Really did you have nothing better to do? Why spend time on conspiracy theories when there are plenty of real struggles you could be involved with?

Nutters like those attending the US Social Forum?

US Social Forum Supports Call for International Investigation into 9/11
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/375219.html

"Chris S" why don't you do something positive rather than post comments attacking people who are protesting against the justification for the imperial genocide in the Middle East (3 million dead and counting:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378121.html )?

Just yesterday on Radio 4's Today program the "Defence" Secretary Des Brown was justifying the UK's role in Afghanistan on the basis of 9/11 -- it is the cornerstone of the "war on terror" and pulling it out from under the leaders of the Empire would do the cause of permanent war untold damage.

Google 7 sad cases and it will probably take you to this report.

what difference does it make? it's well established that states, even notional liberal democracies, are prepared to kill 'their own citizens' for political ends - look at the strategy of tension in italy for example. it's also well known that the current incumbents have killed 500,000+ in iraq, with another million in sanctions deaths by their predecessors. they're amoral, sociopathic agents of profit - this is what the structural role of 'world leader' demands, and this is well established. so what difference does it make if they killed a few thousand more?

why obsess over unknown unknowables when the battle lines have already been drawn - the sociopathy of a system based on endless capital accumulation or a world based on human need. to be honest it seems more a psychological retreat from engagement in real struggles, taking up the subject postion of the heroic crusader of truth risking all, in fact risking little because unconsciously at least you know you're not going to get assassinated for spreading The Truth(TM), which is presumably what would happen if you were actually a threat to such conspirators.

if 9/11 was orchestrated by the u.s government, then, surely Madrid, London, Bali, etc etc were also conspiracies? Because after all theres no such thing as islamic extremism, right? Fucking nutters.

Well well, here's anarchist and Big Lizard jumping in with their diversionary matador's capes.

Since the last 9/11 thread here, you still haven't explained why you feel the need to defend so vociferously against the many discrepancies between the official theory and fact. You still haven't explained why Commissioner Kean still insists FAA and NORAD were lying.

Ad inf. Just go to www.patriotsquestion911.com for a dose of reality.

As someone else pointed out here, all the present world problems stem from that vile day. Why are you forever using misdirection larded with ad hominems to sweep 9/11 under the carpet?

What is it that you are sufficiently concerned about to be forever attempting to deny the world some justice for this mass murder?

And purleese, don't give me any more of that 'movement' crap - it's just more misdirection.

Talking of which: here's Monbiot on 9/11 - Guardian 25th September 2001

"Then there was the passport. The security services claim that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World Trade Centre. This definitive identification might help them to track the rest of the network. We are being asked to believe that a paper document from the cockpit of the first plane -- the epicentre of an inferno which vapourised steel -- survived the fireball and fell to the ground almost intact.

When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it. I think there are grounds to suggest that the attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even if we don't know precisely who they were. But why do the agents appear to be overdressing their case? "

.

Well well, here's anarchist and Big Lizard jumping in with their diversionary matador's capes.

Since the last 9/11 thread here, you still haven't explained why you feel the need to defend so vociferously against the many discrepancies between the official theory and fact. You still haven't explained why Commissioner Kean still insists FAA and NORAD were lying.

Ad inf. Just go to www.patriotsquestion911.com for a dose of reality.

As someone else pointed out here, all the present world problems stem from that vile day. Why are you forever using misdirection larded with ad hominems to sweep 9/11 under the carpet?

What is it that you are sufficiently concerned about to be forever attempting to deny the world some justice for this mass murder?

And purleese, don't give me any more of that 'movement' crap - it's just more misdirection.

Talking of which: here's Monbiot on 9/11 - Guardian 25th September 2001

"Then there was the passport. The security services claim that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World Trade Centre. This definitive identification might help them to track the rest of the network. We are being asked to believe that a paper document from the cockpit of the first plane -- the epicentre of an inferno which vapourised steel -- survived the fireball and fell to the ground almost intact.

When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it. I think there are grounds to suggest that the attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even if we don't know precisely who they were. But why do the agents appear to be overdressing their case? "

.

ere, knobhead, got 2 questions.
1. do you believe that islamic extremism exists and is capable of carrying out terrorism?
2. do you believe madrid, london, bali etc were also conspiracies?

and try going on www.911cultwatch.org.uk for an actual bit of reality

www.911cultwatch.org.uk - oh right, paul stott - pass. One of the wunch protecting the bankers, seems like...

I'll bite on yer 2 questions, though you haven't even made the slightest attempt to answer the very reasonable ones set you in that post above - typical of you feeble characters masquerading as 'anarchists' - black block at Prague, was U? Yeah, I bet. LOL!

"1. do you believe that islamic extremism exists and is capable of carrying out terrorism?"

Yes - after years of being arsewipes for western corporates, wouldn't you?

"2. do you believe madrid, london, bali etc were also conspiracies? "

Yes - maybe you haven't bin following the spanish courts on Madrid? Turns out probly to be a faction in their secret service wot dunnit in conjunction with 'those who cannot be named' in rational discourse. London? - yep - check out Peter Powers and where is he now? Check out AdIs Pantsdown from MI6 - same old shit. Bali? - CIA + patsies, no contest. You need to do a bit more research 'anarchist'.

Don't know why ya bother gettin so uptight trying to defend the Rockefellers wet dreams - some anarchist, ain't ya?!

Benjamin Fulford - heard of him?

MI6: 'Excuse me, my man, would you mind driving this Landrover into Glasgow airport?'
My man: 'Okay ... but why?'
MI6: 'Well, we've got to keep the sheeple on their toes, you know. Another bomb atrocity - worth a few more millions on the budget.'
My man: 'But what'll happen to me?'
MI6: 'Don't worry about that, old boy. It'll all be over very quickly.'

Are you completely mad?

I definitely know with 100% absolutely certainty that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job…because…er…because…um…because, you cannot possibly know for sure if 9/11 was an inside job or not…even if the facts strongly indicate it was an inside job.

Besides, George W Bush has an almost believable theory that it was them nasty foreigners wot done it.

That’s right, there’s no such thing as islamic extremism because the phrase “islamic extremism” is just as much of an oxymoron as the phrase “christian extremism” And yet I bet you charlatans like Bin Laden and George Bush wish we could just gloss over that little detail - even though it is bleeding obvious to anyone with half a brain that there are extremist in all groups, muslims, christian and jews included.

Besides, if we use your (fuzzy) logic the BNP, IRA or Animal Rights Activists could just as equally be blamed because they too have been involved in extremist activities.

The incident at Glasgow airport was more scareism than terrorism. Those nutters could have harmed far more people by not washing their hands at work for a week.

Right - I'm sure the people of Glasgow will be greatly relieved to hear that the only intention was to scare them. Um - isn't that the point of terrorism? And how do you know they hadn't been washing their hands for a week?

Interesting how the usual Troll Droppings appear anywhere this central issue is debated ...

We, and the evidence, must all be wrong.

Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
by Bill Christison
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 14, 2006

Send this page to a friend! (click here)






However horrendous the crimes of two of the world’s great liars and terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon, it is imperative that we not let the deeds of Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush distract us from another recent event.

The U.S. alliance with Israel and the power of the lobby that lets Israel so easily influence U.S. foreign policy have been major factors in allowing the monstrous slaughter of innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. What is happening in these lands may also encourage Olmert and Bush to start new hostilities in Syria and heavy, possibly nuclear, bombings in Iran -- and this entire mess of neocon pottage may lead to a new World War and clashes of civilizations and religious fundamentalisms that these two wretched politicians seem quite literally to want to impose on the rest of us. It’s a tough case to make that anything else going on in the world -- anywhere -- could possibly be of equal importance.

But on July 29 and 30, and then again on August 1, something else happened that increasing numbers of people believe is of equal importance. On these dates C-SPAN rebroadcast a panel discussion, held originally in late June, sponsored by an organization called the American Scholars’ Symposium to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. Held in Los Angeles, the meeting lasted two days, and the C-SPAN rebroadcast covered one almost two-hour wrap-up session. The meeting was attended by 1,200 people interested in hearing something other than the official story of 9/11. The TV audience was evidently large enough to spur C-SPAN to broadcast the panel discussion five separate times in four days.

Even a month late, this is a lot of airtime for stories that many people call conspiracy theories -- and for which many others use nastier descriptions. It is possible that the head of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, so strongly disbelieves the conspiracy theories that he felt giving them ample publicity would discredit them further. It is equally possible, however, that Lamb, who seems honestly to believe in presenting various sides of most issues as fairly as he can (although not always giving every side equal time), tried to do exactly that on the many legitimate questions raised about what actually happened on September 11. In any event, C-SPAN has made a major effort to bring information on the principal theories about 9/11 to the mainstream U.S. media. Lamb cannot be blamed for the coincidence that recent heavy military activity in Gaza and Lebanon is nearly drowning out his efforts.

Let’s address the real issues here. Why is it important that we not let the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 be drowned out? After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. The items below highlight the major questions surrounding 9/11 but do not constitute a detailed recounting of the evidence available.

ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft. Absolutely no information is available on what happened to the original aircraft (American Airlines Flight 77), the crew, the “hijackers,” and the passengers. The “official story,” as it appeared in The 9/11 Commission Report simply says, “At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilians and military personnel in the building, were killed.” This allows readers to assume that pieces of the aircraft and some bodies of passengers were found in the rubble of the crash, but information so far released by the government does not show that such evidence was in fact found. The story put out by the Pentagon is that the plane and its passengers were incinerated; yet video footage of offices in the Pentagon situated at the edge of the hole clearly shows office furniture undamaged. The size of the hole in the Pentagon wall still remains as valid evidence and so far seems irrefutable.

TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11. A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive.

If the judgments made on Points ONE and TWO above are correct, they raise many “Who done it” questions and strongly suggest that some unnamed persons or groups either inside or with ties to the government were actively creating a “Pearl Harbor” event, most likely to gain public support for the aggressive foreign policies that followed -- policies that would, first, “transform” the entire Middle East, and second, expand U.S. global domination.

These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the “official story” of 9/11 is not true. If the government could prove this evidence false, and its own story on these points correct, all the other data and speculation supporting the conspiracy theories would be undermined. It has provided no such proof and no answers to growing questions.

Other, less important points supporting the theories include the following.

THREE: For at least one hour and 45 minutes after the hijacking of the first aircraft was known, U.S. air defense authorities failed to take meaningful action. This strikes some “conspiracy theorists” as valid evidence that the U.S. Air Force was deliberately restrained from acting. Maybe so, but my own skepticism tells me that the inefficiency of U.S. defense forces is likely to be just as plausible an explanation.

FOUR: Some of the theorists believe that the 19 named hijackers were not actually the hijackers. One claim is that the names of the hijackers were not on the manifests of any of the four aircraft.

FIVE: None of the 19 hijackers’ bodies were ever autopsied (since they were allegedly totally destroyed in the crashes, including even the people in the Pennsylvania crash).

SIX: At least five of the alleged hijackers (or persons with identical names) have since turned up alive in the Middle East. Nonetheless, the FBI has never bothered to re-investigate or revise the list of hijackers. Does this suggest that the FBI knows that no one in the administration is interested in reopening any further investigations?

SEVEN: Numerous pilots have allegedly told the theorists that none of the 19 hijackers could have flown the airliners well enough to hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon with as much accuracy as was displayed. The debate on this issue simply raises more doubt about the government’s charge that the people it has named as hijackers are the real hijackers.

EIGHT: No one, except possibly government investigators who are not talking, has seen the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. Some of the conspiracy theorists suggest that it was deliberately destroyed before it hit the ground; others suggest that the plane actually landed in Cleveland and that passengers then were whisked away to some unknown destination. What happened to them at that point is simply a large question mark that makes it more difficult to believe this particular scenario.

NINE: Machinations in the U.S. stock market in the days before 9/11 suggest that some inside players in the market knew or suspected that United and American Airlines stock would soon drop. Two of the four of the aircraft involved in 9/11 were, or course, United planes and the other two were American Airlines planes.

It should be reemphasized that these items do not make up a complete list of all the charges made by the theorists, but they are a good sample. Anyone interested in perhaps the best summary of these charges should watch the video “Loose Change.”

To repeat, points ONE and TWO above are the most important. If something other than an airliner actually did hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and if the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center actually were dropped to the ground by controlled demolitions rather than by anything connected to the hijackings, the untrue stories peddled by The 9/11 Commission Report are clearly susceptible of being turned into major political issues.

A Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll taken from July 6 to 24, 2006 concluded that “more than a third [36 percent] of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them, so that the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” The poll also found that “16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.”

A poll done by the Zogby polling organization two months earlier, between May 12 and 16, 2006, and using questions worded somewhat differently, suggested even more strongly that the issue could become a “big one” if aggressively publicized. This poll concluded that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure.” The co-author of the poll, W. David Kubiak, stated that, “despite years of relentless media promotion, whitewash, and 9/11 Commission propaganda, the official 9/11 story still can’t even muster 50 percent popular support.”

Whichever of these polls is closer to the truth, it would seem that there is considerable support for making a major political issue of the subject.

This should be worked on at two different levels. At the first level, the objective should be long-term, centered on making a maximum effort to find out who the individuals and groups are that carried out the attacks in New York and Washington. Then, these people should be tried in an international court and, if possible, convicted and punished for causing so many deaths. Such a trial, accompanied by actual change in U.S. policies, would show that some people on this globe are at least trying to move closer to more just and decent behavior in human relationships around the world.

At the second level, the short term, the task should be to immediately set to work as hard as is humanly possible to defeat in this year’s congressional election any candidate who refuses to support a no-holds-barred investigation of 9/11 by the Congress or a high-level international court. No more evidence than is now available is needed in order to begin this process.

A manageable volume of carefully collected and analyzed evidence is already at hand on both items ONE and TWO above. Such evidence should be used right now to buttress charges that elements within the Bush administration, as well as possibly other groups foreign or domestic, were involved in a massive fraud against the American people, a fraud that has led to many thousands of deaths.

This charge of fraud, if proven, involves a much greater crime against the American people and people of the world than any other charges of fraud connected to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It is a charge that we should not sweep under the rug because what is happening in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Iran seems more pressing and overwhelming. It is a charge that is more important because it is related to all of the areas just mentioned -- after all, the events of 9/11 have been used by the administration to justify every single aspect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since September 11. It is a charge that is more important also because it affects the very core of our entire political system. If proven, it is a conspiracy, so far successful, not only against the people of the United States, but against the entire world. Finally, it is a charge too important to ignore simply because the U.S. government refuses to discuss it. We must force the Bush administration to discuss it.

Discussions aggressively pushed day after day about what really happened on 9/11 will be one of the most important tasks between now and early November. Such discussions can, one hopes, provide progressives with a way to jolt voters out of their apathy and inchoate willingness to support the status quo that they think gives them security -- and encourage more voters to stop supporting Bush, the Republicans, and the wobbly Democratic politicians who might as well be Republicans. A major issue like this, already supported by many voters, may prove particularly important in a congressional election year when new uncertainties in the Middle East, new possibilities of terrorism against the U.S. in retaliation for recent large-scale acts of Israeli/U.S. terrorism in Gaza and Lebanon, and the corrupt almost-single-party U.S. political system combine to make it more likely that supporters of Bush will retain their majority this November.

In terms of electoral impact, it would not matter whether heavy publicity did in fact force the administration to accept a new high-level investigation of the 9/11 events. Initially, the principal goal would be to contribute heavily to the defeat of both Republicans and Democrats who refuse to support wholeheartedly a major new investigation by Congress or an international court. This might result in the defeat of more Republicans than Democrats in November, but ultimately the hoped-for goal should be the end of a system in which Democrats are barely different from Republicans, along with cutbacks in the political power of wealth and the foreign and domestic lobbies paid for by wealth. These are the dominant features of our system today that have practically eliminated meaningful democracy in the U.S. This failure of democracy has happened before in U.S. history, but this time it is likely to last longer -- at least until U.S. policies begin to pay as much attention to the needs of the world as they do to selfish or thoughtless needs of the U.S. and of its military-industrial complex. Attacks on the criminal events surrounding 9/11 might speed this process.

Virtually no members of Congress, Democratic or Republican, will relish calling for a further investigation of 9/11. For right now, in addition to other motives, the issue should be used to go after those political prostitutes among elected office-holders who should also be defeated because they are so easily seduced by money and power to vote for immoral wars against weak enemies.

At the Los Angeles meeting of the American Scholars’ Symposium, one of the main speakers, Webster Tarpley, summarized his own views on the events of 9/11. He emphasized that “neocon fascist madmen” had perpetrated the 9/11 “myth.” He went on to say, “The most important thing is that the 9/11 myth is the premise and the root of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War and the coming attack on Iran. ... We must ... deprive [the myth’s perpetrators] of the ability to stampede and manipulate hundreds of millions of people [with their] ... cynically planned terrorist events.”

Let’s give Webster Tarpley and other mistakenly labeled conspiracists who have labored in the wilderness for so long three cheers.

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979.

 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm

 http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

 http://www.911truth.org

So the several hundred eyewitnesses who saw an airliner were the victims of a mass hallucination? Right.

The quote above by 'Bon Chance' just proves how the average conspiracy theorist cherry picks their evidence to prove their theory/religion without considering any overwhelming fact or opinions to the contrary. Monbiot like every other sane person is willing to consider the possibility that the US government knows more than its letting on about the attacks. Like every other sane person he completely rejects the 'Inside Job' bollocks and its central theory the 'controlled demolition'.

I blame the X-files for this.....anyway, below some words of wisdom from...erm...Monbiot.


SHORT CHANGED

Posted February 12, 2007

9/11 conspiracism is dragging activists away from the real issues

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 6th February 2007

There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the United States, the strain reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight it has become an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me. The disease is called Loose Change. It is a film made by three young men which airs most of the standard conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11 2001. Unlike the other 9/11 conspiracy films, Loose Change is sharp and swift, with a thumping soundtrack, slick graphics and a calm and authoritative voiceover. Its makers claim that it has now been watched by 100 million people.The Pentagon, the film maintains, was not hit by a commercial airliner. There was “no discernable trace” of a plane found in the wreckage, and the entrance and exit holes in the building were far too small. It was hit by a Cruise missile. The twin towers were brought down by means of “a carefully planned controlled demolition”. You can see the small puffs of smoke caused by explosives just below the cascading sections. All other hypotheses are implausible: the fire was not hot enough to melt steel and the towers fell too quickly. Building 7 was destroyed by the same means a few hours later.

Flight 93 did not crash, but was redirected to Cleveland Airport, where the passengers were taken into a NASA building and never seen again. Their voices had been cloned by the Los Alamos laboratories and used to make fake calls to their relatives. The footage of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the attacks, was faked. The US government carried out this great crime for four reasons: to help Larry Silverstein, who leased the towers, to collect his insurance money; to assist insider traders betting on falling airline stocks; to steal the gold in the basement; and to grant George Bush new executive powers, so that he could carry out his plans for world domination.

Even if you have seen or read no other accounts of 9/11, and your brain has not yet been liquidised, a few problems must occur to you. The first is the complete absence of scientific advice. At one point the presenter asks “So what brought down the Twin Towers? Let’s ask the experts.” But they don’t ask the experts. The film makers take some old quotes, edit them to remove any contradictions, then denounce all subsequent retractions as further evidence of conspiracy.

The only people they interview are a janitor, a group of firemen and a flight instructor. They let the janitor speak at length, but cut the firemen off in mid-sentence. The flight instructor speaks in short clips, which give the impression that his pupil, the hijacker Hani Hanjour, was incapable of hitting the Pentagon. Elsewhere he has said the opposite: he had “no doubt” that Hanjour could have done it(1).

Where are the structural engineers, the materials scientists, the specialists in ballistics, explosives or fire? The film makers now say that the third edition of the film will be fact-checked by an expert, but he turns out to be “a theology professor”(2). They don’t name him, but I would bet that it’s David Ray Griffin, who also happens to be the high priest of the 9/11 conspiracists.

The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US Air Force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the relatives of the people “killed” in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon’s staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA and the investigators who picked through the rubble.

If there is one universal American characteristic it is a confessional culture which permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut. People appear on the Jerry Springer Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. Yet none of the participants in this monumental crime has sought to blow the whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one has volunteered to tell the greatest story ever told.

Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change’s case crumbles faster than the Twin Towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it collided with one of the world’s best- defended buildings at full speed, the plane was pulverised: even so, both plane parts and body parts were in fact recovered. The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is why the holes weren’t bigger(3).

The failure of the Twin Towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell(4).

Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert - an aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings(5). He shows that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel onto the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled and the building imploded(6). Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions(7).

So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the plot expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world’s population. There is no reasoning with this madness.

People believe Loose Change because it proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great evil which runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos which really governs our lives, a world without destination or purpose. This neat story draws campaigners away from real issues - global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, privatisation, inequality - while permanently wrecking their credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks, and he did follow a pre-existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says, by the Project for a New American Century. But by drowning this truth in an ocean of nonsense, the conspiracists ensure that it can never again be taken seriously.

The film’s greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.

www.monbiot.com

References: 1. Thomas Frank, 23rd September 2001. Tracing Trail Of Hijackers. Newsday. Viewed at:  http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm 2. Ed Pilkington, 26th January 2007. ‘They’re all forced to listen to us’. The Guardian.3. Benjamin Chertoff et al, March 2005. Debunking The 9/11 Myths. Popular Mechanics. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html4. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2006. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm5. Manuel Garcia, 28th November 2006. We See Conspiracies That Don’t Exist: The Physics of 9/11. http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html 6. Manuel Garcia, 28th November 2006. Dark Fire: The Fall of WTC 7.  http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html7. Benjamin Chertoff et al, ibid.

Bill Christison did not say an airliner almost certainly did not hit the twin towers, he said an airliner almost certainly did not hit the Pentagon. What “several hundred eyewitnesses” are you talking about, fool? Besides, haven’t you heard of the Phi Phenomena?

So if we use Monbiot’s logic I suppose the plot to medicate masses of supposedly depressed or anxious people with Prozac type SSRis, which actually causes homicidal and suicidal tendencies, was an international conspiracy involving millions of doctors and many government departments? No? Then how did it occur?

Can you point me to a source which says there were "hundreds of witnesses"? From what I understand, they saw a plane, their view was blocked, and then they saw an explosion.

Where are the surveillance photos?

This alleged testimony would have to be weighed against the evidence in a real investigation.

Stop Belittling the Theories About 911
Bill Christison-Former CIA Official
 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm

 http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

 http://www.911truth.org

How, not why, did World War Three start

We are not talking about conspiracy theories, absolutely not. We are talking about elementary physics and chemical processes, Newton's laws, gravity, the melting point of steel, and the like.

The World Trade Center was a complex made up of several buildings. The best-known, of course, were the two towers, WTC1 and WTC2. Together with five other smaller buildings – numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 – they formed a perimeter around a central plaza. On the far side of building 6, over 100 metres from the North Tower (WTC1), was building seven (WTC7). It was a very large 47-storey office building.

The two towers collapsed on 11 September 2001, after each was struck by an airplane. Everyone on the globe who had access to a television set has seen the dramatic and tragic images. However, to this day, only very few people are aware of the existence of WTC7 or its fate. This building was not hit by any airplane, but still collapsed seven hours after the towers. This feature article is about that event.

WTC7 was built around a core of 24 massive steel columns, connected by an asymmetric pattern of steel cross beams. The building periphery was made up of 57 smaller columns. There was enough redundant capacity in the design to handle loads several times greater than foreseeable loads from hurricanes or earthquakes, etc.

The collapse of the nearest tower, WTC1, caused damage to the lower floors in the southwest corner of WTC7. Building debris from the high tower and large amounts of dust poured in through the windows. Randomly distributed fires then broke out on other lower floors in the building. One of the other buildings in the complex, WTC5, was much more seriously damaged by the collapse of WTC1, but the rest of the structure remained standing.

WTC7 did not. After the building had smouldered for seven hours, it collapsed, perfectly symmetrically. It was quite literally levelled, and ended up as a pile that was basically confined to its footprint. The process took 6.4 seconds, which is equivalent to "free fall". If you had stood on the 47th floor and thrown an apple out the window at the exact moment the collapse began, your apple would have hit the ground at the same time as the roof.

How could it happen?

In the hours following the airplane strikes on the two towers, a global myth began to spread that the World Trade Centre collapsed due to fire and mechanical damage.

The only problem is that no steel structure has ever before collapsed due to fire, it is historically unprecedented. Over 400 cases of fire in that type of skyscraper are known prior to 2001, and none have collapsed. Not one.

During a well-known tower fire in Madrid (2005), the whole building was engulfed in an inferno of flames for 24 hours. It remained standing. We classify combustion based on how much oxygen is being supplied. In a Bunsen burner or a welding torch, air and oxygen are mixed with the gas prior to entering the combustion zone. Rather high temperatures can be reached, as can be witnessed in a welding torch. But when something burns on its surface, preventing access to large quantities of oxygen, as in the case of normal surface fires, the temperature is typically limited to 500-650° C.

The fires in the WTC1 and WTC2 towers were oxygen-starved fires of this nature, as could be seen from the large quantities of black smoke. The jet fuel was burned up within a few minutes, and the temperature would never have exceeded 650° C. This is true no matter how much jet fuel there was. It is also difficult to achieve high local temperatures in a steel structure, because the heat is conducted away and spread throughout the whole structure. According to official computer simulations, no components of the towers reached temperatures above 600° C.

Steel melts at 1,500° C, but begins to soften at around 425° C. Half of the structural strength has been lost at 650° C, and the steel begins to glow red. But even if only half of the structural strength remains, the structure can easily bear two or three times the load. It is only at 800° C that the structure would being to break down.

The fact that steel doesn't easily melt is something we should all be thankful for in our daily lives. Otherwise, your domestic oven would end up as a lump of cast iron, and frying sausages over a gas flame could also lead to unpleasant consequences. And if it was possible to bring down skyscrapers by setting fire to some office furniture, you could patent the method and set up a very profitable demolition business.

There is therefore no scientific precedent that justifies pointing to commonplace fires as a possible explanation for the collapse of WTC7.

Surely then, the explanation must be that the enormous weight of the debris from the collapse of towers WTC1 and WTC2 damaged the building or its foundations to such an extent that it collapsed?

After a delay of seven hours?

The WTC collapse

When tall buildings are exposed to extreme earthquakes, they tip over as they fall. If there is enough room, they sometimes tip right onto their sides. WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this.

It therefore wasn't damage to the foundations that caused WTC7 to collapse.

Two official explanations of the events in Manhattan on 11 September have been put forward by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).

In the final FEMA report, WTC7 is hardly mentioned. They note that there were fires in the building, but do not attempt to explain the collapse.

The final NIST report was released in September 2005, but the section covering WTC7 was left out, with the promise that a final version would be released later. Publication has been delayed several times, and we are still waiting for it.

In a draft summary of the WTC7 report from April 2005, NIST admits that they have only worked using the hypothesis that the collapse of WTC7 was a "normal" collapse. They try to make a case for this by presenting a diagram in which a bearing column is purportedly destroyed by the fires and the mechanical damage seven hours earlier. The vertical collapse of this column is supposed to have pulled the structure apart horizontally, after which the building collapsed in one synchronous movement.

The NIST report simply presents this hypothetical sequence of events. The authors do not go to the trouble of actually claiming that this is what happened.

In other words, we should picture a huge steel grid 47-storeys high, in which one of the vertical steel girders is torn asunder. It is difficult to reconcile this mental picture with the video recordings of the collapse available on the Internet.

NIST actually took the sensible step of engaging a company to construct models of the steel structure in the two towers. The models were then exposed to fires and damage. Even though temperatures were used which were significantly higher than what could have resulted from the attack, they were unable to provoke a collapse. The models remained standing. NIST chose, however, to ignore this result.

The attack on the World Trade Center was a tragedy for the people in the towers and in the airplanes, and a tragedy for their families. It also marked the beginning of the tragic war on terror. The current trends in Western society towards greater surveillance and the loss of civil rights can also only be called tragic.

If we have also been lied to, the tragedy is complete.

How did WTC7 collapse? We are not asking 'why'. This is no conspiracy theory. There is no burden of proof on us. Some extremely simple observations have been made, and we want to hear an official explanation that is consistent with elementary physics and chemistry, and common sense.

If you want to investigate the conditions described above, you won't find anything in the media. But Google something like 'WTC7' and you will find a flood of information. There are tens of thousands of people who have a feeling something is wrong.

But there is not a word about it in the media.

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

Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information, on 31 March 2007 (requires subscription).

More painful reading for the sadly deluded......well I suppose if you are too chicken to be a revolutionary then you should have a hobby.
And what more exciting way to keep yourself entertained than being a 'truther'?






The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th February 2007

“You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the New World Order … bought and paid for.”(1) “Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and the Special Branch recruit agents?”(2) “Shill, traitor, sleeper”, “leftwing gatekeeper”, “accessory after the fact”, “political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all.”

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the US government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my left-wing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I’ve blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by Al Qaeda, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents. I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a long-standing plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile, while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the Twin Towers with explosives without attracting attention, and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly-timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes, and induce them all to kept their mouths shut, for ever.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements which some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress; that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy; that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the “9/11 truth movement” is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward’s fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don’t have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on Comment is Free, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious.. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467(2). On the same day I published an article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain’s biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE. It drew 60 responses(3). The members of the 9/11 cult weren’t interested. If they were, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its hoard of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the “truth” movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC’s film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists’ case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E. Jones. Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact; rumour and confusion transformed into evidence; selective editing; the citation of fake experts; the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate-change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?(4)).

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the New World Order, I would say that, wouldn’t I? It’s all part of the plot.

www.monbiot.comReferences:1. Gary Allen, 911truthnc.org, 6th February 2007. Email.
2. “sirarthurchichester”, 8th February 2007. On Comment is Free.

3. George Monbiot, 13th February 2007. The parallel universe of BAE: covert, dangerous and beyond the rule of law. The Guardian.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2011751,00.html

4. Quoted by Will Sullivan, 3rd September 2006. Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll., US News and World Report.  http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm

Published in the Guardian 25th September 2001

Like almost everyone on earth, I want to believe that the attack on New York was the work of a single despot and his obedient commando. But the more evidence US intelligence presents to this effect, the less credible the story becomes.

First there was the car. A man had informed the police, we were told, that he'd had a furious argument with some suspicious-looking Muslims in the parking lot at Boston airport. He led investigators to the car, in which they found a copy of the Qur'an and a flight manual in Arabic, showing that these were the fundamentalists who had hijacked one of the planes. Now flying an airliner is not one of those things you learn in the back of a car on the way to the airport. Either you know how to do it or you don't. Leaving the Qu'ran unattended, a Muslim friend tells me, is considered sinful. And if you were about to perpetrate one of the biggest terrorist outrages the world has ever seen, would you draw attention to yourself by arguing over a parking place?

Then there was the passport. The security services claim that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World Trade Centre. This definitive identification might help them to track the rest of the network. We are being asked to believe that a paper document from the cockpit of the first plane -- the epicentre of an inferno which vapourised steel -- survived the fireball and fell to the ground almost intact.

When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it. I think there are grounds to suggest that the attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even if we don't know precisely who they were. But why do the agents appear to be overdressing their case?

It's partly, I think, because they need to show that they are not as clueless as their failure to predict the atrocity suggests. But it's also because, understandably enough, they want a discrete and discernable enemy to confront, a structure they can penetrate, a membership they can round up, and a figure whose personal evil is commensurate with the crime.

Partly as a result of this wishful thinking, the West found itself in a curious position last week. The Taliban, possibly the most brutal and barbaric regime on earth, was requesting evidence before considering Osama Bin Laden's extradition: they insisted that he was innocent until proven guilty. The West, in the name of civilisation, was insisting that Bin Laden was guilty, and it would find the evidence later.

For these reasons and many others (such as the initial false certainties about the Oklahoma bombing and the Sudanese medicine factory, and the identification of live innocents as dead terrorists), I think we have some cause to regard the new evidence against Bin Laden with a measure of scepticism. There's no question that he's dangerous, and there's convincing evidence connecting him to previous attacks, but if the West starts chasing the wrong man across the Hindu Kush while the real terrorists are planning their next atrocity, this hardly guarantees our security.

In the Guardian yesterday, the British minister Peter Hain argued that "the values that the terrorists attacked last week were human rights, democracy and the rule of law". If this is so, then the terrorists have won already. The presumption of innocence is just one of the human rights both Mr Hain and Mr Bush appear prepared to abandon in response to the attacks. Operation Infinite Justice begins with the renunciation of justice. The force Bush and Blair have mobilised is a gigantic death squad, dispatched to enact extrajudicial executions.

Already the deployment has almost certainly killed more innocent people than the terrorist outrage in New York. The UN world food programme has pulled out of a country in which 5.5 million are at imminent risk of starvation. The victims are invisible, their language incomprehensible, so the world neither knows nor cares.

At a vast anti-war meeting in London on Friday, I saw just how unfairly we objectors have been characterised. When I described what happened in New York as a crime against humanity, only one person in the hall demurred ("it was self-defence!"), and he was immediately shouted down by what appeared to be the entire audience. No one suggested that the victims of the attack deserved what they got. No one advocated the appeasement of terrorists. But, just as the militarists need a single Hitler-like figure to launch their new world war, they also need to invoke a fabled set of beliefs which allows the pacifists to be dismissed before they have been heard.

But in one respect we have not, perhaps, made ourselves sufficiently clear. Assuming the unassumable, namely that Bin Laden was responsible and that he and his lieutenants are still in Afghanistan, how would we deal with them? The answer is obvious: let's cut out the world war and go straight to Nuremburg.

This begs the question, of course, of how we would extract the defendants. I believe that this is a lot less complicated than the militarists have made it. Until a few years ago, the Afghan people regarded the western powers as their allies, as they fought to rid themselves of a brutal Soviet occupation. We squandered their goodwill when we encouraged the Taliban to move in as an ideological bulwark against communism. But reclaiming it, in Afghanistan's desperate circumstances, is surely only a matter of months.

Vast humanitarian interventions, dragging the population back from the brink of famine, would show the people that, unlike the Taliban, the West is on their side. The Taliban thrive on the fear of outsiders, which, as far as Afghans are concerned, has so far been amply justified. If the outside world proves that it is friendly, not hostile, the regime's grip begins to weaken. As the debilitated population begins to recover, the Taliban's chances of retaining power will be approximately zero. Bin Laden, long hated and feared by most Afghans, would be handed over just as soon as they could grab him.

All this, of course, will take time, and it's not hard to see why the American people want instant results. But justice requires patience, and infinite justice requires infinite patience. The great advantage of this strategy is that it's safe. Far from spawning future conflicts, it is likely to defuse them. Far from immersing a new generation in hatred of the West, it's likely to inculcate a hatred of those who would deprive them of friendly contact with outsiders. Far from triggering off fundamentalist uprisings all over the Muslim world, it could lead to a new understanding between cultures, even a sense of common purpose. The likes of Bin Laden would then have nowhere to hide.

And there's an accidental by-product, which has nothing to do with the West's strategic objectives. Rather than killing thousands of civilians, we would save the lives of millions. Let's make this the era of collateral repair.

The magical appearance of the terrorists' luggage, passports and flight manual looks rather too good to be true. The dossier of "evidence" purporting to establish Bin Laden's guilt consists largely of supposition and conjecture....

Even the anthrax scare looks suspiciously convenient. Just as the hawks in Washington were losing the public argument about extending the war to other countries, journalists start receiving envelopes full of bacteria, which might as well have been labelled "a gift from Iraq"....

Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism. Unless we are prepared to question, to expose, to challenge and to dissent, we conspire in the demise of the system for which our governments are supposed to be fighting. The true defenders of America are those who are now being told that they are anti-American.

Response to The UK Guardian Hit Piece:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/362587.html

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

Jim Hoffman considers the "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" article here:

 http://www.911review.com/reviews/dissidentvoice/markup/christison14.htm

And he also says of it:

In August, Dissident Voice published Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 by CIA alum Bil Christison. While packaged as a plea to take the "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 seriously, the piece actually appears to be a Trojan horse attack, enthusiastically promoting the Pentagon no-jetliner theory while pairing it with a tepid endorsement of the WTC demolition theory. Christison trots out the usual arguments for the no-jetliner theory, failing to note any of their errors. In contrast, he fails to note any specific arguments for the demolition of the Twin Towers or Building 7.

 http://911review.com/denial/gatekeepers.html#dissidentvoice

JT: it's not a good article to keep reposting -- there are far better ones...

One the matter of disinformation there is an interesting article on the 9/11 Disinformation Movement (well apart from it's mention of Peak Oil -- this is a key reason for 9/11, see  http://oilempire.us/ ):

The 9/11 B. S. Movement
 http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/07/911-b-s-movement.html

"9/11 Cult Watch" was mentioned earlier, what is interesting about them is that they clearly don't say that the official story is true although many that cite them seem to think that they do. They cite Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed and Peter Dale Scott among others for background reading -- people who essentially think 9/11 *was* an inside job though they don't say this in such an unsubtle manner. See:

 http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/911cult_009.htm

Some background reading / listening from this site from Nafeez Ahmed:

Creating Terror
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2007/07/376666.mp3
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376665.html

"INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: THE SECRET HISTORY"
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2006/11/356940.mp3
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/356939.html

Ties With Terror: Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the Post-Cold War Period
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2007/04/368972.mp3
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368971.html

UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/345908.html

The Muslim Problem
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353174.html

Whose War on Whose Terror? Reclaiming Our Rights
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/12/358059.html

Inside the Crevice: 7/7 and the Security Debacle
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/370395.html

7/7 and Britain's Terror Paradigm
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/345039.html

The Strategy of Tension
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/370836.html

Whose Bombs?
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/375302.html

And Peter Dale Scott:

The strategy of tension in Europe and America
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378433.html

How the FBI protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353027.html

Guido: you should read this material and listen to the mp3's rather than just reposting Moonbat and calling us all mad, you might learn something...

The central fact is that the failure of the "Saddam has nukes!!" War Criminals to support their own Conspiracy Theory, in six whole years, coupled with the wealth of contradictory evidence pointing the blame back at them, demands a real investigation, not one which is designed by the possible culprits to "fix the facts" to a foregone conclusion.

I distinctly remember receiving a forwarded email being sent around back in 2001 warning of an impending ‘anthrax scare’. Millions of people received it. Dr. Leonard Horowitz accurately predicted the event before it even happened. Perhaps it was just coincidence that he got it right? A lucky guess? Let’s hope so, or we may have to seriously consider some of his other observations.

Here’s a taste:

A week before the 2001 anthrax mailings were reported in the national press, Dr. Horowitz visited his local FBI office to issue an urgent warning of an impending “anthrax scam,” that, as later reported by the national press, involved suspected drug companies and vaccine makers allied with military contractors. He provided testimony on Capitol Hill on April 18, 2002 regarding scientific links between mercury in vaccines and the skyrocketing autism rates in children. His written testimony, to be included in the Congressional Record addresses the political and industrial forces that profit most from what he most effectively argues is “genocide.”

 http://www.bbsradio.com/bbc/leonard_horowitz_radio.php

And obviously that’s just nuts!

So he must be a Witch…

Right?

Two well informed pieces by Mr Monbiot but why bother? Trying to have a rational debate with a conspiraloon is pointless. Its more than just a conspiracy to these losers. Its their life, their purpose and more importantly their security blanket. Without the pretense that they are taking on the evil empire (which they are in fact assisting) these sad cases are left with the awful truth that the rest of us face every day. Its called reality....

Having said that, winding them up is great fun when there really is nothing better to do. I used to have hours of fun with the Jehovahs witnesses that knocked on my door but they have stopped coming.

I cannot believve anyone is still peddling this 'no plane at the Pentagon' nonsense. There were hundreds of witnesses to this, have you so called 'truthers' never even made a cursory check to verify any of the so called 'truths' you adhere to.

A number of eyewitness accounts can be found here:

 http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
or


 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

Even people who otherwise beleive the cover up theory, have accepted the no plane theory to be bollocks:

 http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html

The Oil Witness site (though I do not agree with some of their own speculation), makes a pretty good job of debunking many of the no plane myths, such as the utter crap constantly parroted ad nauseum about the 'hole being too small'

 http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

"Lizard", doesn't it bother you - especially knowing all we know now about the LYING War Criminals who demand that we take on faith alone the Conspiracy Theory you're desperately defending - that we still don't know what actually happened, or who was responsible?

The central fact is that the failure of the "Saddam has nukes!!" War Criminals to support their own Conspiracy Theory, in six whole years, coupled with the wealth of contradictory evidence pointing the blame back at them, demands a real investigation, not one which is designed by the possible culprits to "fix the facts" to a foregone conclusion.

The whole point is that you don't need to involve 'conspiracy theories'.

Some guys decide to hijack airliners. Nothing new about that - it's been happening for decades.

One new twist: hijackers are also 'suiciders'. Nothing new about that - that's been happening for decades as well.

Hijackers usually demand the planes lands somewhere and then issues demands. Flying an aircraft is not too difficult - the tricky bit lies in putting it back on the ground safely. But these guys didn't intend to - so they got someone with fairly minimal piloting skills to point it at a building.

You don't need a conspiracy.

The White House line IS a Conspiracy Theory.

That's the whole point ...

"Lizard", doesn't it bother you - especially knowing all we know now about the LYING War Criminals who demand that we take on faith alone the Conspiracy Theory you're desperately defending - that we still don't know what actually happened, or who was responsible?

The central fact is that the failure of the "Saddam has nukes!!" War Criminals to support their own Conspiracy Theory, in six whole years, coupled with the wealth of contradictory evidence pointing the blame back at them, demands a real investigation, not one which is designed by the possible culprits to "fix the facts" to a foregone conclusion.

"Its more than just a conspiracy to these losers. Its their life, their purpose and more importantly their security blanket."

WTF? You know them all personally do you? Big Bigot "Fox News" Lizard.

"Without the pretense that they are taking on the evil empire (which they are in fact assisting)"

So Lizard, there is an evil empire then? and they're involved in a plot (a conspiracy) to distract you from what? oh yeah, winding up jehovah's witnesses. Who's the time waster? Who's the paranoid "conspiraloon"?


"these sad cases are left with the awful truth that the rest of us face every day. Its called reality...."

Oh yeah "reality" like you know WTF reality is! LOL! Ha Ha Ha!

"Having said that, winding them up is great fun when there really is nothing better to do."

Says it all really, Big Lizard has nothing better to do, poor sad f'ck.

You want a rational debate?...

Can you rationally explain how those collapses occured at 98% free fall?
Given that, as Popular Mechanics puts it, there was a "massive release of energy".
You can't have it both ways - free-fall means NO release of energy. Massive release of energy means a slower collapse than free fall. It's called the Law of Conservation of Energy.

C'mon BL let's have a rational debate.

If you were a terrorist and your target was the pentagon, wouldn’t you go for the bull’s eye rather than an outer wall?

The analogy is two angry men in a rare arse kicking competition and the underdog decided to kick his opponent in the outermost part of his arse cheek instead of aiming for the sphincter? It doesn’t make sense to me.

And out of all the bits of the pentagon to hit, the terrorists (sic) hit the part that was more or less empty. It’s almost as if someone was aware of the impending metaphorical caning and in readiness stuffed some books down their pants to absorb the sting.

How many of the 10-30 million deaths caused by the US Empire in the "post-war" perion were directly or indirectly the responsibility of the CIA?

"citpecs" clearly has no credibility:

"Are you saying the CIA shouldn't be allowed to edit WIkipedia? First Amendment applies just as much to them as to anyone else."

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378734.html?c=on#c179202