or seek the truth.

Of course there's confusion, because as individuals, we don't have police powers to investigate, and Bridget has encountered huge obstacles in trying to get information from the proper authorities. With mainstream media in denial, this leaves us in an information vacuum, having to piece together what little information there is available.

Vikingar (328)
> [Bridget's] litany of CT suspicions/accusations

re: Suspicions - If the authorities release the various CCTV sequences from Luton train station and Kings Cross, it would go a huge way to establishing the truth (I have more good faith that footage is genuine when released by British authorities than I do in videos found in Afghanistan or on internet sites). Considering the OV says the bombers are dead, it wouldn't prejudice their case, and could be used to attract eyewitnesses to step forward, in the same way they show CCTV footage on Crimewatch.

re: Accusations - Bridget talked very carefully of co-incidences when talking of individuals, and seemed to keep to facts (although I'm not 100% sure, as I'm not fact-checking her interview!). I'm sure Peter Power doesn't need you to defend him, and if he sued Bridget for libel, it would at least be an opportunity to have the facts of that training exercise cross-examined in court!

Vikingar (328):
> 'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'
> As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the
> recording provided in #317 [1]

As far as I can tell, Bridget hasn't claimed to find the truth herself, or to have conducted a rigorous investigation herself - she is saying there's a need for rigorous investigation by the authorities (or failing that, the media), and only through such would we arrive at truth - or as near as truth as we can get. By attacking Bridget on these words, you're missing the point she's making, imho.

Ref Andrew #319 & #330

I am sure 'Bridget Dunne' appreciates your spirited defence :)

But looking fwd to their denial/acknowledgement of ownership.

Ref Bridget Dunne #319

"Only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation"

'truth' … 'rigorous investigation'

As to your notions of such? was it your voice on the recording provided in #317 [1]

And/or do you still stand by the litany of CT suspicions/accusations which the interviewee touted - for ease of ref listed in #317.

They are either your CT words or not

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Dear Newsnight,

Although it seems Diebold delivered for Bush in Ohio, 2004 [1], we don't have to accept the threat to democracy from electronic voting machines.

You could do a Newsnight report on it - afterall, Princeton should pass muster with you, as a source of reliable information.

"We found that the machine [Diebold AccuVote-TS] is vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces." [2, 3]

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

[2] Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine, 13/09/06 - https://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ts-paper.pdf

[3] https://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html

PS: Richard, Bridget, Vikingar, et al - sorry for the digression!

A short extract from Dr. Steven Greer:

“The 5 trillion dollar industry - energy and transportation - is currently highly centralized, metered and lucrative. It is the stuff that runs the entire industrialized world. It is the mother of all special interests. It is not about money as you and I think of it, but about geo-political power - the very centralized power on which the current order in the world runs. The world is kept in a state of roiling wars, endless poverty for most of Earth's citizens and global environmental ruin, just to prop up this evil world order.

As immense as that game is, there is a bigger one: Control through fear. As Wernher von Braun related to Dr. Carol Rosin, his spokesperson for the last 4 years of his life, a maniacal machine - the military, industrial, intelligence, laboratory complex - would go from Cold War, to Rogue Nations, to Global Terrorism (the stage we find ourselves at today), to the ultimate trump card: A hoaxed threat from space.

So here is the post-9/11 script - one that will be played out unless enough people are informed and the plan can be foiled because they will be unable to fool a sufficient number of citizens and leaders:

After a period of terrorism - a period during which the detonation of nuclear devices will be threatened and possibly actuated, thus justifying expanding the weaponization of space - an effort will ramp up to present the public with information about a threat from outer space”

Vikingar (304):
> And just to highlight one of many equally passionate
> sites out there to counter the corrosive & disingenuous
> 911 CT [4]
[4] https://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

Thanks for this link, it was an interesting read. If the information on this site is correct, it shows that the mainstream media need to control this debate, and not leave the field to a 22 year old disrespectful, fame-seeking wanna-be director. Discrediting a young man, or strawman CTs, is not the same as discrediting the genuine questions about 911.

Ref Bridget Dunne #332 & # 340
Ref Andrew #330 & #331

1. ALTERNATIVE MEDIA?

The MSM can only employ so many people & the advances in technology enable most - so the notion of people using media technology to promote a cause is no surprise.

First - CT amateur misinformation exercise - at one end of the spectrum, we have self confessed CT utterances of 'Bridget Dunne' being interviewed on CT website [1]

Second - CT produced misinformation exercise - at the other end of the CT spectrum - we have a more slick CT propaganda video [2] *

* either way, conjecture, spin & theory does not make for credible answers. The mix of message & combination of real events with fantasy & spin is most telling - its been overproduced - its oozes agenda.

1+ people with an agenda & access to s/w does not make for ALTERNATIVE MEDIA (the video in [2] even dismisses the BBC as a credible media sources- ridiculous notion)

A small list of issues raised in [2]:

- litter
- ID cards
- CCTV
- terrorism
- conspiracy
- police state
- kitchen sink (hardly left anything out).

Indeed, the galvanised efforts of this particular strand of CT - demonstrates nothing more than the use of resources & a concerted efforts by the usual suspects, to create corrosive discourse & maximise impact for their own agendas:

It makes by retrospective comparison, the Iraq Dossier - even more credible. - since CT protagonists are asking people to accept this bag of loosely linked superstition & fantasy as an credible alternative?

These CT people have not suddenly just appeared on the scene - they sponsor & highjack causes - serial protesters, the serial conspiracists - THEY HAVE AGENDAS - THEY HAVE A VISION - they are not passive & reactive to events, they are opportunists & in this instance, ride on the back of terrorism to aid their own multiple agendas.

But they can only inhabit the fringe, unable to gain mainstream support - other by seeking to influence & terrorise the 'vulnerable' in our society, open to such manipulation.

This unfortunately includes elements of Britain's Muslims Communities, a faith which at the best of times, does not need any encouragement to feel victimised, unable to take any criticism or conduct reform.

2. WHO ELSE HAS AN AGENDA?

Governments have policy & terrorists have mantra, but so do others …..

The production of [2] is such a concerted effort, its clearly is laid at the door of:

- anti-war (serial variety)
- anti capitalism
- various left wing organisation: anarchists, socialists, communists etc.
- pressure/political fringe groups
- combo of above *

* although never discount Islamic Extremists masquerading as any of the above … its an Info War after all.

3. SUMMARY

This is not about Conspiracy Theory.

This is about 'radical' propaganda.

The above two instances (AMATEUR & PRODUCED) are testimony to the concerted efforts of people who inhabit the fringes in British Society looking to make parasitical advances on the back of terrorism & the efforts being used to tackle terrorists.

It is as both as inaccurate & it is deliberately corrosive.

Presumably, they think its time to come out into the open on the back of terrorism - either way rather easy to look past the spin - they have a message & they have agenda & are only too willing to act in typically parasitical fashion.

Either way, the notion of the atheist left inhabiting the internet & siding with religious extremism & intolerance - just goes to prove you have not seen it all :)

For those who have been entertain by watching that video '…..why would there be….' - indeed.

Dr Goebbels would have been proud of the radical spirit behind CT latest efforts ref July Bombings - which is readily as dismissed as the other associated CT it claims to support ref 911 - one cancels out the other.

Fortunately for British Society, there are few if any significant takers - except amongst the usual suspects & the vulnerable in our society.

Unfortunately for British Society, those CT protagonist who prefer fantasy to reality, burden society with desperate people looking to make something of themselves out of nothing - but on the back of other peoples suffering & vulnerability.

Wonder who has done more to radicalise the next British Muslim, an aspect of government policy or a piece of CT propaganda primed to make the vulnerable literally explode.

The array of CT links on this blog are evidence of the deliberate production of radical material for 'radical marketing' nothing more - the intent behind which is doing what it is design for - real & actual harm to British Society *

*however limited the damage & peneratrion - they are fringe afterall :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[2] https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

#341 vikingar

Psst, Psst... It's too late for them vikingar, but you can still save yourself. Get out now, quick..this way...don't look baaaaaaa

Richard, (334): re: "future only to the extent to which you can foresee...living in the past...and...future...not possible...the present moment, and all my past, and all my future...condensed in the present moment with an intensity, a colourfulness that was extremely exhilarating"

Thanks for the very interesting quote. I wonder whether Julian Barbour's ideas about 'time' might interest you - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour

So basically what vikingar is alluding to, is that there is a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists to mislead the general public for political and ideological gain.

Isn't that a conspiracy theory, and a tad paranoid?

James (345); "Isn't that a conspiracy theory, and a tad paranoid?"

CT = Clap Trap
The usual suspects, e.g. various Edinburgh fringe groups, ticket touts, loony brigade, etc., touting self-serve corrosive liquids and prejudices re-enforced by disingenuous pre-fabrications.

A small litany of CT/insecurities;
- Queen is Reptilian alien
- Fake Moon Landings
- Charlemagne never existed
- Proof of Nazi Moon Base in M$ Excel
- kitchen sink, double bowl, in biscuit (serial variety)

CAVEAT - I am not here to answer your question.

CT = Cheryl Tweedy!

Richard (344); "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

I've been in St. Peter's Sq. and listened to Pope Benedict XVI speak to the gathered pilgrims, and it wasn't a Nuremberg Rally. I was impressed by his messages of peace and love, and the inclusive approach of speaking in over ten languages so everyone felt welcome. Maybe he had a nice cup of tea afterwards, though, like Hitler used to.

[second attempt to post this! apologies if it apppears twice]

Dear Vikingar (341),

You are a wonderful study in the art of repeated smear, not to mention a glimpse into the psychology of how the dominant paradigm can be maintained by outcasting information that contradicts it.

I’m sure we all agree, that with billions of people on Earth, there are going to be people in almost every category you can think of; who but a fool would deny there are pacifists (yes, there is a word for ‘anti-war’!), anti-capitalists, radical, extreme political types, whatever. Furthermore, let’s agree there are some pathological cases who seek to attack our society, to weaken or destroy it. I welcome you to rip into such people, Vikingar. Give ‘em the best you’ve got. Attack, too, those making a hash-job of CT; they are doing nobody any favours.

However, you must recognise there are ordinary citizens, whose belief in democracy and the rule of law leads them to challenge suspected big lies, and the suspected big crimes they cover. Truth stands up to scrutiny. The innocent have nothing to fear from rigorous investigation.

For example, if the U.S. government ‘merely’ engaged in opportunism after 911 by picking up ‘theoretically formulated’ war plans for Afghanistan, as your worldview suggests (#300), that’s alright by me; as you say, you’d expect a government to make the most of it. But how do we fit this 'innocent-opportunism theory' with the following information;

“Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, which were allegedly masterminded by the Saudi-born fundamentalist, a Guardian investigation has established” [1]

“Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” [2]

And so it came to pass, on schedule [3]

Are you saying, to broaden your definition of ‘theoretically formulated’, that senior government officials routinely threaten representatives of other countries with near-term military strikes, as part of war-planning?

You wrote, ‘more than happy to discuss notions of 'Reasonable Uncertainty' regarding 911.’ (300).

Well, let me take you up on it; Do you agree it is reasonable to regard the US' July 2001 warning of military action against the Taliban by ‘the middle of October at the latest’ as, at the very least, a very strange co-incidence? It is the establishing of a large number of very strange ‘co-incidences’ that eventually led me (and many other people by the looks of it) to try and explain them – such as contemplating the idea that global events are often (not always) part of a well-planned global strategy the public can hardly catch a glimpse of (ie. a hidden agenda, from our perspective).

Lastly, your argument that 'The MSM [mainstream media] can only employ so many people' is a ridiculous excuse as to why certain hard questions ("CT") are not being investigated seriously by them. Home make-over, soap operas and ‘reality’ TV genres don’t seem to suffer from resource problems! But then, if they keep the Gamma, Delta and Epsilon classes happy, and society stable, who am I to argue, although I would very much like to chat with the Controllers!

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html

[2] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

[3] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1556588.stm

Hi Bridget,

I've been reading up on 7/7, and have a couple of points to raise, which you might be able to help me with;

1) Although the official account cited the 7:40 Luton>London train, then the 7:48 train (which you've ascertained, quite rightly imho, the 4 suspects couldn't have taken), what's wrong with the theory they entered the station at c.7:21:54, then legged it to Platform 3 to catch the 7:25 (the 7:24 leaving 1 minute late)? I've often arrived at train stations with 3 minutes to spare, and managed to hop on a train at the last second.

2) If Mohammed Sidique Khan did sympathise with the 911 terrorist attacks, and talked of Jihad, etc. (ref: the testimony of Martin Gilbertson and Martin Abdullah McDaid - https://szamko.gnn.tv/blogs/16257/7_7_Update_the_story_of_Martin_Gilbertson ) it certainly puts a big black mark against Khan's character, imho, and makes him a credible terrorist suspect. Do you have any thoughts on this? I'm extremely open to CT (as you know by now), but as a truth-seeker I'm open to all information, including that which supports the OV. If this character testimony about Khan is correct, and he verbally supported terrorism and Jihad against the West, then it greatly narrows down the CT options, imho (and also lends credibility to the authenticity of his anti-Western government video message). I'd then find the 'innocent patsy' scenario much less credible, as I couldn't imagine him wanting to help the authorities improve security by doing a 'dummy run'. Even if he was a Jihadist, I don't think CT would be ruled out; as a credible potential terrorist, I suppose he could still have been setup to take the blame. btw: I read somewhere about maybe all the tube bombs going off at exactly 8:50:00, as that was the time the telephone system went down, or something - but I can't find where i read it. If you have any links to read up on this, I'd appreciate them.

Ref Andrew #349

"... However, you must recognise there are ordinary citizens, whose belief in democracy and the rule of law leads them to challenge suspected big lies, and the suspected big crimes they cover. Truth stands up to scrutiny. The innocent have nothing to fear from rigorous investigation .... "

Well who is 'ordinary'?

I say judge the 'ordinary' methods they employ to object to something, then judge how 'ordinary' are they.

If they engage 'radical' methods to object to something, then its fair to judge them as that.

If their argument is 'radical' than more than reasonable to assume 'radical' agenda behind such.

Who says & what make something a lie? surely the minds eye of the assayer has something to do with it? (esp when agendas play their part).

On this blog there are various CT protagonists with different sincerity levels & therefore presumably different standards of what they require for something to become CT.

As we enter the 21st Century, agenda driven individuals/groups class everything as CT, nothing just 'happen' anymore, no one is allowed to make mistakes, fallibility has ended.

For such CT believers, when the radio fails to tune, the morning paper are not delivered & the loo won't flush - is it CT or just one of those things.

CT Reality Check - the establishment is not infallible (it err's it make mistakes) esp the political branches -no matter the 'virtual book repository' argument the CT protagonists are conjuring up for their corrosive discourse.

That does not make for truth & justice - that makes for agenda ridden dishonesty.

CT believers have more faith in the 'powers that be' to deliver - than the rest of us combined :)

Neither is the government beholden at the beckon call of a handful of CT protagonists & their imaginative fantasy's to launch national investigations into ongoing & inter-related threats/cases.

CT = Complete Trash (hashed or otherwise)

btw - Sunday 17.09.06 indulgent two part episode of BBC1 'spooks' must have our domestic CT crowd wetting themselves with joy ( …pppssttt remember its fiction, when you turn off the telly, its back to reality)

vikingar

[please skip this 'Vikingar critique' if you have found previous ones endless and boring]

Vikingar (352),

Again you fail to answer direct questions (ref: 349) raised in response to your ideas, even though they're backed up by mainstream sources and designed to meet your criteria of 'reasonable uncertainty'. There's no dialogue with you, even when it's attempted on your own terms. Instead you pick up on a word, in this case 'ordinary', and use it as a starting point for your usual tirade.

As a courtesy to you, even though you do not extend it to others, I'll answer your question (although I suspect you ask it rhetorically, considering your taste for monologue); 'Well who is 'ordinary'?'

By 'ordinary citizen' I mean someone who doesn't conform to the extreme, fringe stereotypes you rail against in your posts. e.g. a citizen who is integrated with mainstream society, pays taxes, is loved by, and loving of, friends and family, well-liked by colleagues, responsible for others (e.g. parents), an upstanding member of society (a phrase used by the Passport office), law-abiding, you know 'the usual suspects'. If you cannot distinguish between an ordinary citizen and an extremist, it is you who is on the fringes of society, casting aspersions upon the great British public. In fact, this corrosive idea is propagating throughout society as we speak; 'terrorist until proven guilty'.

When you make the act of asking questions equivalent to 'disabling society', as you do, you are advocating oppressive dictatorship by disingenuous argument, whilst wearing the colours of someone who supports 'democratic societies (warts n all)' (320).

As the terrorists are attacking our freedom, you have to wonder what your agenda is in attacking our freedom to debate, ask questions and hold opinions. 'You have to wonder how many extremists (esp Islamic variety) adopt different guises' (296), to fight their corrosive, covert propaganda war.

Ref Andre #353

hhmmm .....

I read what you are typing but have great difficulty in relating that to the sincerity of the arguments/case you put forward.

As stated in my #353, its rather simple to judge posters by the tone & methods of the arguments they employ to support their position.

Anyone embracing the absolute desperate CT waffle of 911 CT & July Bombings CT is a case in point - as Bridget Dunne #354 sentiments of support ably demonstrate.

.... clutching at straws is an understatement ! more like invent a bale :)

Reasonable Uncertainty (RU) about any event is rather different than Conspiracy Theory (CT).

But the loaded & biased arguments of CT protagonists (bringing so much baggage they need a trolley) undermine their claim for 'legitimate investigation'.

Motivation + Means + Method = 3M

The corrosive 3M of CT informs more about the agendas of the 'believers' than anything 'new' about the actual terrorist atrocities themselves.

vikingar

Thanks Bridget (354) for the links and the info on the McDaid/SBS connection. I’m very sorry to hear you've been the victim of such a disgusting act (the sewage dumped in your garden), and I pray it has nothing whatsoever to do with your publicising of the anomalies around 7/7.

I'm not sure I want to think too much about the shadowy connections between elements of the government, military and intelligence services, and terrorists (which crop up a lot with 911, especially in Florida). Are they all need-to-know strangers upon the 'Hegelian (Fichtean) dialectic' stage, with Powers only at the 'synthesis' end, offering up solutions? How are we ever going to know, because such an hypothesis means the killing-people would kill you before you could bring the mechanism to public notice (not that that would do any good anyway, considering the self-involved, drugged-up hedonistic stupidity of the 'Big Brother TV' generation, and the fact no-one in authority would believe you anyway). All it takes is a D Notice to shut up the media, so we don't really have a chance do we.

I think we’re caught up in Great Games, which is why we have to speculate, and be attacked unfairly for doing so; if enemies are being deliberately created for mass consumption (e.g. Muslims as the new ‘Red Menace’), I wonder why; is it ultimately a resource war, securing Western interests in the face of rising Chinese influence? Richard (350) talks of Blair’s humanitarian efforts for the people of Darfur, but we must remember that energy-starved China is having to do oil deals with countries like Sudan and Iran, buying 50 percent of Sudan's oil exports in 2005 [1]. Chances are, the weapons used for genocide will be Made in China [2]. Are their intentions for a UN presence in Sudan purely humanitarian? Or are they positioning the pieces for maximum advantage before Peak Oil hits? [3] If so, why don't they just tell us? I'm very attached to my hot shower, dishwasher and car, and they'd have my full support!!

Maybe it’s also about having the need for a malleable, easily controlled population in the face of some pending environnmental collapse. Unlike some conspiracy theorists, I think it's likely leaders are motivated by good intentions, but I also note the road to hell is paved with them; means and ends, and all that.

Thanks Bridget also for the link to Power's post; very interesting. Power states: ‘I think anyone familiar with likely terrorist targets will release [sic] our exercise scenario was coincidence rather than conspiracy’ – a statement which ignores the very low mathematical probability of choosing the exact same stations by chance, even if we make the assumption that terrorists live in the provinces, and enter the tube network only via mainline train stations! How can he be sure his company and/or client wasn’t compromised by a very small but ultra-sophisticated group who used it as cover to pull off the attacks?

Otherwise, I find myself agreeing with Power’s assessment (despite his corporate security-speak), and his conclusion about ‘ineffective world leaders’, and a need for a ‘pan global collective body of influential advisors, practitioners and academics’. Undoubtedly, major problems are now pan global, such as the threat of a sixth mass extinction of species [4] and WMD terrorism. But with creative, visionary leadership, there must be a way into the future that doesn’t have to involve resource wars and the end of individual freedom and democracy.

Power talks of the ‘global / corporate radar screen’, but any ‘global radar screen’ should not be based solely on corporate needs, as there is strong evidence the corporation, as currently constructed, is equivalent to a psychopathic personality [5] (without ignoring the good some of them have done, like making this computer I’m typing on!). Power calls for ‘a new approach’ – that approach should, imho, finance a multi-billion pound emergency global project to create a clean, alternative energy technology infrastructure and molecular manufacturing systems (for smart production, no longer relying on cheap foreign labour) to guarantee a peaceful, free tomorrow – not the current spiralling down into spin-and-lie hidden-agenda 'leadership', a police state and the dark future it entails.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

[2] https://www.globalsolutions.org/press_room/news/nytimes_rasul.htm

[3] Greg Palast’s argues oil shortage is artificial, for profit motives, but overall more and more qualified people are supporting the Peak Oil paradigm – e.g. https://www.peakoil.net/

[4] https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

[5] https://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=47

Vikingar (355),
> I read what you are typing but have great difficulty in
> relating that to the sincerity of the arguments/case
> you put forward.

That's just side-stepping the question. Sincerity or no, do you agree it is reasonable to regard the US' July 2001 warning of military action against the Taliban by ‘the middle of October at the latest’ as, at the very least, a very strange co-incidence? (ref: 349)

If we can at least establish that as common ground, we might be able to move forward with the debate.

> .... clutching at straws is an understatement ! more like
> invent a bale :)

love the bale-ful analogy

Ref Bridget Dunne #358

Sudan? yet another cause, another agenda against your favourite bogeymen?

How about supporting UN & international efforts to save real lives or are your 'values' & your CT propaganda gain more valuable to you than real people [1]

btw - does any of your CT inspired fantasy links #358 not end up linking back to the fringe sites? in this case a member of the radical left (see below)

"Edstrong - This is the blog to visit for radical left, contentious opinion. There\\\'s nothing mainstream about this medium! It includes: Bush & The Neocons, Capitalist Ideology, Consumer Culture, Islam Challenges The West, Western Imperialism, Class Race & We " [2]

A fine demonstration of CT as an enabling tool for the radical fringe - thank you

Funny how everyone linked to July CT (happily quoting your spin btw [3a]) alleges affiliation to 'peace' & a host of other fringe agendas …. [3b]

( …pppsssttt … sure your not misinformation for a government department - your not doing CT campaign any good are you)

... and they wonder why the MSM ignore them :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.unsudanig.org/
[2] https://www.blogtoplist.com/politics/blogdetails-836.html
[3a] https://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/CCTV.html
[3b] https://www.declarepeace.org.uk

Ref Andrew #359

Ref your #349 link - "The Taliban refused to comply but the serious nature of what they were told raises the possibility that Bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue 10 days ago, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats" [1]

Very talented OBL to have turned around a terrorist mission in a couple of weeks?

Widely acknowledge the US cocked-up its foreign policy prior to 911 - their gloves were most definitely on (if they had not been, after Iraq War I, the US would have rolled on into Baghdad).

The only common ground for me is:

- 911 was caused by Islamic Terrorism

- July Bombings caused by Islamic Terrorism

- various alleged Islamic Terrorism trials/investigations under way in UK

- Islamic Sectarian Fracticide in ME & Asia caused by Islamic Fundamentalism

- numerous cases of terrorist atrocities around the world against certain targets, part of the Islamic Terror Franchise

- CT protagonists out to cause societal disorder & targeting the vunerable - for their other agenda

...... common ground for that YES

…… common ground for opportunistic corrosive CT dialogues - NO

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html

Ref Bridget Dunne #363

" .... It is not yet a crime to hold radically different views and believe that the causes of humanities suffering poverty destitution and oppression is caused by Corporate Capitalism and Imperialst motives"

".... I identify different causes and support radical solutions, which is still thankfully legal. Although who knows for how much longer"

But it is a crime against moral decency if not the law to incite & influence vulnerable members of society with corrosive CT mantra, which you & others have intentionally conjured up for your own benefit, in support of your own multi agendas (ably laid out in this blog).

Domestic misuse of freedom & expression for such radicalising purposes is regretable in peacetime & an offence esp in wartime (defacto 5th Column for own purposes).

I wonder how much fakery (from early Daily Mirror picture examples) too actual deliberate CT is responsible for radicalising the vulnerable in Britain Muslims Communities - just as the CT protagonists & Islamic Extremists wanted.

vikingar

Vikingar,

re: (361)
> Very talented OBL to have turned around a terrorist
> mission in a couple of weeks?

Amazing. More amazing still how he timed his 'pre-emptive strike' [1] during precisely those hours when US fighters were taking part in Northern Vigilance, leaving NYC and DC less defended, miles behind them - and when confusing radar injects from the wargames [2] gave the real hijacked planes (well, three of them anyway!) the cover needed to reach their targets without being intercepted by those fighters still left within range. You won't find that in the 911 Commission Report.

re: (365),
> But it is a crime against moral decency if not the
> law to incite & influence vulnerable members of
> society with corrosive CT mantra

You're right, we need to go easier on Newsnight viewers.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html

[2] 'Crossing the Rubicon', Michael C. Ruppert, pps.335-347 - regarding the Northern Vigilance, Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Warrior wargames

Ref: vikingar #361.

"Very talented OBL to have turned around a terrorist mission in a couple of weeks?"

I work for the military, at a base in Kent, I heard chatter about an invasion of Afghanistan many months before September 11th and I am just a civilian technician. OBL would have had months to prep.

Now the chatter is all on Iran, I think a war is unavoidable now, US personnel have been told to ready for deployment.

Ref: vikingar 365

"But it is a crime against moral decency if not the law to incite & influence vulnerable members of society with corrosive CT mantra, which you & others have intentionally conjured up for your own benefit, in support of your own multi agendas (ably laid out in this blog)."

So yet again, you are implying that there is a conspiracy among 'radicals' to spread deceit for the furthering of personal asperations, yet you think it ludicrous to believe there might be a conspiracy of deceit among power elites to further their own agendas. You are funny.

"Domestic misuse of freedom & expression for such radicalising purposes is regretable in peacetime & an offence esp in wartime (defacto 5th Column for own purposes)."

Do you think it is time to criminalise CTs?

"I wonder how much fakery (from early Daily Mirror picture examples) too actual deliberate CT is responsible for radicalising the vulnerable in Britain Muslims Communities - just as the CT protagonists & Islamic Extremists wanted."

Are you suggestinga conspiracy between CT protaganists and Islamic Extremists, or merely damning CTists on the with te, 'You're either with us or against us' mantra?

Could you also explain why a young Muslim falling for what you perceive as deceit; the idea that Islamic terrorism may not be the problem it is made out to be; would then go out and be an Islamic terrorist? Why would one, outraged at such accusations made against his kine, then set out to give what he perceived as wrongful accusations, basis in fact by becoming the very thing he believed to be fiction, created by those with an agenda against his kind? What an utterly ludicrous suggestion, though one popular with the US and UK governments. Why if CTs are so baseless and valueless would governemts feel such need to attack them and define them a tool of the enemy?

Will you bother addressing any of this?

Ref Andrew #366

Just to be obsolutely clear .....

- 911 was caused by Islamic Terrorism

- July Bombings caused by Islamic Terrorism

- various alleged Islamic Terrorism trials/investigations under way in UK

- Islamic Sectarian Fracticide in ME & Asia caused by Islamic Fundamentalism

- numerous cases of terrorist atrocities around the world against certain targets, part of the Islamic Terror Franchise

- CT protagonists out to cause societal disorder & targeting the vunerable - for their other agenda

vikingar

Ref Nemos #367

Yep, the whole world knows Islamic Extremism in its terrorist manifestations is responsible - see #361

Unlike Iraq, the international community has had ever opportunity to act, esp given it knows what could happen if the UN fails.

If/when the UN fails, it will be a green light to those who Iran has directly threatened to 'wipe out' i.e. Israel.

Given the scale of the threat & infrastructure & stated aims - Iran 2006 is no Iraq 2001, the case is far much simpler.

Yep, most likely 'Iran' will be next by Israeli action and/or Allied Combo.

The clock is ticking ……...

Q. can UN or Iranian opposition politicians prevent need for such action?

vikingar

Ref: vikingar 370

"CT protagonists out to cause societal disorder & targeting the vunerable - for their other agenda"

Do they have secret shadowy societies where they meet behind closed doors, virtual or otherwise, to discuss their next tactic in their war of deceit?

Ref James #372

"Do they have secret shadowy societies where they meet behind closed doors, virtual or otherwise, to discuss their next tactic in their war of deceit?"

Presumably many do, as they clearly use the current wave of corrosive CT arguments to bolster their existing multi agendas - alongside the efforts of individuals.

These agendas existed prior to current conflicts & the litany of radical efforts are historical evidence.

Esp the radical left variety - since the 1960's - those street/march posters have never printed themselves :)

... same font, same stylising, same messages ... hhmmmm

Even the Islamic extremists & ex-luddites (whilst denouncing methods & technologies of the west) have caught on to the value of coordinated propaganda/marketing efforts (so they have been westernised to a degree after all) - HAY HO

vikingar

Ref Bridget #369

"….How do we end all genocide? Including the one against the Palestinians, slower but surely"

Palestinian establishment & parents could stop radicalising & brain washing their own children - abuse is abuse [1a] [1b] [1c]

Then stop making a hash of decision making, for ever snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

btw - 'Bridget' a new Bridget or Bridget Dunne?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a] https://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html
[1b] https://www.petitiononline.com/pakidkil/petition.html
[1c] https://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/Children.htm

Bridget (135),
> have a listen here [to the Popular Mechanics
> research editor] and then consider the credibility
> of this publication:
> https://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

Finally got round to listening to it. Astonishing, thanks for the link.

Vikingar (304),
> Q.3 which of the following is produced by competent
> professionals with resources & remit?
> - loose change - Dylan Avery 22 yr old Director from
> Oneonta [3a] - Popular Mechanics - US science/
> technology mag 1st published 1902

The answer is clearly NEITHER, if listening to the Popular Mechanics Research Editor is anything to go by. Have you actually listened to the Research Editor defend his 'research'? The guy's a complete joke! When asked how he verified the 'hijackers alive' story as false, he becomes totally flummoxed (unlike the Der Speigel article - see 302), and then talks about the DNA remains of the hijackers collected 'all over the place'. I had to laugh when it provoked the response, 'are you mad?' from the caller, but the host is much kinder, suspends his disbelief for the sake of argument (more than Vikingar has ever done!) and asks him about the whereabouts of the autopsy reports, or where they got the original DNA from, for the purposes of matching. The Research Editor laughs nervously, and admits he doesn't know. So there he is, asserting truth and certainty, without being able to defend it for a second. And you go on and on about S.E. Jones' lack of credibility! Pot and Kettle.

Ref: vikingar 373.

Do you realise how utterly ludicrous it looks to attack CTists for believing that there might be shadowy right-wing conspiracies while simultaneously accusing them of being part of a shadowy left-wing conspiracy?

A little off-topic perhaps, but I've just caught, whilst channel flicking, Abu Izzadeen on ITV news (they used a youtube video, the times they are a'changin'!), and then switched to Newsnight for the debate between Jeremy Paxman, Haras Rafiq and Anjem Choundary.