Harry's Place

“‘Oh discerning reader and fellow patriot: join the dots and see the image. It is a fluttering flag with a big star in the middle’.”

Morocco?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Flag_of_Morocco2.png

On a more serious note, that’s another good post Edmund. Well done.

Yep. Crazy people sure are crazy.

Splendid post.

Shock, horror, quasi-religious biological racists who believe in the occult turn out to be absolute nutters!

On my more serious note, good article.

Interesting serendipity as I was listening to Alex Jones ranting on his radio programme last night. His current conspiracy is that McCain and Obama are funded by the same people and that they arranged that Obama should win because someone has decided that the USA needs to go Marxist in order to be destroyed. (Nutter!)

Then I listened to Republic Radio where they often take a Christian Fundamentalist approach to this. Here I learnt that the Jews in Israel aren’t really Jews by Khazars. They have a manipulative desire that is rooted in communism. All the money that the USA sends to Israel ‘goes in their pocket’ and some of it comes back in millions of dollars forcing USA politicians to support Israel.

Apparently this is all exposed by some Jewish authors who have been killed by Mossad/Shin Bet. One of whom converted to Christianity. “(Hoffmann III and someone called Freedman). But this is linked to some obscure stories from Biblical times where God didn’t give Israel to these Khazars but to REAL Jews (Tribe of Judah)

It amazes me how many people call in to these programs and agree or add to the stories. No doubt its deeply antisemitic and yet their by-line is “Well I’m only telling you the truth they won’t tell you”.

Its amusing, entertaining and sickening at the same time!

Now, if you were someone who believed all this then wouldn’t you decide your suspicions were confirmed by Obama’s appointments and the apparently pro-Israel nature of those who surround him.

And if you believed 9/11 conspiracy theories then couldn’t you convince yourself that they were true if you found holes in the complete story because you don’t accept that truth can be stranger than fiction?

The far right is not the only source of crazy Nazi like ideas as a review in the current issue of The New Republic on a book by Slavoj
Zizek: “In Defense of Lost Causes,” by Adam Kirsch makes clear.

“The Deadly Jester”

Here are the concluding paragraphs of the review:

“It makes sense, then, that Zizek should finally cast his anti-Judaism in explicitly theological terms. Why is it that so many of the chief foes of totalitarianism in the second half of the twentieth century were Jews–Arendt, Berlin, Levinas? One might think it is because the Jews were the greatest victims of Nazi totalitarianism, and so had the greatest stake in ensuring that its evil was recognized. But Zizek has another explanation: the Jews are stubbornly rejecting the universal love that expresses itself in revolutionary terror, just as they rejected the love of Christ. “No wonder,” he writes in the introduction to In Defense of Lost Causes, “that those who demand fidelity to the name ‘Jews’ are also those who warn us against the ‘totalitarian’ dangers of any radical emancipatory movement. Their politics consists in accepting the fundamental finitude and limitation of our situation, and the Jewish Law is the ultimate mark of this finitude, which is why, for them, all attempts to overcome Law and tend towards allembracing Love (from Christianity through the French Jacobins to Stalinism) must end up in totalitarian terror.”

Stalinism, in this reading, is the heir to Christianity, and yet another attempt to overcome law with love. Here Zizek is explicating the views of Badiou, to whom the book is dedicated, but it is safe to say that Zizek endorses those views, since precisely the same logic is at work in The Fragile Absolute, where he writes of “the Jewish refusal to assert love for the neighbor outside the confines of the Law,” as against the Christian “endeavor to break the very vicious cycle of Law/sin.” “No wonder,” Zizek says, “that, for those fully identified with the Jewish ‘national substance’ … the appearance of Christ was a ridiculous and/or traumatic scandal.”
It does not bother Zizek that this hoary dichotomy is built on a foundation of complete ignorance of both Judaism and Christianity. Nothing could be lazier than to recycle the ancient Christian myth of Judaism as a religion of “mere law.” And nothing could be more insulting to Christianity than to reduce it romantically to antinomianism, which has always been a Christian heresy. “Christianity,” Zizek remarks, “is … a form of anti-wisdom par excellence, a crazy wager on Truth.” But surely it is no part of the Pascalian wager that murdering millions of people will help to win it.

And there is no doubt that this scale of killing is what Zizek looks forward to in the Revolution. “What makes Nazism repulsive,” he writes, “is not the rhetoric of a final solution as such, but the concrete twist it gives to it.” Perhaps there is supposed to be some reassurance for Jews in that sentence; but perhaps not. For in In Defense of Lost Causes, again paraphrasing Badiou, Zizek writes: “To put it succinctly, the only true solution to the ‘Jewish question’ is the ‘final solution’ (their annihilation), because Jews … are the ultimate obstacle to the ‘final solution’ of History itself, to the overcoming of divisions in all-encompassing unity and flexibility.” I hasten to add that Zizek dissents from Badiou’s vision to this extent: he believes that Jews “resisting identification with the State of Israel,” “the Jews of the Jews themselves,” the “worthy successors to Spinoza,” deserve to be exempted on account of their “fidelity to the Messianic impulse.”

In this way, Zizek’s allegedly progressive thought leads directly into a pit of moral and intellectual squalor. In his New York Times piece against torture, Zizek worried that the normalization of torture as an instrument of state was the first step in “a process of moral corruption: those in power are literally trying to break a part of our ethical backbone.” This is a good description of Zizek’s own work. Under the cover of comedy and hyperbole, in between allusions to movies and video games, he is engaged in the rehabilitation of many of the most evil ideas of the last century. He is trying to undo the achievement of all the postwar thinkers who taught us to regard totalitarianism, revolutionary terror, utopian violence, and anti-Semitism as inadmissible in serious political discourse. Is Zizek’s audience too busy laughing at him to hear him? I hope so, because the idea that they can hear him without recoiling from him is too dismal, and frightening, to contemplate.”
Read the whole article here:

http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=097a31f3-c440-4b10-8894-14197d7a6eef

Zizek ideas are even more dangerous because they are being accepted in academia in Europe and to a lesser extent in the US.

HP smears

teacup

folk

9/11 ‘truthers’ often complain that it is unfair to associate their ‘movement’ with anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and claim there is no connection. However, a look around the blogs of Britain’s Fascist groups turns up a considerable interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Guilt by association. The fact that Fascists support 9/11 conspiracy theories says nothing about other supporters of those theories.

And are you a supporter of those theories? Are you ‘questioning’?

Christ that was a big wodge of indigestible something. You’re not being paid by the word you know.

‘The fact that Fascists support 9/11 conspiracy theories says nothing about other supporters of those theories’.

Which – seeing as the 9/11 denialists happen to be either on the extreme right or the extreme left of the political spectrum – is just about as deceitful a statement as you’ve come out with.

The fact that so many of the 9/11 denialist myths revolve around Jews should be a cause for some concern for anyone who doesn’t wear a brown shirt, and isn’t a raving anti-Semite. Your nonchalance on this issue speaks volumes.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories look like they’ll be to the early 21st century what the ‘Protocols’ were to the early 1900s. I just hope that they don’t have a similar impact.

George Galloway has been a guest on Alex Jones’s radio show.

Crypto-fascist?

Shouldn’t that be “Nazi front organisation”?

Left or right the 9-11 Absurdists all drift into anti-semitism via Zionist conspiracy.

I don’t there is a reasonable sceptical position on 9-11. It ain’t the JFK assassination where there are many loose ends. It is as plain as the earth orbiting the sun that there was an Al Queda-led conspiracy to fly planes into various targets including the Twin Towers. Whether they had logistical help from Saddam’s regime is not entirely resolved. But that is the basic story. We know who came up with the original idea and how it evolved.

excellent post

you’ll notice how “Bilderberg” is a constant theme in the fascist mindset and this way of thinking, I hope the Greens managed to see why Tony Gosling’s unhealthy obsession with it, is so wrong

“you’ll notice how “Bilderberg” is a constant theme in the fascist mindset and this way of thinking, I hope the Greens managed to see why Tony Gosling’s unhealthy obsession with it, is so wrong”

That assumes that he has no sympathies that way himself.

“I don’t there is a reasonable sceptical position on 9-11. It ain’t the JFK assassination where there are many loose ends. It is as plain as the earth orbiting the sun that there was an Al Queda-led conspiracy to fly planes into various targets including the Twin Towers.”

Well, the Holocaust is even plainer the documentary evidence is even more voluminous but antisemites like the antisemite “Hasbara buster” still manage to find ways of denying the truth.

Is Zizek a “truther?”

“‘Oh discerning reader and fellow patriot: join the dots and see the image. It is a fluttering flag with a big star in the middle’.”

Morocco?

Maybe the Somali flag is nearer the mark.

Excellent post. I wouldn’t have guessed that the first paragraph of the quote about Obama came from the far right rather than the far left. Just one thing I don’t understand; if NWO, ZOG etc. already controls everything, why would they bother?

The more things change the more they stay the same. Anyone remember Peter the Hermit with his rag-tag-and-bobtail army of child crusaders answering the call of the lunatic fringe? Conspiracy theories no doubt abounding regarding the whole dirty business.
And today, Da Vinci Codes, outselling the rest. Anything that smacks of conspiracy is sure to be a hit. It’s human nature; on the one side the frenetic search for the imagined ’scapegoat and on the other side the fear-mongers drumming up business.

“Is Zizek a “truther?””

Zizek believes that any opposition to the NWO is a good thing. That includes, Islamic fundamentlaists, al Kaida as well as Communists and Fascists.

so Zizek is a bit like the SWP?

Poet, if there were no such things as conspiracies, the airplane hijackers wouldn’t have been able to concert their efforts. And the neo-fash wouldn’t have been able to concoct their brew.
Quite a few of the previous postings on this topic seem to postulate a vast far-Right conspiracy.
I agree the Da Vinci Code type of theory is sheer crap.
But there are some fairly non-hysterical types who put forward a reasonably good case for a second look at 9/11, David Ray Griffin being one. Not all his sources and authorities are of the Rense/Jones variety, although he might have been a little bit more picky.
Ignore what the fascist lot are saying: all that stuff about the entire staff of Kantor Fitzgerald being warned off to stay home.
You don’t have to be a Nazi to ask why the third tower went down when there was hardly any fire.
You don’t have to be a Nazi to ask about the way the Pentagon wall was breached.
Michael Meacher MP wrote a preface for D.R. Griffin and I don’t think he’s a Nazi. Some of the people who post here probably know him.

Why all this learned exegesis? These people are evidently paranoid schizophrenics. It’s very sad, but the world is full of them. Analysing their drivel is a waste of time.

Meacher is still an idiot. Reading even a small bit of his biography shows this.
When non-scientists and non-engineers like Meacher and Dewdney tell us to look at the 3rd tower and the Pentagon and screech endlessly about the ‘impossibility’ of these things happening, I remember that the same people told us that heavier-than-air craft cannot fly, as proven scientifically. And shrug sadly at the hazards of a little learning as displayed by them.

http://www.911missinglinks.com/,strawman.

Excellent post btw

Nearly Oxfordian, one or two people around here seem paranoid about British Fascists and about al-Qaeda, so perhaps I shouldn’t read them,either.
The Fascists are claiming inner knowledge of a Zionist conspiracy, and other people are claiming knowledge of how al-Qaeda works.
You pays yer money and yer takes yer pick.
This puts it better than I ever could: some of you may have read it.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=419

Perfidious Sayanim

He’s our friend, he’s our teacher,

In the church he is the preacher.

He’s the doctor, who attends the family.

As a lawyer he is trusted

and like you he is disgusted

with injustice, lawlessness and perfidy.

And he feels for our troubles,

Well he knows our deepest longing,

always gives us sound advice and it may seem.

That he cares as does no other

and he truly is our brother,

But we find one day, he’s one of the Sayanim!

She’s our neighbour, she’s our lover,

she’s an actress and a mother

She’s our role model and a socialite.

Every topic of the day,

pulling strings, she’s in the fray,

She’s an activist and does not shirk a fight.

Well she knows to play our heartstrings

with sweet words that deepest care brings,

Her intentions, sure are true as they may seem.

But one day there’s a division

and we see by her decision,

that she is and was one of the Sayanim.

In their circles, at the tables,

In the mansions, boats and stables,

all the rich and influential gather round.

They are with folk of their station

and they get their information

where the useful Goy and the Sayan is found.

When you cross their lines, it’s chilling

and you understand, they’re willing

to root you out of job, house, land and it would seem,

That the man, you had befriended,

played a game and now it’s ended.

You know much too late he’s one of the Sayanim.

Dagmar Brenne, 22. 8.2007

Al Qaeda murdered thousands of people by its own admission. Perhaps you need to look up what the word ‘paranoid’ means, because clearly you have no clue.

Nearly Oxfordian, I take it your exposition proceeds by analogy, as I don’t recall Meacher and Dewdney attempting to discourage the Wright brothers.
Some predictions about the implausibility of certain events taking place without a lot of interference and nudging will remain valid for a long while yet; try striking a match on a jelly.
And I’m sure that there are some people who don’t “screech endlessly” about these things: Griffin’s case is put very calmly. It’s unfair of you to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is raving and hysterical.
The distracting noise is coming from you, not Griffin.

Nearly Oxfordian, as I’m not really a very educated person, please define the word ‘paranoid’ for me, so that I may the more clearly understand your message.
Thank you.

prosaist –

But there are some fairly non-hysterical types who put forward a reasonably good case for a second look at 9/11, David Ray Griffin being one. Not all his sources and authorities are of the Rense/Jones variety, although he might have been a little bit more picky.

David Ray Griffin is a disgrace and his ‘theories’ have been carefully debunked by NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.

Griffin recently expressed a ‘theory’ about the bodies from the Pentagon as follows:

‘But we have no evidence that anyone from an airplane died at the Pentagon. At best we know that bodies from the airplane, and bodies from the Pentagon showed up at the Army’s pathology institute. But these were transported by the FBI and the military and we know that was irregular. They went from the Pentagon to another building, and then from that building were taken to the pathology institute. So the bodies from the airplane could have been transferred to that middle building from somewhere else and to the people at the pathology institute they would assume they all came from the Pentagon’.

He made this claim while speaking in Japan at a troofer event, where he shared a platform with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers.

You don’t have to be a Nazi to ask why the third tower went down when there was hardly any fire.

I presume you are unaware of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s recent extensive report on WTC 7, then? Start here.

You don’t have to be a Nazi to ask about the way the Pentagon wall was breached.

Oh, for goodness sake.

Let’s not forget that Al Queda obtained a fatwa entitling them to kill up to 10 million civilians in the West.

prosaist, I think it was Berolt Brecht who wrote “the Nazis have given war a bad name”. As you say, there are conspiracy theories and there are conspiracy theories. If Brecht was alive today he might well say that conspiracy theorists have given conspiracy theory a bad name. Looking for the de facto conspiracy theory is a bit like looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
I was recently talking to a man who was in the Czech underground during the Nazi and Communist periods and survived to tell the tale. Now he tells me that Freemasons were behind the Benec expulsions of the German-speaking population of Bohemia. We might be able to build a whole conspiracy theory around this bit of close to the horse’s mouth information. We could even tie-in W A Mozart and Jörg Haider to our theory if we had a mind to. And so we see that building conspiracy theories is the easiest thing in the world. We could invent new ones every day if we had a mind to. I’ll wager that 99% of them are nothing but half-truths, mostly imagined, and much fantasy.

modernityblog

“so Zizek is a bit like the SWP?”

Don’t know SWP, but if they think that any opposition to liberal democracy, which according to Zizek (an Pilger) are behind modern imperialism, even fascist and Islamic oppostion, than they have something in common.

“Most ‘truthers’ propose the existence of some kind of secret organisation that they hold responsible for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.”

Most non-truthers do too. their theory is that is was all down to a chap in a cave connected to a dialysis machine who controls a shadowy underground organization. And to be fair most of American still believe that it was both the former president of Iraq and the chap in the cave who did it. Hence the invasion of Iraq. ( Although by the time the invasion of Iraq took place the administration had moved onto WMD – also a conspiratorial suggestion about a foreign power – the population was gung ho because Saddam was responsible for 9/11).

So lots of conspiracy about the whole thing. On the whole I believe that it was the chap in the cave, but lets let a thousand flowers bloom. Blaming Zionists ( i.e. Israel) maybe factually wrong, but despite the hysteria on this site, no more immoral than blaming Iraq – which was also factually wrong.

THE LAVON AFFAIR
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.
Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by “anti-Semites”.

Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty

A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy’s inquiry to “conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

Coincidence,a word crafted by intelligent men enabling fools to dismiss reality.

I agree with Fionn’s central paragraph here, I think.
But how many people really know what al-Qaeda really is, who’s in it, how it operates, what the name’s meaning really is (if it has one), and how to validate messages and videos purporting to issue from it?

The sick man in the cave, cointrolling everything. The Wizard of Oz? Or is it all a bit like the various brotherhoods who flit in and out of the shadows in John Buchan’s WWI spy novels. One of his inventions was a group called (in German) ‘The Black Stone’, while his “Greenmantle”’s ‘Brethren of the Rosy Hours’, an Islamic terrorist team posing as a group of Derivsh dancers, turns out to be run by the War office.

I hope nothing I said could have been interpreted as appearing to place the blame on Israel.

And Fionn, I don’t think that because it may be unjust to blame Iraq, that this injustice is balanced by committing another one against Israel
I don’t think anything David Ray Griffin says can be seen in this light.

>i>Whoever is elected represents the interests of the same elite. The same people stay in control, the same government runs everything the same way and the same political, social, media and financial elites control the nation.

I see nothing particularly outrageous about that statement.

In Canada’s largest province, Ontario, back in the 90s the electorate chose in quick succession the Conservatives, the Liberals ( centrist) and the NDP ( socialist). In each election the official opposition promised to respect its programme and to bring about real change, if elected. Yet after each election those platforms and programmes were quickly abandonned and the same old, ’same-old’ trotted out once more. All three, once in power, were indistinguishable from each other.

The political puppets all dance to the same tune of their puppeteer pay masters. The media corporations propagandise the political parties that the corporate elite want to see in power whilst the financial sections of the elite drectly fund and control the political parties.

There is a strong element of that in politics these days with powerful financial interests working closely with those who have a good chance of being elected. Fund raising dinners costing $5,000 a plate are quite real, are not conspiratorial and happen fairly often.

The only parties allowed to be elected are those that work directly for the elite itself.

That may or may not be true; it takes years and even decades to rev up new and dynamic political formations to replace those that have had their day. And because such a lapse of time is involved it gives the same entrenched financial interests that infiltrated the old parties the opportunity to ingratiate themselves and to set up shop in the new ones.

Hence Ontario’s socialist NDP ( a once maverick political outfit) passed policies that were as pro-business as any conservative formation.

This posting is long, rambling and confusing and comes off as though ANY criticism whatsoever of even SOME aspects of modern politics is indicative of a paranoid and conspiracy-tinged mindset.

That said, conspiracies are religion for those who embrace them. There’s the transcendance of the ‘hidden hand’ behind everything, pulling the strings and creating history at will, despite the wishes and objections of ordinary people. Those engaging in these theories are attempting to access the will of the gods, as it were, in order to anticipate what they’ll do next.

Mossad Motto ‘By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War’

Right and Al Queda’s motto is “honesty is the best policy”.

Get to the point coward – do you think 911 was an inside job?

You are missing the key point:

If something is true, then it will be apparent to everyone, that means those on the left, right, centre and also the far right extremes.

To make a case that 9/11 truth = anti-Semitism without first showing it to be untrue, you have to make the case that believing an orange to be a fruit also makes you an anti-Semite, since surely anti-Semites believe that oranges are fruits.

Going along this road almost everything we consider self evident will be anti-Semitic – believing bicycles have two wheels is anti-Semitic,
believing that fish live in water is anti-Semitic… do you beleive I just spelt believe wrong? Anti-Semite…

So rather than trying to tarnish a view point by finding the most repulsive people who ascribe to it, the actual issue is whether or not it is true.

If it’s true, it’s true, and will be so for the good the bad and the ugly, making the argument impotent.

If it is not true, then a lot more of an argument needs to be made that there is an actual relationship between the anti-Semitic view point and the 9/11 truth one. An anti-Semite may be Christian – but does this mean Christianity in itself is anti-Semitic, for example?

A good way of doing this would be to show that everyone who dis-believes the official story of 9/11 is an anti-Semite. You will find a tiny minority are, almost too small to put into a percentage without a lot of zeros being deployed.

Either way – I think you have a long way to go before anyone can take this argument as anything more than an aggressive attack on people with a different view point to you, based mostly on innuendo and ad-hominem.

Try harder next time.

Poet, it’s just struck me that if 99% of conspiracy theories are half-truths, that could just mean that on average each one is 49.5% correct, or that 49.5% of these theories are 100% correct.

flipside, the stupid Lavon affair shows how the truth usually is revealed.

Your second claim that “Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by “anti-Semites”.”

Is a pure fabrication.

The affair when it came to light was denounced in Israel:

“Political aftermath”

“In meetings with prime minister Moshe Sharett, secretary of defense Pinhas Lavon denied any knowledge of the operation. When intelligence chief Gibli contradicted Lavon, Sharrett commissioned a board of inquiry consisting of Israeli Supreme Court Justice Isaac Olshan and the first chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Yaakov Dori that was unable to find conclusive evidence that Lavon had authorized the operation. Lavon tried to fix the blame on Shimon Peres, who was the secretary general of the defense ministry, and Gibli for insubordination and criminal negligence. Sharett resolved the dilemma by siding with Peres, who along with Moshe Dayan testified against Lavon, after which Lavon resigned. Former prime minister David Ben-Gurion succeeded Lavon as minister of defense. A short time later, Sharett, who did not know about the operation in advance, and who had strongly denied Israel’s involvement, resigned as Prime Minister and was replaced by Ben-Gurion.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair#Political_aftermath

Like all “truthers” you take one true fact and build a mountain of lies around it.

Did you get the info about the Liberty tragedy from the storfront website?

This another favorite with antisemitic fantasists.

spell check – who are you calling a coward? If flipside or someone is hinting that the Mossad is reponsible, then it can’t be an inside job, because Mossad isn’t the US government.
Eddie is quite right on this one.
It’s almost as if no-one can question the official US line without being frightened into silence by someone’s saying, “So you want to re-open Auschwitz, do you?”
As, for example:
“In Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′, why does Bush just sit there in that schoolroom looking bemused for such a long time while his country’s being attacked?”
” Shut up, you Anti-Semite!”

Is there anyone here who’s read any of Griffin’s books, and can comment on them knowledgeably – albeit with hostility – or have I really fallen into a nest of cross and one-track-minded neo-cons?
I don’t think D R Griffin is related to the other one.

THE LAVON AFFAIR
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.
Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by “anti-Semites”.

Honorable Chairman, members of the Knesset. The trial that started two days ago in Egypt against 13 Jews is disturbing everybody and brings about an emotional turmoil and deep bitterness in the country [Israel] and in the whole Jewish world. Indeed, it must cause concern and anxiety in the hearts of all justice-seeking people around the universe. The Committee for Foreign Affairs and Security has alreadv dealt and will further deal with this serious issue. But at this stage I feel obliged to make a short announcement. In my speech in the Knesset on November 15 1 said “The uncontrolled behavior of’ Egypt . . . does not indicate . . . that its leadership . . . is seeking moderate approaches and peace. How far Egypt is from this spirit [of moderation and peace] can be learned from the plot woven in Alexandria, the show-trial which is being organized there against a group of Jews who became victims of false accusations of espionage, and who, it seems, are being threatened and tortured in order to extract from them confessions in imaginary crimes.” This gloomy assumption was verified and was revealed to be a cruel and shocking fact, by the declaration of the accused Victorin Ninyo in the military court in Cairo that was published this morning. [According to this declaration] she was tortured during the interrogation which preceded the trial and by that torture they extracted from her false confessions to crimes which did not happen. The government of Israel strongly protests this practice, which revives in the Middle East the methods used by the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. The government of Israel strongly rejects the false accusations of the general Egyptian prosecution, which relegates to the Israeli authorities horrible deeds and diabolic conspiracies against the security and the international relations of Egypt. From this stand we have protested many times in the past persecution and false accusations of Jews in various countries. We see in the innocent Jews accused by the Egyptian authorities of such severe crimes, victims of vicious hostility to the State of Israel and the Jewish people. If their crime is being Zionist and devoted to Israel, millions of Jews around the world share this crime. We do not think that the rulers of Egypt should be interested in being responsible for shedding Jewish blood. We call upon all those who believe in peace, stability and human relations among nations to prevent fatal injustice.
But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing. Eventually, Israeli’s Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal, although it appears that he was himself the victim of a frame-up by the real authors of the bombing project, code named “Operation Susannah.”

It is therefore a fact that Israel has a prior history of setting off bombs with the intent to blame Arabs for them.

This is not the only example of a “False Flag” operation designed to trick the United States into attacking Israel’s enemies. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad defector now living in Canada, Ronald Reagan was tricked into bombing Libya by means of a radio transmitter smuggled into Tripoli by the Mossad, which broadcast messages designed to fool the United States into thinking Libya was about to launch a massive terror attack on the west. On the basis of this fake evidence, the US bombed Libya, killing Khadaffi’s daughter.

The Jews of Iraq is a story by a Jewish writer revealing yet another false flag operation where Israelis used bombs and planted the blame on Arabs

More recently, Captain Ward Boston, who served as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, has come forward to report that the Court of Inquiry was ORDERED to conclude that the attack was an accident by President Lyndon Johnson. In hindsight, given the use of unmarked aircraft and boats by Israel during the actual attack, it appears that Israel intended to sink the US ship and frame Egypt for the attack, tricking the US into the war against Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

To avoid any imputation of anti-semitism or right-wing fantasising here is some info. on the USS Liberty from a source that shriber will accept as legitimate.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU

http://www.911missinglinks.com/

http://www.911missinglinks.com/

Follow the money.

This is where I’m glad to have been a wrestling fan – I, and others like me, can’t see or hear the acronym NWO without thinking of Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff clowning around to the strains of “Voodoo Chile” :)

That’ll be the sand in your ears and eyes.

That’ll be the sand in your ears and eyes.

Prosaist,

See Ryan Mackey’s critique of Griffin’s work, linked a few comments above.

Eddie,

‘To make a case that 9/11 truth = anti-Semitism’

Which is not something I did.

‘So rather than trying to tarnish a view point by finding the most repulsive people who ascribe to it, the actual issue is whether or not it is true’.

It’s not. There are numerous books, reports, articles, and websites (some of which I have linked to above) showing that ‘9/11 Truth’ uses the same approach to evidence as other forms of pseudo-history and pseudo-science.

The fact of the matter is this – if an extreme revisionist version of history is embraced by numerous neo-Nazi scumbags and other assorted crazies, while being rejected by the vast majority of the academic and professional communities working in relevant areas (physics, structural engineering, building demolition, fire fighting, politics, history, etc.) that should tell you something about that version of history.

Name one area of research in which neo-Nazis have turned out to be right and the mainstream research community wrong. They’re wrong on race, wrong on Nazi Germany, wrong on the Holocaust, wrong on Jewish conspiracies… But suddenly with 9/11 they’ve hit the jackpot and attached themselves to a fringe ‘theory’ that actually, it turns out, is true? Give me a break.

Not every instance of guilt by association is invalid.

‘Is there anyone here who’s read any of Griffin’s books, and can comment on them knowledgeably – albeit with hostility – or have I really fallen into a nest of cross and one-track-minded neo-cons?’

I have, and I’ve also familiarised myself with some of his public speeches as well. To give you an idea of what kind of man he is he claims that there were no passengers or crew on board AA77, and that bodies were later planted by the military and the FBI.

The people killed on AA77 have relatives. David Ray Griffin and other truthers are simply pissing on people’s graves. If you think that’s acceptable behaviour, I don’t know what to say, except … you’re sick.

‘Follow the money.’

Follow the brownshirt. The only ‘missing link’ round here is you, pal.

thats funny.

Sorry, Edmund Standing, I missed your 5.14 post. The first link doesn’t work, btw.
And sackcloth, no, I’m only going by Griffin’s books.
I haven’t been following his public appearances, and of course I don’t approve of any insulting behaviour of his, and neither was I aware that he’d shared a platform with any neo-Nazis. These allegations are new and distressing to me.
But back to Mr Standing.
Did the actual nuts-snd-bolts theories about 9/11 originate in neo-Nazi circles? Is Meyssan( admittedly an odd bloke) a neo-Nazi?
Is D.R.Griffin a neo-Nazi?
Platform-sharing apart, is there any material in his books that can be construed as anti-Semitic?
And has he been publicly confronted in the same way someone like, say, Irving has?
How can I tell that his apparent refusal to come to the point during some hostile questioning on one of the vids that have been URL’d here isn’t the result of hostile editing, as the supporters of Richard Dawkins allege of a long pause and change-of-subject on a much-viewed YouTube vid on which their champion appears to lose the plot?

I must say, it’s refreshing to have ONE person on this blog who is open to the possibility of being persuaded, even if it’s only me.
Perhaps we could all refresh our minds about the Liberty from a source which shriber will approve of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

prosaist,

In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

If that doesn’t convince you, see the resources section and extensive 9/11 links on the ‘Screw Loose Change’ blog and also put in a search for ‘David Ray Griffin’ there.

“But how many people really know what al-Qaeda really is, who’s in it, how it operates, what the name’s meaning really is ”

I suggest you read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, if you are seeking this information.

By the way, prosaist, a look at the places Griffin appears should also be of interest to you.

For example, he’s appeared on Coast to Coast AM.

Tonight’s show on Coast to Coast is as follows:

Expert in human origins, hominoids, and UFOs, Lloyd Pye will share new information about DNA on the Starchild Skull, and studies of the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull.

Griffin has also appeared on the radio show of 9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett, a man who has said of Hamas and Hezbollah, ‘for me – as for virtually all of the planet’s 1.5 billion Muslims … those groups are heroes’ and that ‘comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa is an insult to the Afrikaaners’.

http://blip.tv/file/306082/

My life sucks. I just discovered that my parents are brother and sister.

Thankyou, Mr Standing.
I’ve no idea of what Coast to Coast AM is. Sounds like a radio station.
Well over here on the BBC you will get the same presenters interviewing Gordon Brown one minute and an ex punk-rocker who’s unravelled the mystery of Stonehenge the next.
The famous musicologist Hans Keller (Haydn, Mozart, Schoenberg) was interviewed on a late-night Radio 2 (pop music) channel over here years and years ago. The fact that he appeared alongside what many saw a pile of musical rubbish was not seen as invalidating his notions about atonalism, nor did any musicians – and boy, CAN they be a bitchy lot! – attack him over this.
I have never heard of Lloyd Pye, but are he and Griffin endorsing each other? if not, so what? There still seems to be a bit of guilt-by-association hanging round.
it’s a bit like a Catholic refusing a job to a Freemason on the grounds that he Worships A False God In The Lodge.
And KB player, my little collection includes about 9 books on al-Qaeda. They all disagree on vital details – that’s why I asked.
I can see that the “truthers” ,as I am learning to call them, like the phrase “false-flag operation”.
Here from shriber’s recommended Wikipedia is a chunk on one that interests Griffin.
Is it bilge?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/index.htm

And I was forced to take a bath:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jhozx819izU

I hate Jooos because they’re more successful than me.

Prosaist: “In Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′, why does Bush just sit there in that schoolroom looking bemused for such a long time while his country’s being attacked?”

Um … if he’d planned it all with his NWO buddies, why would he look bemused?

flipside, you missed the biggy. Mossad went back in a time machine and invented Judaism. When the aliens of Alpha Centauri flew over to the USA to expose the scam a big Tesler Ray from Tel Aviv shot them down over Roswell.

BTW, it IS naughty to have sex with the dog despite what your parents do. Your strange habit of pissing on trees is no accident. And Yes, continual marriage between first cousins can lead to your condition.

Ouch!

In Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′, why does Bush just sit there in that schoolroom looking bemused for such a long time while his country’s being attacked?”

Because as a caring human being Bush didn’t want to upset the children. If he had reacted 5 minutes earlier would it have made any difference to the attack? What was Bush going to do in those five minutes?

Because as a caring human being Bush didn’t want to upset the children. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

‘In Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′, why does Bush just sit there in that schoolroom looking bemused for such a long time while his country’s being attacked?’

If Bush had suddenly stood up (after hearing about the second plane crashing into the WTC), and delivered a rousing speech saying that it was his duty to assume command of his country in its hour of need – you can bet your last pound that Moore would have spun it to imply that POTUS’s response was rehearsed in advance.

One of the beauties of being a ‘truther’ – or even someone like Michael Moore – is you can argue the evidence either way.

Maven,
A middling size posting I made seems earlier seems to have been disallowed.
Actually, I wasn’t really asking the question.
It was just a bit of a little scenario…
But come on, would YOU be upset if Bush left the room?
So what are you going to do now?

http://snipurl.com/3n3hq is a link to one of the best exchanges I have found between a 9/11 nutter – sorry truther – and somebody who actually knows what they are talking about. They great thing is it is produced on the truthers website as ‘proof’ that his claims stand up. It’s a bit out of date because the tower 7 report hadn’t come out but this is my favourite part, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole thing (but it is worth it) this comes very near the end when the engineer has just about given up refuting the increasingly outlandish claims. The man is a hero.

“You may post our discussion.

1. I had not heard of the power down. Nor do I know its source of validity, etc.

2. As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11. The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by someone with my background.

I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis would predict.

Finally, I don’t see why you need to have explosives present to prove or disprove your theories. Why don’t you just assume that the buildings collapsed due to the impacts of the planes? That will not change your conspiracy theory one iota, but will eliminate the need for you to prove that explosives were in the building. You can then focus on the crux of your message instead of fighting an engineering battle that you are incorrect on.

Jonathan
17 January 2007 “

Because as a caring human being Bush didn’t want to upset the children. HAHAHAHAH…………

So demonstrating you are incapable (because of your upbringing) to have any human compassion. I’ll bet you stroke your brothers and sisters and fetch them treats. Well, to us normal people we actually have feelings towards not upsetting children.

I’ll translate. Woooof… Growllll. Snarl Snarll….. Teeth bared… Whimper…. Whimper…..

Maven,
A middling size posting I made seems earlier seems to have been disallowed.
Actually, I wasn’t really asking the question.
It was just a bit of a little scenario…
But come on, would YOU be upset if Bush left the room?
So what are you going to do now?

Politically motivated people will always try and make a funny about a politician they don’t like. However, you have not put yourself in the position of schoolchildren who have looked forward to a visist by your President.

Adults might not be upset if Bush left the room (ha! Ha! funny! smirk!)

I wonder if the day will come when someone will make a similar comment about Obama. Its the ultimate fate of all Presidents to be eventually disparaged.

Shalom marvin, thank you for the bush thing,i’ve just got off the floor and after all the insults that was great, do another.

If anyone argues that there were explosives in the 9/11 buildings then the answer is simply that Al Qaeda must have planted them to make sure of the success of the mission.

If anyone argues that there were explosives in the 9/11 buildings then the answer is simply that Al Qaeda must have planted them to make sure of the success of the mission.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Shalom marvin, thank you for the bush thing,i’ve just got off the floor and after all the insults that was great, do another.

I often do. I’m infamous for my childish range of insult. Psychologically speaking you hope that by showing an acceptance of my insults then I’ll feel upset that you didn’t express being affected.

Wrong! Your reply is within the range of responses that I find acceptable.

Zeig Heil! my German Shepherd.

Maven – I assume you are just trying to entertain flipside now.

The point being made was that if you are the type of lunatic who wants to believe that their government conspired to bring the towers down as an excuse to go to war – you don’t need all the rubbish about there being explosives and mysterious power outages. Flying planes full of jet fuel into the buildings would have done it – but that isn’t as exciting as all this other nonsense about mysterious power cuts and secret types of explosives now is it.

It doesn’t take much too please you,simple things……….

Flying planes full of jet fuel into the buildings would have done it HAHAHHAAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

flipside – do you have a special button for the HAHAHA or is it a cry for help?

And I’m sure that there are some people who don’t “screech endlessly” about these things: Griffin’s case is put very calmly. It’s unfair of you to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is raving and hysterical.
The distracting noise is coming from you, not Griffin

Pot. Kettle. Black.
You disagree with me, so you call my rational arguments ‘distracting noise’.

I don’t know why that happens, but i like it, it does look like i’m falling from a hight but no i’m laughing.

‘Paranoid’ denotes someone who is irrationally terrified of some non-existent persecution.
Being wary of people and organisations that have murdered thousands of people, who boast of having done this and who strut around promising to do more, is not irrational; the danger such people and organisations pose does exist.

flipside is being pursued by the men in white coats as we speak.

it doesn’t look like you are falling it looks like you are behaving like a child

Thank you.

A child can ask questions that a wise man cannot answer.

HAHAHAHA….. is not a question that either a wise or foolish man could answer

Watch the links. Start at 8.38pm.

Well, I thought I’d just look in again.
Please, Oxfordian, words like “screech endlessly” have a sort of agressively physical sonic value, just in writing.
It’s like when a perfectly respectable paper is desribed as a “rag”, a piece of quietly-delivered discourse is dismissed as a “rant”. That’s what I meant by “distracting noise”. I’m perfectly happy to listen to your arguments, and I’m not going to describe anyone’s contribution as a “hysterical neurotic raving slavering pile of sh*t”, which style one or two people are getting close to.
How does flipside type outside the box?
Well, Maven, if little tots had been taught to regard their President as a sort of universal Saviour or at least a Santa Claus I suppose they might have felt worried if he left. How many of them actually recognised him? Didn’t Bush think that he ought to go about finding out what had happened right away? or is the film faked?
Perhaps he was trying to re-enact the rather chauvinistic story of francis Drake playing bowls on Plymouth Hoe in 1588:
“My Lord Admiral! The Spanish fleet is in sight! hundreds of great ships! They are going to invade us!”
“Time enough, my lads to finish our game; THEN let us beat the Spaniards”.
Or perhaps Bush knew, and knew it was out of his hands. Another possibility, that he simply couldn’t grasp it, comes to mind, but I don’t want to offend the neo-cons.
I suppose some of us regard political figures as nuisances: quite honestly, I wouldn’t be too heartbroken if Obama kindly left the room right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

This was the thing that I tried to offer people previously: it comes from WP which some people don’t regard as too scholarly or reliable, but as shriber gave it his/her seal of approval, here it is.
“Truthers” as I am learning to call them, certainly have a thing about false-flag operations: here’s one that Griffin latched on to, although I first heard about it courtesy of James Bamford

About Bush’s reaction on 9/11. I do not find it hard to believe that he did not grasp what was happening on the basis of whispered reports from his aides. I was at the Pentagon and did not really understand what was happening myself, I was busy packing books and only overheard what some people were repeating from their phone conversations and what they could see online, till we were hit by the third hijacked plane. It was just too big and too horrible to grasp right away for a lot of people, especially those who were not viewing the events on live TV.

flipside is Flipped Out!
Note: While we all like to think that our reactions to dramatic events would be like Sir Francis Drake’s supposedly was. (I have my doubts, it sounds too perfect not to have been made up at a latter date.)

The truth is people’s reactions are usually a lot less dramatic and to the point. I first saw the smoke from the plane that hit us in the Pentagon on 9/11 when I looked at into the hallway after a large thud, that I had thought was a big cart following over; went back inside our office and told my co-workers that there was smoke and fire in the corridor and we had to get out. I did not say anythig dramatic like “We’ve been Hit!” etec. like there would probably be in a Hollywood version. Real life is not often like that potrayed in Hollywood.

flipside
17 November 2008, 6:52 pm

“THE LAVON AFFAIR
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?”

And the source of the tendentious article, uberfliper?

prosaist

“This was the thing that I tried to offer people previously: it comes from WP which some people don’t regard as too scholarly or reliable, but as shriber gave it his/her seal of approval, here it is.”

Not every article is trustworthy though some are. The article on the Lavon affair was consistent with my understanding of what happed and can be read about in many scholarly history of Israel books.

I am not familiar with the evidence in the so called “operation northwoods” but if your point is that government agencies do set up stupid operations that often backfire that is obvious.

However, these activities more often than not are exposed by other government agencies and made public. This happend time and again in the US as well as in Israel and I assume in Great Britain as well.

The preponderance of the evidence for who is responsible for 911 points to al Kaida and bin Laden not least because he himself admitted it and was proud of what he did.

Those who would like to see some kind of conspiracy at work have not produced even one solid piece of evidence.

Claiming that other governments have done similar things isn’t proof, even if it were true. It’s like claiming that that John Dillinger could not have robbed any banks because Clyde Barrow also robbed banks.

It’s mindboggling simplistic.

“This was the thing that I tried to offer people previously: it comes from WP which some people don’t regard as too scholarly or reliable, but as shriber gave it his/her seal of approval, here it is.”

Wikipedia is not scholarly at all. Not to mention reliable. It is the opposite of scholarship, actually. Scholarly papers have an identifiable writer who is responsible for the contents and go through peer-review. Wikipedia is just editable by any anonymous person with anything he can come up with. And the mob wins. Attempts to delete parts written by conspiracy nutters are answered with messages that you are “vandalizing” the page. Bah!

I agree with Fabian that wikipedia articles are not scholarly and should be taken with a grain of salt especially those dealing with politics.

Some articles, though are better written than others and are more trustworthy. However, unless you know from legitimate sources that the info is accurate I wouldn’t trust any of them.

‘flipside is being pursued by the men in white coats as we speak.’

A retarded kid in a white sheet being chased by men in white coats. Must be quite a sight.

I know it sounds completely crazy, but suppose Bush sat in the classroom for those 5 minutes because he was told to sit there for those 5 minutes.
Obviously it would take a bit of time to get AF1 ready for take-off. They’d have to spin things out a bit at the school which presumably had been secured and was at that moment the safest place for Bush to be.
No, that’s too ridiculous and much too far-fetched. Very sorry, Mr Moore.

Right, I need help. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent chap, but have been sucked into some of the crazy ramblings of “Texas conspiracy nutcase” Alex Jones of late. Whilst I agree that many of the theories are too far-fetched to be considered, this well articulated article’s explanation of inconsistencies seems to be merely “Nah… it’s too crazy to be true. Truth is stranger than fiction. Of course there will be anomalies… Questioning them is loco… ” … Without actually taking the time to offer alternative theories.

I want to come back to the side of sanity and reason. As such, these are my key issues with the 9/11 “official line”. If you lovely intelligent folk can ease my mind and provide some suitable explanations for these, I can go back to laughing at conspiracy nut-jobs with you. Ta.

In no particular order….

1) 3rd Tower. Not hit, small fire, yet collapses. Pancake style. Apparently some odd contents in the building relating to fraud, CIA stuff… etc etc. Hmm.

2) No black box found from any plane. Not even an identifiable piece of plane found (apparently each piece has serial number on it). At any site. Conversely, Mohammed Atta’s passport found intact in rubble within 2 days.

3) Bush’s very very odd and reluctant approach to 9/11 Commission report. Joint-testimony, wouldn’t go on record, etc etc. Cost a fraction of Clinton’s impeachment investigation. Said it was of “little significance” who funded 9/11 (quote!)

4) Molten metal found in rubble weeks after. Apparently jet fuel doesn’t burn anywhere near this temperature?

5) Hijackers couldn’t fly well at all, according to flight school instructors, yet all performed some miracle turns and demonstrated marvellous accuracy. I’ve seen some testimony from ex-Air Force pilots incredulous at the suggestion they could have performed these moves at speed.

6) Hole in pentagon – small. Plane – big. Front lawn – freshly mowed. Lamp posts – intact.

7) All rubble – evidence – shipped off and recycled quick time. Before analysis. After biggest terrorist attack ever. Strange.

Jesus, I’m exhausted. Somebody please put me out of my misery and offer explanations! I don’t think questioning these points makes me a Nazi, but please let me know if I’m wrong and I’ll go and join the BNP in the first instance.

Dazed and Confused – have a look at the excellent Screw Loose Change blog, mentioned in Edmund’s post, if the answers to your questions aren’t there, they’ll be in links from it.

Dazed and Confused-take a look at this if you want to know what happend in WTC Building 7.http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qwvxt3_k7WM

I called flipside a coward because he likes to allude, imply, cut and paste, dump links, but not ACTUALLY SAY ANYTHING. Just like prosaist. It is standard troofer nuttery. They know how moronic their theories sound, so they don’t say them. Simple as that.

Dazed and confused – your questions have been answered a thousand times. It would be impossible to look for the answers and not find them.

Maybe instead of making us fetch answers for you, tell us why your questions are important. What do you think they imply or point to? What alternate series of events (other than the ‘official story’) do you think they suggest?

Especially the ‘freshly mowed lawn’, I’m excited to hear about that one.

It’s better to hear it from the people who were there,above, Barry Jennings. Take a look,mr danger.oh oh.

Right so as I predicted, you can’t actually say anything yourself can you?

Neil – thanks. Will root through later.

Flipside – same. Cheers for link.

Mr Danger – ooh, a little aggressive in your tone, Sir. I certainly wasn’t “making you” – or anyone else – “fetch answers” for me. I’m sure a man as dangerous as you cannot be made to do anything. I was merely trying to stimulate debate with an ostensibly smart group of people to determine what YOUR and THEIR opinions were on the points I raised. I would have thought it a little self-aggrandising to steam in and post the “solution” without enquiring first about the opinions of others. Equally, the reason I asked the question was because I genuinely don’t know. Certain aspects appear mysterious. Check the tone of my enquiry – I want to be rational – I am a lawyer – and I was seeking confirmation from people who post here. It was a request for enlightenment, not a statement of fact in any way.

Re: “freshly mowed lawn”, I meant a plane that supposedly careered across the grass would probably have left some kind of trail. The lawn appeared impeccable afterwards. The lamp-posts were intact. I didn’t mean that the Pentagon decided to mow the lawn to make it look pretty for subsequent photographs, oh wise Danger man. I just meant that that’s a pretty impressive manoeuvre for a Red Arrow to perform, let alone a rage-filled near-death Saudi. He was probably half-focussed on his Virgins too.

And, as you ask, I’d speculate:

Pentagon: Missile.

Bush reluctance: involvement or responsibility, either express or through negligence.

Flying skills. Ooh, out there, but remote control plane seems the most plausible of the “alternative” theories. I used to work in defence and this technology is certainly available. (Incidentally, check out “information operations”. I used to specialise in this, which is essentially using media bias and propaganda to further political and military objectives, and is unbelievably commonplace. The reason I began researching alternatives is because of the widespread use of these techniques by all NATO nations).

Erm… black box, no serial numbers… I’d like to think nothing more than incompetence.

Finding Atta’s passport: Lie.

Molten metal: Don’t know if this is true. That’s why I asked.

I just want to see what you clever folks think. Whilst I appreciate links elsewhere, I really am keen to get YOUR opinion on these strange happenings. That’s it! There genuinely is no malice involved. I’m not a BNP mole… yet.

Barry Jennings was there,his word is first hand,is that not how people want to hear it?

PS – Mr Danger. I’m off to a meeting. I promise I’ll reply when I get back. I don’t want you thinking I’m off cheating on you arguing with someone else, or ignoring you altogether. Take your time and destroy my argument. I look forward to your retort!

I don’t suspect you have any BNP/nazi links. Its just that a lot of people pose as “just asking questions” and then list of the standard questions that they read on conspiracy websites but never bothered to look for the answers themselves.

1) Not hit? Wrong. It was hit by a collapsing 110 storey building. Doesn’t this matter?

Pancake style? What style would have been “correct”?

Documents. It was 2001. We’re in the electronic age, major cases are not assembled with paper in a filing cabinet. Offsite backup, multiple redundancy etc. Do you think they destroyed the entire building rather than put some paper in a shredder? And who were they afraid of that was going to search WTC 7 but not apparently any other buildings anywhere? There’s no theory here, just your “hmmm”.

2) Black boxes were found. You have been misinformed. Identifiable plane parts were found. Again, you are misinformed. Conspiracy theorists immediately reject all physical evidence as it is presented, but plenty was found.

Atta’s passport was found, and so were personal effects of many passengers. What’s the problem?

3) Reluctant to finance the 911 commission? No president wants to be investigated by their opponents. 9/11 was a disaster while Bush was at the helm. Why would he enthusiastically pursue an investigation of his own failings?

4) Molten steel? Therefore what? First of all, nobody really knows if it was molten metal, secondly, the fires burned for weeks underground, and may have had all kinds of fuel. What does jet fuel have to do with anything?

5) They were licensed pilots. The ‘miracle turn’ was by Hani Hanjour to hit the Pentagon. A flight instructor who once refused to rent him a plane is quoted as saying that he did have some ability as a pilot, and “There’s no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it”. How did you not find this quote? Why did you prefer the word of some random guy on the internet?

6) Pentagon hole too small? Were you there, and did you meaure the hole? Or did you rely on a photograph on a conspiracy website telling you how big it was?

Front lawn – freshly mowed? I don’t know where the plane touched ground – but do you think all the witnesses were lying? Every man on the street interviewed by journalists was part of a big conspiracy?

Lamp posts – intact? They were knocked over. There is photographic evidence of this.

7) All rubble shipped off before analysis? It would be strange, if it were true. But it isn’t. It was analysed. (Had you read through links provided to you earlier, you would have read interviews with someone who analysed it). Some of it, I believe, is still in storage as the BBC found when they did a 911 conspiracy theories documentary.

Now clearly you have been lied to. You have two options – throw out the old questions and replace them with new ones, which is what most conspiracy theorists do.

Or start to wonder why these 911 conspiracy theorists keep lying to you.

One thing conspiracy theorists don’t like is being asked “so what exactly is your theory”?

I provide flipside as Exhibit ‘A’.

http://mnchange.org/lloyde-england-and-his-taxi-cab-the-eye-of-the-storm Another man there on the day,what do i think? i think there should be a full public investigation and debate,there are too many unanswered questions for me and many,WTC Building 7 is just one. mr danger do you take time to look at any of the links?

So you can’t, in your own words, tell us what your theory is?

Falling back on the “just asking questions” line, is that it?

do you take time to look at the links?

shriber: well of course governments set up operations that backfire. In one sense Operation Northwoods didn’t backfire, as it wasn’t carried out.
I hope you’re not saying that had it been successful, and the truth about it had never emerged,, that it should have been notched up (by those in the know) as a tactical triumph, and therefore morally justified?
There’s a similar story about Mitterand: difficult to know which of the numerous references to consult, but you don’t have to rely on WP. Just Google Mitterand and l’Observatoire. I’m sure your French is up to it. The translations are comical.
So WP hasn’t been subjected to hostile editing when shriber wishes to refer to it, but may have been hocussed when others do?
So if you’re not going to say that Northwoods is a total fantasy on the part of Bamford, please point us in the direction of reliable information about it. is WP bogus on this?
I love to envisage this exchange, as suggested by maven (who, [Nov.17, 9.36] amusingly appears to be disclaiming any political motivation):
GWB: “Well, so long, kiddies, that was real good readin’, but Unca Dubya has to go right now!”
First-graders: “BOO-HOO! BOO-HOO!” (sobs, snivels, discontented whines, waving of tiny fists), “UNCA, STAY, STAY, PWEASE! I’M TELLING MY MOM!”
Teachers: “George! how could you! bad, bad, man!”
– and I hope I can picture it without suggesting that my adversary is inbred, a dog, a lunatic, a nutter, or moronic. Which reminds me –
Thanks for the mention, mr danger. So what are YOU saying about all this, other than insulting people?
It does rather look as if the orthodox believers here want to frighten people off by threatening an inrush of white-coated psycho-analysts and burly commissars bearing syringes, gags and strait-jackets.
A bit Stalinist. Surely most of the contributors here dropped Stalin after the Molotov Pact? or Hungary?
Here’s something mr D can help us with. How many hijackers’ passports actually were recovered from the disaster scenes?
And please can shriber help? These folks know where to look for the info.
And I’m sure they can also explain to d&c and myself how a bunch of halfwits who couldn’t drive a bus into a field or organise a booze-up in a brewery could, over a long distance and with pin-point accuracy manoeuvre huge planes so neatly!
And there’s still the third tower.
A surveyor friend of mine indignantly “explains” its collapse by saying “the building lost structural integrity”.
But that’s just a synonymous paraphrase into obfuscating technical jargon, not an explanation.
My head is bowed to receive one of maven’s smelly garlands…

mr dangers real name is Tommaso Caccini.

Yes flipside I am familiar with all the standard conspiracy theories.

Including the one that Lloyd England, an elderly African American gentleman, is a deep cover CIA asset who has been driving taxis for 30 years before his big moment in 2001 when he was at the Pentagon to claim his cab was hit by a light pole, an apparently critical piece of evidence in the government’s case that Arab hijackers were behind 9/11 which was actually a false flag attack to support going to Iraq and stealing oil, even though there was no connection between the attacks and Iraq and we went to Iraq but forgot to steal the oil anyway.

Including that one, yes.

But I know that after I respond to one, you will post another, and after I repond to that one, you will dump 10 more links on me, and so on and so forth to infinite. And beyond.

Yet you will squirm your way out of answering any questions yourself. You prefer to just cut and paste link after link after link.

Even a question as simple as “what is your theory”.

I don’t do theories,the US Government gave us fact that now looks like theory,planes crashed and buildings fell,give us the facts.

Prosaist, perhaps you shouldn’t be responding to accusations of being a loony with muddled, long winded stream of consciousness rants?

And look at this; “a bunch of halfwits who couldn’t drive a bus into a field or organise a booze-up in a brewery could, over a long distance and with pin-point accuracy manoeuvre huge planes so neatly!”

These people had commercial pilots licenses, yet you say they couldn’t drive a bus into a field. Why would you say such an absurd lie? Why would you expect us to believe it? Why would you expect us to go on listening to your ranting and raving after you have been caught making such a whopping lie?

And why would you expect to find an explanation for the mechanics of a building collapse that doesn’t include “technical jargon”?

Right so you don’t do theories. Bit of a fake then aren’t you?

No, i do questions.

Show me the proof those people had commercial pilots licenses.

Is google conspiring against you? Come on, you can do better than that.

‘Barry Jennings was there,his word is first hand,is that not how people want to hear it?’

Yes, let’s listen to Mr Jennings, shall we?:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

‘It said it felt like I was stepping over people, but I never saw them. You know, that’s the way they [the 'Loose Change' makers] portrayed me and I didn’t appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview. Do I think that our government would do something like that to its people? No. I honestly don’t believe that’ (47:36-47:51).’

Oh dear. Barry Jennings did not testify that it was an inside job. Never mind. We’re ‘truthers’. Let’s twist what he said so that we can imply the opposite.

Do you have proof for all you say? or just theories?

There is no connection whatever between 9/11 conspiracy theories and Anti-Semitism. Oh, no.

‘Show me the proof those people had commercial pilots licenses.’

Here you go. Read this before you go cross-burning:

Atta and al-Shehhi (the two involved in the WTC attack) had both passed their commercial pilot tests and got their licenses in December 2000. Hanjour and Jarrah (the pilots for Flights 77 and 93) also qualified as pilots:

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

So the four pilots knew how to fly, had logged hours on Boeing simulators, and were fanatical Islamists. That surely gives them the skills and the motivation to hit large, stationary and undefended targets such as the Towers and the Pentagon.

Atta’s ability to fly is confirmed by the former pilot who ran the Opa Locka flight school, Henry George:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340519/FBI-tracks-down-the-Florida-lair-of-flying-school-terrorists.html

George stated that:

‘I suppose Atta had just enough training to keep the plane in the air – how to make turns and move it up and down. He could not, however, have taxied a 757 or 767 from the gate, got it airborne or landed it safely.’

Not that the latter matters much if you’re going to take over an aircraft in mid-flight and use it in a kamikaze-style attack.

George was also quoted in Jane Corbin’s ‘The Base’ (Simon & Schuster 2003, p.169) stating that ‘It doesn’t take much to learn to do what they [Atta and al-Shehhi] ended up achieving – to fly a plane at a building, or to make a turn into a skyscraper’. He also noted that ‘They were actually overtrained for the task they performed. They already had about 300 hours flying time. What they got out of us [with the flight simulators] was exposure to a 727 – the ability to feel the performance of the plane’. George noted retrospectively that Atta and al-Shehhi ‘were just making sure that when they got into that jet they could complete the task successfully. I did not sense there was a passion for flying – they were just preparing to do a job’.

Ann Greaves, a student at the Huffman training school, recalled her envy at the fact that Atta qualified before her (same reference as above) – ‘I can remember watching him take off, fly round and come down again, and I was envious as he was more experienced’.

So much for Atta and al-Shehhi’s ability to perform a suicide attack.

Jarrah never had any problems with flying, but Hanjour wasn’t a natural. But if you’d actually read that ‘New York Times’ article properly, you’d realise that that didn’t matter:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html

‘Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner’.

Well, he certainly was a ’safety hazard’ all right. He killed 64 people on board AA77 and 125 people in the Pentagon. The Pan Am International Flight Academy staff were right in thinking that Hanjour would have made a lousy commercial pilot, but that was not what he was training for.

In any case, what Hanjour was was persistent – again, indicating that he had the motivation to learn how to do a task which did not come naturally to him, which was to learn basic flying skills so that he could learn how to kill a lot of people in a suicide attack:

And as it happened, he managed to get the skills he required to carry out his attack on the Pentagon (assisted, of course, by the ‘muscle’ hijackers):

‘FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour’s instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour’s flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot’s license.
That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was “a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit.” The instructor added, “Maybe his English wasn’t very good.”‘
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index1.html
‘Hani Hanjour’s flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757’s autopilot. Striking a stationary object — even a large one like the Pentagon — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.
It’s true there’s only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes’ navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won’t be good, but you’ll be good enough.
“They’d done their homework and they had what they needed,” says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. “Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness.”
“As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive,” says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. “Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren’t relevant.”
“The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft,” agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. “In much the same way that a person needn’t be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone.”
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d’Eon, airline pilot and host of the “Fly With Me” podcast series. “It’s the difference between a doctor and a butcher,” says d’Eon.’
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index2.html
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

That’s what qualified pilots have to say about the hijackers. Finally, it is worth noting that Hani Hanjour’s earlier flight training in the USA (which he passed in April 1999) was supposed to be the first step for his career as a commercial pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines, but his application for the aviation academy at Jeddah was rejected. It was this, according to his brother Yasser, which lead to his radicalisation:

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/driving_a_wedge/part1.shtml

‘Later, Hanjour’s brother, Yasser, agreed to speak briefly on the phone and offered the outlines of the life of one of the hijackers. Based on these conversations, Hani Hanjour emerges as a frustrated young Saudi who wanted desperately – but never succeeded – to become a pilot for the Saudi national airline.
The Saudi carrier required Saudi pilots to be FAA-certified in the United States. (This, Saudi officials point out, explains why so many Saudis were in US flight schools. Since Sept. 11, the Saudi regulation has been changed.)
So Hanjour went to the United States in 1999 and received his certificate, but came home and still couldn’t land a job with the airline.
His frustration at failing to get the job he dreamed of derailed him for nearly a year, his friends said. He spent hours online at a family-owned Internet cafe. He read voraciously about piloting, and increasingly turned his attention toward religious texts and cassette tapes of militant Islamic preachers.’

So much for the motivation, and the skills, of the late Hani Hanjour.

But is it feasible to assume that a transnational, predominantly Arab terrorist group based in a weak state torn apart by civil strife might be able to pull off a multiple hijacking on four civilian aircraft? After all, it’s never happened before?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/uk_confidential/1089694.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

Oh dear. It has. But then radical Islamists have never, ever thought about crashing a plane in the middle of a city at any time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/age_of_terror/7306318.stm

Jason Burke, ‘Al Qaeda’ (Penguin 2007), p.236 – ‘In a fatwa published in the summer of 2001, Ahmed Abdallah al-Ali, a leading Kuwaiti Wahhabi cleric, discussed the legality of the death of a ‘mujahed’ who died ‘while crashing an aircraft into an important city”.

Oh dear. The facts say otherwise.

Are you A) denying he has a pilot’s license or B) just saying you can’t be bothered to look because you trust your conspiracy websites to tell you the truth.

Which is it?

Are all Jews semites?

I have a comment in the moderation queue on the hijackers, which will show ‘flipside’ up for the ignorant little fuckhead that he is, but I’ll add the following as well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2936761.ece

As you can see, one of the hijackers for AA77 was Nawaf al-Hazmi, who had (like Hani Hanjour) done flight training. al-Hazmi was more skilled than Hanjour, and could well have assisted him in the final dive on the Pentagon (explaining the confused manoeuvrings of the plane over which the 9/11 ghouls have pontificated).

Jennings has died aged 53. I don’t think we will hear any more from him. If the buildings fell from the heat why is a woman seen in the hole the plane made?http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/index.htm

Oh I see flipside, you lost interest in the pilot’s license pretty quick didn’t you? Let just move on to the next theory. And the next. Never acknowledging that that last theory was utter rubbish which could be exposed through a simple google search in less time than it takes to make a cup of tea.

Your newer theory is even more stupid. Here’s a thought – maybe the fire wasn’t where the hole was? Gosh how could you be expected to figure that out up all by yourself?

Or are you now telling me that google is conspiring against you finding pictures of the WTC on fire?

Idiot. That woman jumped to her death. And here you are flogging absurd conspiracy theories about her.

off topic, but have you seen this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/18/bnp_loses_list/

“The British National Party has lost its membership list – the whole thing has been published online.

The list includes names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of all members up to September 2008. It also includes some people’s ages, especially those under 18 – the BNP offers family membership for £40. Many entries also contain more personal comments about jobs or hobbies. That’s how we know that that BNP members include receptionists, district nurses, amateur historians, pagans, line dancers and a male witch”

‘Oh I see flipside, you lost interest in the pilot’s license pretty quick didn’t you?’

Of course he did. He suddenly realised that he couldn’t argue with the evidence and bottled out like a coward.

‘Why is it that those who spend their spare time railing against 9/11 always seem to be completly devoid of critical thinking abilities?’

Indeed. I wonder why – for example – the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement relied on a liar, a fantasist and a felon for some of their theories:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/vreeland.html
http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7716585&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Oh. Sorry, I’ve just realised. You’re not having a pop at the 9/11 conspiracy kooks, but those who commit the cardinal sin of pointing out that their ‘theories’ are based on distortions, rumours and outright lies.

Let’s be frank here.

Barry Jennings’ testimony has been presented to the world by Dylan Avery (of ‘Loose Change’ fame) and that Texan loudmouth Alex Jones as evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC7, and proof that people died inside the building. He said that his testimony was twisted.

Who do I believe? Jones and Avery, or Jennings? Given the former’s record with accuracy, that’s not a hard call for me to judge:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/prison-planet-witness-alleges-red-cross.html

Sadly, it seems that Mr Jennings is no longer with us. Funnily enough, his family (who utterly loathe the ‘truthers’) are not crying foul play, the way that the ‘truthers’ are. What does that tell you?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4092884

Now, as for ‘flipside’, I know that truthers have short attention spans, and can’t watch an hour-long documentary, so I’ll make this easy for him. Watch this programme from 38 minutes 10 seconds in to 43 minutes 25 seconds:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

Now tell us that there were no fires in WTC7.

By David Harrison
Last Updated: 2:03AM BST 23 Sep 2001

THEIR names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who carried out the attacks on America. But yesterday four innocent men told how their identities had been stolen by Osama bin Laden’s teams to cover their tracks.

The men – all from Saudi Arabia – spoke of their shock at being mistakenly named by the FBI as suicide terrorists. None of the four was in the United States on September 11 and all are alive in their home country.

The Telegraph obtained the first interviews with the men since they learnt that they were on the FBI’s list of hijackers who died in the crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

All four said that they were “outraged” to be identified as terrorists. One has never been to America and another is a Saudi Airlines pilot who was on a training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks.

Saudi Airlines said it was considering legal action against the FBI for seriously damaging its reputation and that of its pilots. The FBI released the list of 19 suicide terrorists three days after the attacks.

The statement said that the 19 “have been identified as hijackers aboard the four airliners”. Photographs and personal details were published around the world with an appeal for “information about these individuals, even though they are presumed dead”.

The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers’ “personal details” – including name, place, date of birth and occupation – matched their own.

Mr Al-Ghamdi was named as a terrorist on the United Airlines flight that crashed in Pennsylvania – a plane said by some experts to have been heading for the White House.

He first knew that he was on the FBI’s list when he was told by a colleague. Speaking from Tunisia, he said: “I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks.

“You cannot imagine what it is like to be described as a terrorist – and a dead man – when you are innocent and alive.” The airline was angry too. Officials brought Mr Al-Ghamdi back to Saudi Arabia last week for a 10-day holiday to avoid arrest or interrogation.

An official said: “We are consulting lawyers about what action to take to protect the reputation of our pilots.” Mr Al-Ghamdi faced further embarrassment when CNN, the American television network, flashed a photograph of him around the world, naming him as a hijack suspect.

The FBI had published his personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had “stolen” his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr Al-Ghamdi.

He said that CNN had probably got the picture from the Flight Safety flying school he attended in Florida. CNN has since broadcast a clarification saying that the photograph may not be that of the accused.

Mr Al-Omari, who was accused of hijacking the American Airlines plane that smashed into the the World Trade Centre’s north tower, said that he was at his desk at the Saudi telecommunications authority in Riyadh when the attacks took place.

He said: “I couldn’t believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this.”

Mr Al-Omari said his passport was stolen when his apartment in Denver, Colorado, was burgled in 1995. He had been studying engineering at Denver University since 1993. He was given a new passport in Riyadh on December 31, 1995 and returned to America to resume his studies in January 1996. After graduating last year he returned to Riyadh to join the electricity authority and later moved to the telecommunications authority.

The other two men accused of being terrorists are Salem Al-Hamzi and Ahmed Al-Nami. Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

He said: “I have never been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years.” The FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey.

Mr Al-Nami, 33, from Riyadh, an administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines, said that he was in Riyadh when the terrorists struck.

He said: “I’m still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked.”

He had never lost his passport and found it “very worrying” that his identity appeared to have been “stolen” and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his “possible residence” was Delray Beach in Florida.

Last night the FBI admitted that there was some doubt about the identities of some of the suspects. A spokesman said: “The identification process has been complicated by the fact that many Arabic family names are similar. It is also possible that the hijackers used false identities.”

The spokesman declined to say whether the FBI would apologise but added: “If we have made mistakes then obviously that would be regrettable but this is a big and complicated investigation.”

When the list was published Robert Mueller, the FBI director, said that it was “fairly confident” that the names were not aliases.

OK lets abandon the “no hot fires” theory too! On to the next conspiracy.

That story is from September 23, 2001. 12 days after the attacks. It is about confusion surrounding people with similar names to the hijackers.

This was cleared up seven years ago. But conspiracy theorists like to circulate this SEVEN YEAR OLD story as if it were still current.

Pathetic.

Perhaps you should do an expose on the biggest group of 9/11 truthers in the western world. They go by the name “registered Democrats”.

Oh right, registered democrats like Ron Paul and Alex Jones.

Nice conspiracy theory.

Where are the hot fires if not where the plane hit?

http://911guide.googlepages.com/WTC_on_fire9.jpg/WTC_on_fire9-full.jpg

See any fires in that picture? Here’s a hint: its the reddish orange stuff coming out the window.

The fact that Griffin denies that he is an idiot must have been quite a relief for you prosaist. I guess that’s settled then?

The funny thing about Griffin is that he has no relevant qualifications and has done very little, if any, original analysis or research. He’s more like a Chomsky figure for conspiracy theoriests, reliably giving them what they want to hear but never doing anything of real interest to people outside the cult.

I think Griffin’s approach to research is pretty apparent from this article:
http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf

Ah! I thought your reference to tertullianists was interesting, and I was pleased that maven & co are so erudite as not to need to ask who they were!
But I have to say that your quoted bits of “theology” don’t seem very daring or original, and if you don’t believe in God you can’t really study Him or His works or approach Him: all you can do is to read about Him as I might read about Gandalf.
I would be interested to hear your views on Griffin’s standing as a theologian.
I do so hope that the video you recommended to me about Griffin’s failure to answer that question “The bodies…” is not susceptible to the same criticism as a certain well-know YouTube video about Dawkins (whom I had not realised was an especial hero of yours) who similarly appears to refuse a simple question: his supporters allege deliberate fakery.

I have, Edmund, looked up the article you cite, and it certainly seems, despite its appalling style (”thusly!”) and sloppy editing, to make out a good case against Griffin’s claims.
I shall read it carefully, and do some checking.
Thankyou!

‘flipshite’ changes his tune again. Apparently, he seems to think that there’s no chance of there being more than one Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah or Hani Hanjour in the Moslem world.

Well done, genius.

Let’s also look at the photographic evidence showing that no plane crashed at the Pentagon, shall we?:

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Or (aside from the video link I’ve already posted) that there were no fires at WTC7:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Why are ‘truthers’ such poor liars? It’s not as if they haven’t had plenty of practice?

You love it, slackcock and arses,you love them tunes.I ain’t gettin on no plane.

The funny thing is that the above is the most coherent comment ‘flippo’ has posted here.

Maybe he’s just gutted because his bullshit and lying has been refuted. ‘Truthers’ tend to get very upset when you expose the fantasies they peddle.

Slackcock you have helped me see the light,it was a man in a cave. peace is war,room 101,love it, fuel melts metal,how many fingers do you see?Thank you most enlightened one,i see 4 fingers.

Jesus Christ, I certainly didn’t mean to start a war. Come back from a boozy lunch to celebrate a big deal, and world war three has broken out. Erm… I don’t know where to start.

To be honest, and with fear of taking the moral high ground, the reason that I came to this site is because generally there are an intelligent group of people debating issues that the ‘mainstream’ media tend to miss / overlook / ignore.

As such, I wanted to see posters’ opinions on 9/11 and the “truth movement”. Again, to reiterate, I can visit countless websites that will tell me conclusively “9/11 was an inside job”; or, conversely “you’re mad and deluded if you believe the troofers”. I came here because, for most posts, you get a well-reasoned for/against on any topic. I wanted to test the consensus.

Unfortunately (and worryingly so), I presented some genuine concerns, and was rebutted angrily by a group of people with very little in the way of argument – except for rhetoric. Surely, rhetoric for OR against 9/11 with little in the way of evidence is as bad / good as each other? . I’m not a nazi, I don’t believe that the queen is a lizard, and I don’t really think that Bush could coordinate an exercise as complex as a 9/11 cover-up. I was genuinely questioning the readers of this site to see if they had explanations for the numerous inconsistencies with the “official” line. Perhaps there are a number of flukes that you lot could have helped elucidate the truth for me.

Unfortunately, this normally well-reasoned audience has resorted to petty name calling and staunch position taking. You’re either for, or against, with no lee-way in between.

Do you not think that it is quite odd for ANY topic to provide such a polarised audience? Is it not enlightening that ANY attempt at debate is met with a furious yes / no? Why do people feel so strongly that any questioning of 9/11 is repulsive?

Imagine for a second that you know nothing about 9/11 and the evidence either way. Can you not consider that the US – so quick to invade Iraq (nothing to do with 9/11) and kill thousands of innocent civilians – could – POTENTIALLY – do something to their own people?

I can’t imagine hurting another human, let alone killing one. Why is it so crazy to believe that a government happy to murder (sorry, kill in the name of ‘war’) would go against national sovereignty and kill their own people? Is it really that different? If YOU could kill an Iraqi, couldn’t you kill a English / US citizen to further your ideological cause?

I’m not saying 9/11 was an inside job. I’m just saying that some questions need to be answered. For those who so dismissively repel the “troofers” as loons, I’m asking: why so vehement? Because it’s crazy to think otherwise? Or because there is evidence that I’m missing?

Again, I didn’t want this to turn into a name calling free-for-all. I just wanted you lot to say: Look, you silly sod, here is the evidence, here is my version of events, stop being gay, or you’ll start thinking that the Queen is a lizard.

PS – sorry if this post is not as well-reasoned as my last, I’m pissed. But, fuck me, I closed a huge deal today, so bollocks to you lot, I’m laughing either way ;-)

Well, unless Obama is the anti-christ and wants to implant an RFID chip in me, of course…

Try this bbc.co.uk/conspiracyfiles

D&C, I recommend a couple of pints of water, one with several alka-seltzers in it, and keep off the strong black coffee, which dehydrates you, as you need all your brainpower for this lot.
Don’t let the frighten you with the David Icke reptile stuff.
Yes, some of the orthodox bunch have what seems good evidence.
But you need to ensure it counters the claims the dissidents make.
Griffin never claimed there was no fire in the third tower, he never claimed there was no wreckage at the Pentagon, he never claimed there was no wreckage at the UA Flight 93 site.
And who ever claimed that Bush co-ordinated anything? It’s possible that during the delay in the schoolroom i the Moore film the poor wretch is thinking, “Boy! They gone ahead and done that big thing! Jeez, how do I cope with all this? They told me, they say, don’t say nothin – Duh! Hope that guy come back in, get me outta here. Waitta minute, Tony, he know bout this? Uh? That guy, the bad one, he called Hassam, Hassam Sudan, that it? Duh.”
Even one of the orthodox (PiR, above) says Bush does what he’s told! He’s not Tom Clancy’s hands-on President.

Flipside is a genius. He just linked to the BBC documentary that shoots the 9/11 conspiracy theorists down in flames. D’oh!

Watch it, and weep, troll. This is the ‘Conspiracy Theories’ documentary you link to. You’re so fucking stupid you can’t even tell when the evidence contradicts your bullshit:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

Oh, and if you are going to talk about AQ in an intelligent manner, read something written by people who know what they’re talking about (e.g. Ahmed Rashid, Rohan Gunaratna, Jason Burke etc), rather than twats like Alex Jones. It’s so funny that the same types who screamed about the fact that the USA was governed by a Texan hick placed their faith in someone who couldn’t do more than run a talkshow in Austin.

And if you had actually passed your equivalent of the GCSE in Physics, you’d know that solid objects like steel don’t need to melt to become structurally unsound.

And if we are going to quote Orwell here (and don’t pretend you’d know anything about ‘1984′ unless you’d read the summary on Wikipedia) here’s another one for you – ‘to see what is in front of your eyes is a constant struggle’. It’s a fight you lost a long time ago. It may have coincided with the point that you found that you couldn’t hold down a job, when your friends walked away from you, and when you realised you couldn’t get laid. That tends to be the case with the so-called ‘truthers’.

Oh, and refute the evidence I used to shoot the shit out of your claims on Jennings, WTC7, the Pentagon, and the supposed inability of the 9/11 hijacker pilots to fly … that’s something you’ve noticeably avoided since I’ve debunked your claims.

‘Do you not think that it is quite odd for ANY topic to provide such a polarised audience? Is it not enlightening that ANY attempt at debate is met with a furious yes / no? Why do people feel so strongly that any questioning of 9/11 is repulsive?’

Check the evidence. The ‘truthers’ don’t have it. Those who know that 9/11 was committed by AQ (many of whom did not back the Bush administration and its policies) do. That tells you all you need to know.

Just compare ‘flipside’ and my posts. I have the evidence. He doesn’t.

D&C wanted a debate,there is a good debate on that link,no name calling just debate.

Maybe you should join in,if its still going.

Dazed and Confused – perhaps an apt name given your alchohol in take.

Why do you want the opinions of people who probably aren’t expects on the matter, that’s the trouble with most of the the truthers – they aren’t engineers and scientists. As I am an engineer I will give you my opinion and will see if that helps.

I have read a number of the reports and the rebutal evidence on the debunking websites and it not only stacks up but is actually reasonably easy to follow. I have not seen any evidence that there is anything strange about the way the buildings behaved during the impact, subsequent fire or the collapse.

Most of the stuff brought up by the truthers is typical conspiracy stuff which sounds plausible but actually isn’t and is usually not actually relevant.

I could go into great detail but ultimately there are people with greater experise who have studied these events and have put forward logical explanations built on science/engieering. These are the ones who you should look to to answer your questions about the attacks on the buildings.

I’m an expect on every matter after a drink.

Ha. Well, luckily, I’ve managed to get laid of late and arguing with faceless gentlemen over the internet is just a hobby. At present.

Papa n… good first line. Check this – http://www.ae911truth.org/

Site from some herberts who claim to be engineers… would be good to get your opinion on that. They fit your criteria of being qualified to comment, and they seem to suggest that no building in history has ever pancake-collapsed from fire and as such this is suspicious. (Yeah, WTC 1 & 2 got hit by planes, so discount that if you will, I’m referencing WTC7)

S&A – You write well, but just because you are more… capable… at expressing yourself that Mr Flipside doesn’t necessarily mean that the (numerous… numerous) links he provide aren’t of some value to the debate. Conversely, it doesn’t mean they are, but in ten lifetimes I wouldn’t have the time to check them all…!

Anyway, to reiterate, I came here to see what normal intelligent folk thought of the inconsistencies. I leave no better off than I started. Seems every one has their mind made up and has a wealth of ammunition to prove their stance. Worryingly, in 160+ posts I have not seen one concession made by anyone on either side.

So much for reasoned debate. Anyway, good night chaps, my head is pounding. If I wake up a reptilian, I’ll be thrilled just to be alive.

Dazed and Confused: Imagine for a second that you know nothing about 9/11 and the evidence either way. Can you not consider that the US – so quick to invade Iraq (nothing to do with 9/11) and kill thousands of innocent civilians – could – POTENTIALLY – do something to their own people?

That’s part of the point, though, isn’t it – given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, why, if you wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, and you were organising a mindblowingly vast conspiracy, wouldn’t you include some Iraqis among the hijackers, or plant some evidence linking it to Saddam Hussein, something like that?

‘S&A – You write well, but just because you are more… capable… at expressing yourself that Mr Flipside doesn’t necessarily mean that the (numerous… numerous) links he provide aren’t of some value to the debate. Conversely, it doesn’t mean they are, but in ten lifetimes I wouldn’t have the time to check them all…!’

It won’t take you too long. I haven’t given you the oracle here. Your basic point – if I take it correctly – is, ‘I am a sceptic. Show me the evidence. Be prepared to convince me’.

I have done the second in spades, and am ready to do the third. Read my links, follow the evidence, pick up the sources I follow, and if you want to play the game be ready to query them.

Otherwise, admit that you’re a dilletante and fuck off.

no serious engineer would actually let an architect go round the world talking about structural behaviour – the leader of this band of saddos is an Architect you see. 500 odd out of a global profession running into the millions doesn’t impress me to be honest and it doesn’t say what type of engineer they are either unless you go look and can then face counting/analysing. If you would be happy having your tall buildings structally designed by electrial or computer engineers or the archiects etc then feel free to put alot of weight in these signatures.

Anyway if you do wake up and can still read then try which are about WT7.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html

or

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

What people think and what they say in public is different,no matter what they do,time will change things,unless there is a law made…..

No, you angry, misspelling sod, my stance was – and read carefully, for this may throw you in its neutrality – “here are 7 concerns I have with the official story. Can we debate these and see if I can see sense again?”

Instead, I’ve upset you and a whole bunch of other single-minded fuckers who collectively flinch whenever someone doesn’t agree with the party line. I’m not a troofer, and I’m certainly not somebody who believes everything a) the government b) Murdoch tells me. I’m in the middle and came to see what you and your buddies thought about the aforementioned anomalies.

No one debated a point, except to send me to external links as “evidence” that they are wholeheartedly correct in their views.

I came here seeking intelligent answers FROM THIS AUDIENCE to some pretty strange anomalies (look – 3 fucking buildings collapsed in the same day – for the first time ever – the super nation of the world happened to be playing silly bollocks with their air defence systems that day and didn’t respond – people heard numerous blasts and CNN etc reported it as such – a bloody plane flew into the FUCKING PENTAGON with no one sending up AF – a plane crashed in a field into a huge fucking smouldering hole with no plane debris – AA stock massively shorted beforehand – and a bunch of arabs pulled some pretty spectacular moves in jumbo jets…)

If none of that constitutes even the slightest questioning of events, you’re all cunts. x

Such rage, sackcloth, obscures the issues.
I do wish you people weren’t so relentlessly toilet-mouthed. It’s like
sitting next to some loudly ranting wino on the bus.
flipside wasn’t wise from his own point of view to cite the BBC programme.
Griffin calls it flawed as it contains a lot of mis-statements taken from the famous, but much blown-upon, Popular Mechanics article (sponsored by McCain).
He makes about 14 references to it in his book 2007 “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”. Here’s one, from p.122:

“Perhaps even more far-fetched is the claim that the passports of two hijackers on UA 93, along with one of the red bandanas they were allegedly wearing, were found at the crash site. According to the official story, as we will see in Chapter 4, this plane, because it crashed while flying downward at 580 miles per hour, went completely into the ground. This theory explained why people who came to the site unanimously reported not seeing any part of the plane, not even the tail. Nevertheless, we are told, the authorities found one of the hijacker’s red bandanas, undamaged, and the passport of Ziad Jarrah, said to have been flying the plane. So we are supposed to believe that although Jarrah’s body, being in the cockpit, was thrust dozens of feet into the ground, his passport, presumably in his pocket, flew out of the cockpit and, along with one of the bandanas, landed intact on the surface of the ground. This is, incidentally, one of the pieces of nonsense in the official story that is told as sober truth by Guy Smith’s BBC documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11. (With regard to Kean and Hamilton’s statement that two passports were found at this site: Susan Ginzburg, the 9/11 Commission’s chief counsel, did testify that the passport of Saeed al-Ghamdi was also found; but it was never produced.)”

Does Griffin report matters correctly?
Does the documentary claim that these effects were found?
I’ve accepted that some wreckage was found at the site: as you can see from the photographs cited by the orthodox, it’s enough to fill a smallish truck.
End of story? Was the site excavated? Do you believe the bandannas and passports were found?
Toilet mouth, I mean Sackcloth?

It was the blog i was talking about,not the programme.

unable to spell yes (and no booze to blame), but angry – not really this is the most fun I have had all evening what with the cable TV being broken. I can’t quite understand your obsession with getting people here not to link to previously written stuff but anyway….

WT7 – yes the first building to fall down in such a way due to fire. But also the first building to have another 2 buildings the size of the twin towers fall down next to them with at least one of the twin towers depositing large lumps of falling debris on to it. Also fires don’t normally get to burn for that long. So unique things happened on a unique day.

As for the other stuff it’s too late to get into that except to say start from the other end, is there really any credible motive which could mean any of these anomalies (which have been refuted here as far as I can see) might actually add up to a conspiracy by anyone other that the obvious one – that foreign terrorists planned and succeeded to commit mass murder in a spectacular fashion.

D&C

Unable to spell – yes
angry – not really this is the most fun I have had all evening becuase the cable TV is broken.

Not sure I follow you obsession with people not linking to external sources but……

WT7 may have been the first steel framed building to collapse in this way, but it also was likely to be the first where fires burned for that long and also had a building the size of one of the twin towers fall down next to it – depositing large lumps of debris as it did so. So unique things happened in unique circumstances, this doesn’t seem all that surprising.

As for the other stuff you mention it’s too late to get into it now. Just ask yourself are there any credible motives (other than for the terrorists who owned up to it) that could lead to the conclusion that the anomalies are more than simply that – anomalies.

D&C

Unable to spell – yes
angry – not really this is the most fun I have had all evening because the cable TV is broken.

Not sure I follow you obsession with people not linking to external sources but……

WT7 may have been the first steel framed building to collapse in this way, but it also was likely to be the first where fires burned for that long and also had a building the size of one of the twin towers fall down next to it – depositing large lumps of debris as it did so. So unique things happened in unique circumstances, this doesn’t seem all that surprising.

As for the other stuff you mention it’s too late to get into it now. Just ask yourself are there any credible motives (other than for the terrorists who owned up to it) that could lead to the conclusion that the anomalies are more than simply that – anomalies.

“Are all Jews semites?”

My fist is semite enough. Care to see it?

Any time Fabian from the state of Rothschild,anytime.

“Anyway, to reiterate, I came here to see what normal intelligent folk thought of the inconsistencies. I leave no better off than I started.”

No, you came in here pretending to be looking for answers, then you ignored everything you got and starting whining.

You claimed the 3rd tower was not hit, yet it was hit – by a 110 storey building collapsing on it. You said no black boxes were found, but they were. You said the pilots couldn’t fly well at all, yet they had commercial pilots licenses. You said lamp posts on the Pentagon lawn were intact, when they were knocked over. You said all rubble was shipped off and recycled before analysis, when it was analysed and some of it is still in storage.

You see? The above are not in dispute. These statements are all factually incorrect, indisputably so. They require very little effort to debunk.

Yet you completely ignore everything that shows you they are wrong and simply repeat your amazement that nobody can respond to them.

You see? You are a complete fake.

mr danger try this lot http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/mike_rudin/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/mike_rudin/ mr danger try this lot.

Why? Everything you have shown us so far has been complete rubbish. You abandon arguments almost as soon as you have made them. Its just link spam at this point.

You see? You came here to show the innocents of HP about the great 911 conspiracy, and you ended up making a total fool of yourself with a bunch of easily debunked crackpot theories.

Right, Mr Danger: Just because you say “You see? You are a complete fake” doesn’t make it so.

From what I have seen, the 3rd building was clipped by one of the other towers. I don’t debate that. The fact that WTC7 became the 3rd steel building ever to collapse – pancake style – from this indirect hit still seems a little peculiar to me. Is there any other documented case of a similar building collapsing in this manner from what appeared to be a relatively minor hit? (So minor that no news outlet at the time reported that this had actually happened, despite numerous cameras being trained on it). Am I an idiot for even thinking that it is quite unusual for three buildings to collapse in an identical fashion in such a short space of time? All I’m suggesting is that there is reasonable doubt. That’s all I need in my line of work. Or am I to accept the “thermal expansion” official line without question? Do you know much about thermal expansion? If you or anyone else is an expert, please elucidate. Seeing as this theory has only just emerged, perhaps it is not as self evident or indisputable as you claim.

Black boxes: Quite quaint that you are so “indisputably” sure, because the “FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered”. I see that you have access to incontrovertible proof that was withheld from the 9/11 commission. Jesus, Mr Dangerman, you’re in this deep.

Pilot licenses: I never once questioned this (read back if you must), I was referring to interviews with several of the instructors who were incredulous at the thought that these pilots could have performed this manoeuvres; and also notably Air Force pilots who have said the speed / decline / angle of the hit would have been near impossible to control. Again, reasonable doubt in my eyes. (Just because you found one instructor who said “yes I have no doubt he could have flown it”, doesn’t mean the other instructors’ testimony is irrelevant, does it).

Pentagon lawn: http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.humanunderground.com/11september/lawn.jpg Perhaps this is the most subjective of the lot – but to me it doesn’t look like a plane has just crashed. This is another picture of a plane crash – http://doingmypart.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/comparison4.jpg – and they are quite dissimilar. Again, if you refer to my original post, I was seeing if anyone thought that this was quite odd too. I would have thought that you would have seen some evidence of a plane-shaped hole. Or the wreckage of the plane. Maybe the Pentagon / FBI could release one of the numerous CCTV recordings alleged to show the attack to put me out of my misery here, rather than 4 blurry inconclusive frames. NB – If you have proof lamp-posts were knocked over, please post link, as I’ve just Google imaged for ten minutes and found nothing. I’m glad again that you are so sure that this has been conclusively rebutted. Additionally, why did Pentagon staff pour sand over the lawn immediately after the attack? Pretty odd crime-scene investigation, I would proffer. I can’t imagine that Columbo would purposely ruin his crime scene before investigating, but he’s old school.

Rubble: I can’t find anything conclusive on this either way. Link to results of the analysis please? Was it in the commission report?

You say this (and every point you raised) is “indisputably correct”. Are you sure? You seem to be very passionate, but passion is not great for objectivity. Speaking of which, “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” – Orwell. And before you question my credentials to name-drop the great man as your standard knee-jerk ranting retort, I’m well-read, so no easy points there my friend. I’m just glad that you can be so sure, despite what I – and a number of intelligent folk – see as slightly dubious inconsistencies.

Back to you, my learned friend.

I was going to say that.

“From what I have seen, the 3rd building was clipped by one of the other towers. I don’t debate that.”

Yet you said the building wasn’t hit. Why did you say that if you knew it had been hit? You also said it had only “small fires” yet the firefighters on the scene reported it quite differently – they said it was blazing out of control and that the building looked unstable. Are they part of the conspiracy?

Also, you characterise it as a relatively minor hit. A 110 storey building falling onto it and creating a huge gouge tens of storeys high is “minor”?

With regards to black boxes, they were found at the Pentagon and at Shanksville. Was there a conspiracy to find them there and lose them at the WTC? How does that make sense?

Please show me the other instructor. Typically, conspiracy theorists selectively quote the instructors in an effort to mislead the gullible. Could that apply to you?

Plane shaped hole – it was a plane slamming into a heavily reinforced concrete wall at high speed. You think it would leave a plane shaped hole like some bugs bunny cartoon? And you compare it to a plane crashing onto open ground? Why do think that is an appropriate comparison – because that’s what conspiracy websites showed you?

CCTV – who alleges the videos show a plane? Conspiracy theorists. And what you have done is demand footage of the plane right after you reject footage of the plane. Why would anyone take that seriously?

Lamp posts – I did a google search on “lamp post pentagon”, clicked on ‘images’, and the very first image was of a knocked over lamp post on 911. It took me less than 10 seconds. You couldn’t manage in 10 minutes?

Rubble – read through the comments on the thread, you have ignored the links provided even after it was pointed out twice. Typical – you demand answers and then ignore them.

Papanomicron – I’m sorry my now well-spelling friend, I just noticed your post.

Erm… motive… there could be a few: A justification for a mass curtailing of civil liberties and to keep a nation in fear of an unseen enemy; to act as a proponent for empire-building and natural resource robbing across the globe; to help repress the inevitable backlash at biometric / RFID human identification; and maybe even just because some people are evil cunts and thought this might make them more powerful happy / content / complete.

Civil liberty infringement is the biggest of my concerns. The Patriot Act is a particularly wondrous piece of legislation.

If the world goes properly tits up after this impending economic crash, and if there are things like food shortages or even just mass employment, which will inevitably lead to mass gatherings and protests, let us see if the UK government decides to invoke the “political” clauses of the The Terrorism Act to keep us all in check. My bet is that they will. And all because 52 people died in a so-far isolated incident. It was an awful act, but to change the lives of 60 million on the back of it is a little… disproportionate.

I know it’s hard to believe that humans could be so heartless or self-serving as to attack their own people to further their own agenda, but our species is not exactly known for its collective compassion through the ages.

On an unrelated note, I hope your cable gets fixed soon. Often by just asking a cable provider for a discount they will give you a month free, so give it a go… ;-)

“Please show me the other instructor. Typically, conspiracy theorists selectively quote the instructors in an effort to mislead the gullible. Could that apply to you”

No, unfortunately not. There is actually a pretty good 5 minute interview with one of them, I think on that Loose Change flick. I infer from this that you haven’t watched any of these films that you rebut so aggressively. Conversely, I have read the Commission report, most of the NIST report (yep – fires caused it), all BBC and mainstream press versions of events and every bit of info – for AND against – that I can get my hands on.

NIST website – first paragraph – “This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”. Well, that’s not unusual at all Mr Danger is it? There are buildings in Madrid etc that burned for much longer than WTC7 and didn’t go down like a pancake.

Again, I’m not saying bombs, I’m just saying that a group chosen by the US government to investigate this comes back and says ‘this is the first time EVER this has happened’ – and you say this is “indisputable truth”. Really? No one ever lied in a report before? Particularly odd when it’s the FIRST ever recorded example. They actually distance themselves from the ‘falling debris’ theory – http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

And dude, I checked out your pic… come on. A plane hit this?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Where’s the fucking dent? Or did it just pop out of the ground. Come on, you have more critical thinking ability than that!

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://physics911.ca/org/images/911/pentagon/lampost/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/lightpoles/&usg=__Hvt7lrIPWNAsnkNIVWgZAaFgxo8=&h=334&w=550&sz=26&hl=en&start=1&sig2=dRKt3zCZXUqcj5ycs1zvUw&um=1&tbnid=5bc0vBKfS2uJ_M:&tbnh=81&tbnw=133&ei=eA8kSfrVK4vY0gSXr-jSCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlamp%2Bpost%2Bpentagon%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1C1CHMB_en-GBGB296%26sa%3DN

Sorry for long link, but that’s the 1st one that you recommended.

“CCTV – who alleges the videos show a plane? Conspiracy theorists.”

Jesus, this is getting tiring – it’s well documented the FBI confiscated CCTV immediately after the hit… I presume they capture whatever hit the Pentagon, or else why would they bother?

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/video.html Go down halfway, transcript of CNN interview. I haven’t independently verified the accuracy, but I don’t think CNN is a conspiracy theorist.

Bugs Bunny Hole – no, I’d expect a bigger hole and some visible parts of the plane (like any other plane crash), not just a smouldering hole. Wouldn’t you?

To go slightly off-piste, the spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle says that when we react aggressively to a point someone makes, it’s because we know deep down that they are right – our ego is threatened. If my points didn’t resonate with you, and cause this anger to rise in your belly, why would you be so vehemently and angrily dismissive of them? I respond to your points as reasonably as I can, and genuinely enjoy the debate. You resort to name-calling of sorts.

You think that everyone who disagrees with you is a fool. Yours is a fragile ego, my friend. None of us can be right all of the time… Maybe just one or two of your less-than-perfectly researched points are not as “indisputable” as you thought.

And what does that do for the rest of your argument? With such a polarised stance, surely if one or two bricks go, then it won’t be long before the whole building collapses….? (Pancake style, no doubt)

You are welcome to try my hospitality, flippy from idiotland.

Just as a matter of interest, and at a risk of repeating myself, did anyone else actually watch the documentary I linked to (via google video)? I know it’s a bit of an elephant in the room, but it proves that the WTC7 controlled demolition ‘theory’ is a pile of shit.

Just to follow up on two myths that D&C tries to resuscitate. Firstly, if you read the following you will see that there are two big reasons why the US air defence system did not cope with 9/11. Firstly, as a result of the end of the Cold War and successive defence budget cuts during the 1990s, the USA’s air defence assets were written down to the bone. Secondly, the NORAD system is designed to deal with hostile bombers flying into US air space from external bases, not domestic flights being hijacked:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Air-Power-Against-Terror-Operation/dp/0833037242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227101908&sr=1-1

A further point – which often gets forgotten – is that NORAD is a joint US-Canadian command. If 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ then the Canadian government and military had to be complicit. Explain this anomaly in the conspiracy theories if you can. I won’t hold my breath.

On Griffin and UA93:

‘This theory explained why people who came to the site unanimously reported not seeing any part of the plane, not even the tail. Nevertheless, we are told, the authorities found one of the hijacker’s red bandanas, undamaged, and the passport of Ziad Jarrah, said to have been flying the plane. So we are supposed to believe that although Jarrah’s body, being in the cockpit, was thrust dozens of feet into the ground, his passport, presumably in his pocket, flew out of the cockpit and, along with one of the bandanas, landed intact on the surface of the ground.’

Firstly, the idea that there was no plane wreckage found at the crash-site is complete bull. If Griffin keeps repeating that claim – despite all the evidence to the contrary – he is a liar:

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

It is also clear that the source of the ‘no plane wreckage’ claim came from a ‘truther’ journalist manipulating witness testimony. This should not come as any great surprise. If Avery and Jones can misrepresent what the late Barry Jennings had to say, then why should that stop any of the other conspiracy theorists:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html

Let us also be clear about the fact that the 19 hijackers have been positively identified, and also recognised by as Saudi, Egyptian, UAE and Lebanese citizens by their respective governments:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

‘I was referring to interviews with several of the instructors who were incredulous at the thought that these pilots could have performed this manoeuvres; and also notably Air Force pilots who have said the speed / decline / angle of the hit would have been near impossible to control.’

In my 1.43pm post yesterday I quoted and linked to flight school instructors who (unwittingly, of course) trained the hijackers, not to mention the testimony of pilots, who confirm that they the necessary skills and experience to perform their suicide attacks, and that the flight paths followed by the planes in their final descent do not disprove this.

I provided you with names, references and links. You have backed yourself up with nothing at all. Furthermore, you have dealt with the evidence I have cited by simply ignoring it, rather than engaging it. This is typical of ‘truther’ methods – keep making your claims, and ignore the fact that they have been comprehensively refuted.

‘NIST have concluded that neither debris damage nor deisel (sic) tanks had anything to do with WTC7’s collapse – they claim it was a normal office fire which bought the building down.’

That is a bare-faced lie and a complete misrepresentation of the evidence. Watch this video:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

This is why ‘truthers’ bring out the potty-mouth in me. They’re like Holocaust Deniers, in that they are a bunch of warped ghouls who systematically distort the evidence and cherry-pick their so-called facts. They have the nerve to smear thousands of first responders and service personnel involved with 9/11, and even go so far as to mock the dead (either making sick jokes about the plight of the passengers on the doomed planes, or making claims that they were involved in a conspiracy to fake their own deaths):

The ‘truthers’ claim to be sceptics, but a sceptic is someone who will look at the evidence with a dispassionate eye and allow himself/herself to be convinced of the validity (or otherwise) of a particular theory if the facts and the data fit. A hysterical lunatic – or some hate-filled zealot from the extreme left and right – will do otherwise. If you think the latter are worthy of my respect, think again.

Anytime fabian,anytime.Now are all jews semite?

Surely, Mr Danger, you are only repeating talking points you have read on ‘mainstream’ websites.

PS – I posted a hefty response to your previous mail but it’s being moderated.

Are you trying to clarify that 911 conspiracy theorists are anti-jewish rather than anti-semite or do you have some other point to make?

I heard only 10% of jews are semite, is that true? If it is then the anti-semite thing doesn’t work 90% of the time.

The next time someone says 911 Truth is full of anti semites, be sure to correct them and say “no, its full of jew haters”.

Ha. Good timing – have a look at the Telegraph front page. Well worth a read, a great collection of conspiracies big and small.

2 of note – 9/11 – obviously – nice little summary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/3477148/The-greatest-conspiracy-theories-in-history.html?image=29

And this one. Irrevocable and indisputable proof that the US Government has plotted murder against its own citizens in the past to justify policy changes….

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/3477148/The-greatest-conspiracy-theories-in-history.html?image=21

Oh, but they wouldn’t try it again, would they? That’s crazy talk! You’d have to be a lunatic to believe that…!!!!

Ha. I don’t hate jews. Not in the slightest. Once, I even dated a Jewish girl ;-)

Here’s some nice proof – from the Daily Telegraph, no less – that the US Government wanted to kill its own citizens just 40 years ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/3477148/The-greatest-conspiracy-theories-in-history.html?image=21

Oh, but it wouldn’t happen again, would it? That’s crazy talk…!

Here’s some pictures from the AA77 and UA93 crash-sites, where (according to Griffin and other denialists) there was no plane wreckage:

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

The canard about there being ‘no plane’ at the UA93 crash site is dealt with here – as you can see, a ‘truther’ distorted witness testimony to support his ‘theories’. Given what Avery and Jones did to Jennings’ testimony, that comes as no surprise to me:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html

Here is the video presentation for the NIST report, which contrary to Eddie’s barefaced lie does not conclude that WTC7 was brought down by a ‘normal’ office fire:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

The main body of the report can be found on the same site. The report makes it clear that rubble from the collapse of WTC1 started fires on 10 floors of WTC7. Because the tower collapses following the plane strikes severed the water supply, WTC7 was able to burn for 7 hours. These are not the circumstances of a ‘normal’ office fire.

My comments and links on the flight training and flight patterns of the hijackers – backed by expert testimony and the instructors who unwittingly trained them – are in my 1.43pm post yesterday. ‘Dazed and Confused’ and that neo-nazi moron ‘flipside’ have dealt with this evidence by simply ignoring it:

On NORAD’s supposed stand-down. This source (based on something ‘truthers’ don’t understand – namely scholarly and rigorous research) shows that prior to 9/11 the US air defence system had been cut by successive defence budget reductions, due to the fact that following the end of the Cold War and the demise of the USSR there was no need for a massive integrated AD system to deal with fleets of Soviet ICBMs or bombers. On the morning of 9/11 NORAD had 4 fighters (not at full readiness) at its disposal:

http://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Against-Terror-Operation/dp/0833037242

Another point that needs repeating is that NORAD is a binational command. It is a US-Canadian military organisation. So if the ‘truthers’ are to believed the Canadian Forces are either staffed by complete morons who somehow missed the fact that their US colleagues connived in the largest ‘false flag’ operation ever mounted, or they and their government were complicit. I find that hard to believe or account for:

http://www.mdn.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2052
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/NORAD.pdf

If you’ve got any more lies and bullshit you want me to comprehensively refute, children, just post it. I know you’ll ignore my responses, because you haven’t got the balls to admit that your ‘theories’ are based on patchwords of fantasy and myth, not to mention (in flipside’s case) the kind of deranged racism that only a true failure in life can thrive on.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/demolitions.html Thats what happend.

Racism?What race?

Never mind, flipside, just ignore the evidence. It just goes to show that the problem with you goose-stepping morons is that you need to read books, instead of burning them.

Dazed and Confused – Northwoods was never implemented. And if the US government was planning to resuscitate Lemnitzer’s ideas, then why did they declassify the document under an FOIA request months before 9/11?

I won’t wait for your answer. After all, you haven’t been able to deal with my sources pointing out that your theories are bullshit.

No comeback from the ‘truthers’. Quelle surprise.