« Previous | Main | Next »

Controversy and conspiracies II

Post categories:

Mike Rudin | 16:40 GMT, Friday, 27 June 2008

In my last blog earlier this month about the London bombings of 7 July 2005 there was a lot of concern expressed by people who say that when they question such events they're told they're "mad, crazy or in a state of shock". I haven't done this and won't.

What we will do is investigate an issue. For the new series we have looked for key proponents of alternative theories.

World Trade Center siteSo for the new programme about World Trade Center Building 7 (The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower for next Sunday) we have interviewed at length the architect Richard Gage, the former professor of physics Steven Jones and the writer of Loose Change Dylan Avery.

We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.

We've looked for new photographic and physical evidence, for key eyewitnesses and spoken to experts and investigators who have been involved in trying to understand what exactly happened to bring down Tower 7.

It does matter that a lot of people think the US Government is "hiding something" about 9/11. According to one American poll more than a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

And it does matter that according to the official explanation Tower 7 was the first skyscraper to collapse because of fire. Smaller buildings have collapsed due to fire but never a 47-storey skyscraper.

The final official report on 9/11 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology is eagerly awaited not just by critics but also by those who want to know how safe skyscrapers are.

I'm happy to debate the issues. In next week's programme we will look at the what some people have said was the neat symmetrical collapse of Tower 7, we will look at the dust found around Ground Zero, we will look at the BBC's alleged involvement in a conspiracy, and many other issues.

But I've seen there's already a campaign for letters of complaint well before the programme has been aired.

Alex Jones' Prison Planet website ended an article headlined BBC Hit Piece by urging readers to comment on this blog. And comments in 911blogger.com urged people to prepare a "counter strike" and to start letter writing and e-mailing. A lot of the later comments on my last blog came soon after those.

It would be good if people watched the programme first. So far we've put out a three minute trailer:

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

In response to dotconnect: yes I'm interested in investigating a host of issues such as the death of Anna Politkovskaya, the financing of al-Qaeda, British agents in Northern Ireland - and it does not as you suggest hinge on whether "our side" was allegedly "behind it". But the BBC has already covered these stories and is currently investigating many of them.

In response to cyncastical: the original allegation made in the papers was that we had paid Nicholas Kollerstrom to appear in the programme about 7/7. We did not. We reimbursed him for £30 worth of his expenses. The newspapers corrected their original copy.

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower to be broadcast on BBC Two at 2100 BST on Sunday 6 July, repeated on BBC 2 at 1120 BST on Tuesday 8 July, and on Signzone at 0130 BST on Wednesday 9 July.

CommentsSign in

You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.

  • 1. At 5:21pm on 27 Jun 2008, Dennis Junior wrote:

    Part II:

    Thanks Mike:

    Saw the disclosure about reimbursed �30 to Nicholas Kollerstorm...It is nice that the BBC did that.

    Controversy and conspiracies II, there always been around and we need to investigate them to see if they are REAL or NOT REAL...


    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 6:02pm on 27 Jun 2008, Rustigjongens wrote:

    Hello Mr Rudin,

    The BBC is in a no-win situation whenever it comes to stories surrounding the Terrorist atrocities committed by Islamic extremists on 9/11.

    The anti-US brigade have done everything to ignore the facts and just regurgitate obviously false claims that it was 'the American Government Wot Done It'.

    And on the other-side we have another group of conspiracy addicts who will claim that the BBC is biased towards terrorists, especially those of an Islamic nature.

    I look forward to the programme and hope that it is as informative as previous films in this series.

    Finally Mr Rudin, be prepared for a deluge of complaints by the conspiracy believers who will not accept any conclusion apart from one that agrees with their rather illogical views.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:06pm on 27 Jun 2008, Erik_Kamfjord wrote:

    On behalf of 9/11 Truth Norway: Thank you!

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. s At 7:52pm on 27 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 5. At 8:08pm on 27 Jun 2008, nobleFloridian wrote:

    A conspiracy? What nonsense! Old Bin Laden must be laughing into his beard at the suggestion by the Bush-hating wackos that the U.S. Government had conspired to fly those planes into the twin towers. Do you suppose that they will all be voting Democrat in November - is that a no-brainer or what?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 9:59pm on 27 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Re comment 4

    It says explain next to the moderator warning so, yes, please explain why it was referred to the moderators, and once referred do they ever come back?

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 02:48am on 28 Jun 2008, dotconnect wrote:

    Thanks for responding to my point Mike.

    I can see that you're in a tricky situation in terms of what you're investigating and how you present it. Effectively, you're always going to be getting it in the neck from both sides.

    If, for instance, Panorama were to investigate the collapse of Building 7, the BBC would be absolutely lambasted for daring to 'even go there', irrespective of the conclusion it reached.

    Whereas broadcasting it under the unmistakable umbrella of "conspiracy theory" makes it less un-acceptable/unpalatable, because the X-files titles and all the rest of it suggest you're not taking the theories themselves 'too seriously' (you treat them and the subject matter respectfully, of course, but the viewer is always aware that you're not giving the alternative theories too much credibility).

    And I think for many people, therein lies the problem (part of that damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing) - the problem of the inherent bias towards the official version of events, every time.

    We can only hope that, if you ever did - to put it bluntly, 'uncover a conspiracy' - that you (or those higher up in the BBC) would have the courage to follow it through and broadcast it.

    At the moment, I have to confess I have my doubts that you (or the BBC higher-ups) would. Particularly if there was the risk of major ramifications to social order, as might be the case with the revelation that the US was involved in the planning and funding of 9/11, or the UK in 7/7.

    The BBC would be placed in an immensely difficult situation as to the most responsible course of action, given the monumental shockwaves and possible political instability that would follow.

    I like to think that truth would win out, that revelation would be worth it, and you'd go ahead and broadcast. But as I say, I'm yet to be convinced that you would - or if you would, I have my doubts that those higher up the chain would let you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 4:14pm on 28 Jun 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:

    dotconnect

    Your post #7 is excellent, and more or less summarises my views. Like you, I am not convinced of the BBC's necessary courage, in exposing state wrong-doing, particularly since the risible Hutton Inquiry and Report. And, it is now well known that not only was the Intelligence (which took this country to illegal war with Iraq) concocted (never mind sexed-up), but so was the twice-changed legal advice of Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General at the time of the invasion on 20 March 2003. Goldsmith should have resigned (which would have spelled the end for the Iraq adventure of Bush and Blair et al.) - instead, he appears to have chosen to allow himself to be leaned on, and finally mis-represented at the fateful Cabinet meeting and subsequent debate in the House of Commons which swept this country to illegal war - aggressive war on a sovereign state, based as it was on concocted Intelligence and legal advice, is the "supreme international war crime" according to the Geneva Conventions.

    Why has the BBC not drawn attention to these unpalatable facts?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:23pm on 28 Jun 2008, Flyattic wrote:

    I'm pretty sure that even if a moral and upstanding member of the bbc was to uncover that 9/11 was a inside job there is categorically NO WAY it would be broadcast.

    I think people who believe in the official report feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall when they talk to people with "alternative theorys" (conspiracy theory is an offensive term and should not be used in a non biased investigation) but they have to recognise that alternative theorists feel the exact same way.

    Even if the american government didnt actually plant explosives in the trade centre buildings there is still so much evidence to support al-qaeda is a CIA "asset" that it would hardly even matter if the trade centers were brought down by CD.

    The trade centres are merely an interesting and easily studied part of the CIA/al-qaeda alternative theory. Please for anyone who hasn't read "crossing the rubicon" i suggest you do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 7:44pm on 28 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Dotcotton and zeus.

    Sorry its not good enough for me. Your man Mike is meant to be a journalist, his only concern should be the truth.

    If we were dealing with a conspiracy that was involving the transfer of footballers then fine, But we are dealing with events that look like they might culminate with a nuclear attack on Iran.

    Already we have seen millions be killed in our name, for profit and power. i would suggest you read the accounts of those who have been through the rape/torture prison camps that we have set up in iraq. Read the story of the 13 year old who was used as a rape toy by soldiers for months on end before being dumped in the desert with a handful of cash. Her crime was walking by a house that was being raided and then try and justify the actions of our media in making themselves complicit in this horror.

    I have never felt such shame for being part of this country as i do now. I am now faced with either joining Mr Haws outside Westminster or leaving the country but i cannot consent either tacitly or directly to this anymore.

    May God forgive us for that we do (or Allah if thats your thing)

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. s At 8:03pm on 28 Jun 2008, ewing2001

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 12. At 8:13pm on 28 Jun 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:


    Hank_Reardon

    I agree with you - there is so much that's totally unacceptable - I have also considered leaving MY country, even renouncing my British citizenship (I have dual nationality - British and Swedish), because I am ashamed of what has been done in my name.

    But, we have to start somewhere, and I was surprised that my post #8 was published. Some people are very angry indeed over Iraq, and much else, and politicians and journalists would be wise to take notice of those who dissent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 8:30pm on 28 Jun 2008, jsikorski wrote:

    I believe that the only responsible way to investigate something like this is to first determine *what* happened, and then move on to "who", "how", etc.

    Did Building 7 collapse naturally as a result of fire, or was it brought down by controlled demolition? Or is there another theory?

    If it is found to be controlled demolition, who was responsible? Was al Qaeda able to plant secondary devices throughout Building 7 prior to 9/11, or did the US Government have something to do with it?

    ETC.

    Under no circumstances should the question of "who" influence the discovery of "what".

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 8:35pm on 28 Jun 2008, liesoftimes wrote:

    There is a simple way to approach this. If this is the kind of interviewer/producer that is going to insist on pulling out speculation from the scientists as to why the explosives were planted or who did it, then it is likely a biased hit piece.

    Let's face it, droplets of molten steel permeate the dust at the WTC site and have been recovered numerous times and analyzed. They show the chemical signature of thermite/thermate. Molten iron at the end of steel beams not yet whisked away to China also show chemical evidence of thermite/thermate.

    Rudimentary physics requiring a grade school degree would rule out fire and plane impact simply because of the complete annihilation of the buildings and their contents.

    The bottom line is that if you deny or ignore the existence of molten iron in the dust and in the basements of the three towers, then you have adopted a religion. That religion is the 'war on terror.'

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 8:39pm on 28 Jun 2008, ENIGMA99 wrote:

    I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW ALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING VIDEO I FOUND ON YOU TUBE THE OTHER DAY

    911: TOTAL PROOF THAT BOMBS WERE PLANTED IN THE BUILDING

    NUFFRESPECT

    IF YOU HAVE THE TIME TO WATCH THIS PLEASE DO AS IT REALLY DOES PLACE A WHOLE NEW SIDE OF THE STORY

    ALSO I HOPE YOUR ALL GOING TO WATCH

    FABLED ENEMIES WHICH IS BEING RELEASED AT THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER THIS YEAR

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 8:43pm on 28 Jun 2008, ENIGMA99 wrote:

    THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE BBC IS A PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANY AND THEREFORE ALL INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE IN THERE ARCHIVES WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT OF 9/11 AND ALL OTHER ATROSICITIES SHOULD BE MADE PUBLICLY OPEN FOR US THE BRITISH PUBLIC TO VIEW

    AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ALL PAY OUR TV LICENCES AND WHY ALL WE EVER SEEM TO GET IS LIES AND DECEIT NEVER THE TRUTH WHAT WOULD THE BBC DO IF EVERYONE WAS TO BOYCOTT THE CHANNELS IN THIS COUNTRY???

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 9:42pm on 28 Jun 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    Mike,

    Thanks for the blog. Especially the mention about the symmetrical collapse and dust. I hope you also bring out the molten steel found underneath WTC 1, 2 and 7 too.

    I hope you don't go too easy on the BBC either. The BBC is supposed to be a news organisation and while I believe that were not involved in any conspiracy per se, they should have logged the information they were receiving and from who, and so give a decent answer to the question: who told you that WTC7 had collapsed (before it did).

    I'm looking forward to the documentary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 11:40pm on 28 Jun 2008, bilderbuster wrote:

    The real danger, in my view, with all this public probing of 911 (and indeed any event that brings into question the integrity of government) is one of boredom!

    We have seen this happen in the Diana investigation, where most people feel in their gut that something ain't right. The establishment cover the story relentlessly staging mock trials and pointless re-enactments, (without ever divulging too much insider information that would point to the real culprits), until the public are simply fed up and switch off.

    We are now 7 years down the road to tyranny resulting from the initial shock of 911. When, if ever, will the public wake up en-masse and see the truth behind these sort of events. It seems the more we probe the more we move away from actually solving the situations arising from them. We are still debating The Kennedy assasination for goodness sake!

    Until things get a whole lot worse and more obvious in our degeneration toward global fascism, the masses are not going to be convinced by "conspiracy" arguments (and maybe not even then). As Ian Williams Goddard has rightly said, "A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get." Nuff said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 02:10am on 29 Jun 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    This is a new low even for BBC. This is one more proof that BBC now ranks with the sensational tabloid trash newspapers and magazines. BBC will suggest that it is possible that the United States government attacked the World Trade Center. This puts it in among the lowest of the low in the world, al Qaeda and other flagrant America bashers. Have a nice day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 10:11am on 29 Jun 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    I think the whole of your documentary hangs on this line from your blog:

    Quote:
    We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.


    "Tested them". How and by who? By researchers deeply into the the subject using scientific method? Trained engineers, architects, demolition experts? Using proven mathematical models?

    Er... I suspect "tested" by politicians and apologists for the official story. Therefore I'm still deeply skeptical of anything close to this being a fair investigation. And I bet they will have the last word on the documentary...

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 12:49pm on 29 Jun 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:

    ynda20

    Well, if the BBC think that they can choose the questions and arguments, ""test" them,
    and then draw a line under the whole thing, they are wrong. I hope they have learned from their last attempt at a programme on 9/11 that they must not underestimate their audience.

    In my opinion, the only reasonable conclusion that the BBC could draw is that there MUST be a PROPER investigation into the terrible events which constitute 9/11, the consequences of which have brought untold misery not only to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq but to the people of the whole world.

    Most importantly, perhaps because of the power of the Internet, reasonable people no longer trust their governments. This is a very, very serious matter, the importance of which cannot be overemphasised.

    The eyes of the world will be watching the BBC. Its very reputation hangs on how it performs on 6 July 2008. Let us all hope that proper investigative journalism in the mainstream media is reborn, courtesy of the BBC (for it is not just the BBC which has been pulling its punches in these desperate times).

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 12:54pm on 29 Jun 2008, MrTimG wrote:

    "we have interviewed at length the architect Richard Gage, the former professor of physics Steven Jones and the writer of Loose Change Dylan Avery.

    We have then taken their questions and arguments and tested them.
    "


    thats great . how about interviewing bush, cheney, NIST,lee hamilton, etc... and testing them too?


    this doc sounds biased already..
    the whole program is designed to make a spectacle out of 'conspiracy theories' , like the people who don't believe the official story are part of some amazing cult-like group.

    I hope some the facts at least get some exposure in the mainstream media though. some good could come out of this

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 3:22pm on 29 Jun 2008, ROBBINZO wrote:

    Dear Ministry of Truth hack,
    It doesn't really matter what you say beforehand. It's obvious that the programme is biased just from the name.
    The term 'conspiracy theory' is an emotive term which has been repeated so often by repeaters like yourself that it creates a pavlovian repsonse in most people who hear it.
    When the non-thinker sees that good old auntie beeb is dismissing 9-11 truthers they can go back to watching sports and drinking their fluoridated water, while giggling about it all being a conspiracy theory.
    Just by calling your series the conspiracy files immediately sets the bias - and you know it full well. Words have power, they program the mind.
    Personally I don't want to debate technical engineering issues with a journalist like yourself because I know full well you're not qualified to answer them. And you know it too.
    I also don't want some unqualified hack working for popular mechanics telling me 'trust me, I can't give any evidence why I'm saying this but it's not a demolition.'
    I'm a qualified engineer and I know a demolition when I see it.
    As a BBC fee payer I want you to report the facts, not distort and edit and lie.
    I predict that you will put out some obvious distortions and patently false information and blow your cover.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 3:42pm on 29 Jun 2008, anoldusername wrote:

    Its hard not to believe the program will be unbiased, especially after Rudin or one of the shows producers was on the Alex Jones radio show and was basically backing the official line and not sufficiently answering questions about the 911 omissions and anomalies. For each anomaly the tiresome "that doesn't prove the govt was involved" line was used over and over. But common sense tells you the laws of chance and probability can only take so much abuse before it starts to really stink. Like rolling a double six 100 times in a row. It doesn't prove you have dodgy dice but you wouldn't want to stand in court and defend it as coincidence. People get the electric chair/lethal injection in America on much less evidence. And sorry to say an analytical and unbiased look at 9/11 shows a high level conspiracy. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Deniers are either in denial, support the policies therefore cede the actions as justified but wouldn't hurt the cause by giving the conspiracy facts (the real facts) any credence. Then theres those that just haven't looked close enough and refuse to be shaken from their perceived vision of reality and how the world works. Just look at history for how the world works. For gods sake we only have to look back as far as the 1800's to see how the "lower classes" were really regarded. Not even that far back. We may have turned another century on the dial, and the general public may have changed and become more sophisticated and more humane, but I don't think the powers that be have. We're here to serve. to be led, to be obedient, and serve our masters. The way its always been. Half the population is waking from slumber, the other half are chewing down more microwave dinners and sucking up as much banal television as they can. And of course our leaders wouldn't kill us, that's insane talk. And of course American government isn't really that corrupt is it, no, of course not. that's ridiculous. I bet there's not a single case of government and corporate interests and apathy towards the population overlapping is there? You see!! It's all good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 5:09pm on 29 Jun 2008, sept11insidejob wrote:

    Is this little gem in your BBC documenatry on 911?

    BBC foreknowledge of the WTC-7 collapse---

    BBC Reported Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 6:01pm on 29 Jun 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:

    ROBBINZO and anoldusername

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 6:07pm on 29 Jun 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:

    ROBBINZO and anoldusername

    Your posts #23 and #24 respectively are excellent. Your honest desire for the truth shines out of every line.

    Moderator - you may delete my post #26 - I clicked on "post comment" in error, too early!

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 6:42pm on 29 Jun 2008, EdSoup wrote:

    Mike,
    The point is not that you are some nefarious and untrustworthy figure, it is that you only have one option.

    Let me break it down:

    1. The remit of the 'Conspiracy Files' programme is to 'debunk' conspiracy theories. You were no doubt made aware of this when you signed on to the task. You can make all the protestations about the show being objective as you like, it won't change the fact that the sole purpose of the show is to argue against such theories and not to present a balanced case. The formular is to present only the easiest to answer elements of an argument, or the most leftfield and bizzare minority theories. Then without any right to reply roll on a debunker to make a weak argument against it. Then to conclude with some ameteur psycho-babble about 'what people want to believe conspiracy theories' (in other words its nothing to do with evidence - it's a mental deficiency).

    2. Imagine that you looked into WTC7 as part of your research for the programme and concluded as virtually every sane person who has researched this topic has that it was a controlled demolition. Are you free to turn in a show concluding same? Do you really expect us to believe that your senior editiors would rubber stamp that programme? Of course they would not and you know that very well. You have one option - to deny.

    3. The information regarding WTC7 and every other suspicious element of 9/11 has been in the public sphere for a long time and has been universally ignored by the mainstream media. The BBC, in the last conspiracy files programme and through its whole sale and deliberate neglect to report the facts has very much set up its stall. Why should anyone now expect an episode of a 'debunking' show to do anything but continue that tradition? How many towers fell on 9/11? You ask in the trailer - seemingly oblivious to the fact that the reason almost no one knows the answer to that question is the failure of the BBC among other mainstream broadcasters to make even a throwaway attempt to inform the public regarding 9/11.

    These three points might explain why your programme has been condemned before it has come out. Why should anyone consider for a second that the show might conclude what is so patently the truth?

    I hope you prove me wrong, but I think you know as well as I do that you are very right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 7:18pm on 29 Jun 2008, ArtHostage wrote:

    Mike,

    I hope you can end the film by leaving it up to the viewer to decide if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

    Why John Kerry said as much when quizzed about it. "I think they had to bring it down" was the quote in resonse to a question about WTC 7 I think.

    Beacause of the ramifications of course you cannot conclude WTC 7 was a controlled demolition but a way to sneak in the back door is to allude it was and leave the film hanging.

    Upon another note, I think personally Mike you have got two copies of your film, one copy that offers the debunking and plays the govt line, and the other explosive version put together in secret for the historical record.

    I know I am right because your instinct makes you do this, you in some way want the expose version to leak out, but career considerations make you reluctant.

    The thing is, have you got the balls to switch tapes and allow the Expose version to air ???






    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 8:12pm on 29 Jun 2008, nikdgreen wrote:

    Dear Mr. Rudin,

    The principle strategy of the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic in dealing with the 9/11 questioners, is to name-call and fire cheap insults. To date, this methodology has worked very well with a large section of the general public, who are presumably uncomfortable with the notion that material on this subjects presented by Government officials via a complicit media might be incomplete, fabricated or even untrue. Its a bit like someone denying that their favorite uncle is a serial killer, even when the evidence clearly points to such.

    As you are (I assume) an employee, or contracted to the BBC, a UK Government body, it would be reasonable to expect you are under some pressure to conform to officially endorsed opinion, as regards controversial material that could possibly implicate UK/US officials/agencies in criminal or terrorist activity. I recall the disgraceful treatment of the popular former BBC Director General, Greg Dyke, who was forced to resign in 2003 for a far lesser controversy than to question the official narrative of the 9/11 (or 7/7) attacks. And since the British Government is very closely allied to the US Government, especially in the so-called "war on terrorism", might it not be reasonable to expect that the BBC as a whole, is under severe internal pressure to comply, while making it appear on the surface, re. the the public perception, that is is being "fair and balanced"?

    The power of the edit can change history, especially in today's media driven world. The BBC currently has a track record of presenting "hit pieces", skillfully wrapped up to make it appear fair, when dealing with 9/11 and 7/7; leading skeptics have been interviewed, but their words have been edited to either omit damning material, or even twist the meaning of what they have said, both subtly and blatantly. Once a pattern has been set, it is logical and reasonable to expect that the forthcoming BBC treatment of WTC 7 will follow similar lines.

    When 9/11 happened, I believed the official story, but having studied it in depth during the last few years, it is most clear that, at the very least, it was allowed to happen. President Bush (and others) were aware of the time, date, nature and locations of the attacks months in advance. German (BND) intelligence reports of April 2002 have confirmed this, as have numerous reports from other agencies in other nations, but these reports have never been aired in the mainstream media in either the US or UK. Can the BBC ever present such damning material, which represents merely the tip of a very ugly iceberg, in a fair and balanced way? Of this, unfortunately I doubt, because the BBC's credibility is on the line as regards a large section of the public whose perception of the attacks is now set in stone, as a result of being denied any facts which cast doubts on the veracity of the official conspiracy theory.

    Yours very sincerely,

    Nik D. Green

    As an after thought:

    The hardline neoconservative agenda of the Bush Administration was omitted from the Bush election platform in 2000 because its authors were aware that such overt ultra- rightwing radicalism would have been electoral suicide; the huge majority of Americans are politically moderate. However the day after Bush was inaugurated, plans to invade Iraq and Afghanistan were on the table, and VP Cheney's ultra secretive energy taskforce was discussing plans to topple the Taliban in order install a government friendly towards US corporate/oil interests.

    The authors of the neoconservative agenda (which included a huge "weapons in space" program, the US military takeover of oil rich middle eastern nations, and a massive escalation in the US "defense" budget) admitted in their essay "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that such extreme policies would have little chance of congressional or public support "absent a catastrophic, catalyzing incident, like a new Pearl Harbor". In other words, the motivation was clear, and after 8 months of what was looking like a "lame duck presidency", 9/11 happened. In an instant, this previously unheard-by-the-public Bush agenda accelerated off the starting blocks like a drag-race car on nitrous.

    It is essential that we ask the questions re. 9/11 (and 7/7). The official stories are merely conspiracy theories, and pretty wild and wacky ones at that. Why is the mainstream media in both the US and UK going out of its way to defend these officially endorsed conspiracy theories, when they rely so heavily on so many impossibilities, unlikelihoods and improbabilities, bizarre coincidences, and even violations of the law of conservation of momentum (as regards the collapses of WTC 1 and 2?)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 8:14pm on 29 Jun 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:

    This is becoming difficult, but here goes:

    I can understand the argument that the mainstream press have to be responsible over what they say, otherwise the press alone could generate social disorder or even anarchy, for no reason at all.

    But, given that we now have war criminals in power in both the United States and the United Kingdom [Bush and Blair agreeing in 2002 to "fit the Intelligence around the policy" re war with Iraq, and the subsequent concoction of that Intelligence (though the British Government claimed that they had not even sexed it up!?), and the concoction of the infamous twice-changed legal advice of Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General (the Americans apparently told Blair, after Goldsmith's pre-invasion visit to the US, that "we had trouble with your Attorney General but ...", or similar], and given that the American neo-conservatives (Bush, Cheney et al.) published a document called PNAC (Project for the New American Century) in the late 1990s, calling for American domination of the world, but saying that that could not be achieved "absent a Pearl Harbour-type event", the very least the BBC could and should do in my opinion is to call for a PROPER investigation into 9/11. In a single stroke this would restore the reputation of the BBC, in the eyes of the very many people around the world who have grave doubts re the official story propagated by those currently in power in Washington and London, and who feel that they have been betrayed by the BBC (whose duty primarily is to inform the public, not to protect, especially in extremis, the politicians who the people have elected to SERVE them).

    There is much, much more which one could reasonably write but ... for the moment, let us confine ourselves to this: we know we are being governed by war criminals and some (not I) seem prepared to accept that. The burning question is are we also being governed by traitors, prepared to indulge in huge false flag operations (9/11, and, yes, the 7/7 bombings in London ARE also a worry) against their own citizens, in order to justify the global ambitions of those traitors? For this reason, we MUST get to the truth of this matter ie 9/11 (and while we are at it perhaps get to the bottom of what really happened to Dr David Kelly?), BEFORE we can move on. It looks to me like we NEED an orderly purge, and I think many reasonable people feel the same.

    So, together, and with courage, let us search for the truth, wherever it leads, for the sake of our children. I do not see the problem - if we do not do the necessary now, things will only become inexorably worse, and then there will inevitably be an even bigger long-term price to pay.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 8:15pm on 29 Jun 2008, Flyattic wrote:

    Something else has always troubled me about this whole 9/11 thing. If the only three buildings in history to have ever collapsed from fire all collapsed perfectly and symmetrically into their own footprints, why the heck do we need controlled demolition experts.

    If anything 9/11 proves that we have no need for these so called demo experts and any buildings that need to be brought down in future can simply be brought down by any old bloke with some firelighters and some petrol. it would save millions.

    no need for weeks of planning and expert placement of explosives. just start a fire. simple. sorry controlled demo experts, looks like your job was never needed in the first place.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 9:38pm on 29 Jun 2008, ROBBYBB wrote:

    I will tell you straight i no longer think the BBC has any credibility left.You reneged on your duty to expose government lies over Iraqi WMD,S,you reneged on your duties over Dr David Kelly and you are reneging on your duties when the same liars are saying the same lies over Iran.If you address this subject in a fair and open minded way then i will congratulate you but i am not holding my breath.Are you going to address the eutectic reaction that occurred in the steel samples?i wager you don,t.This event did happen even though it has never occurred in an office fire before and the fact that it did happen and been relatively ignored is truly shameful.I do hope you don,t mention diesel fuel but i wager you do.If indeed you do mention diesel fuel you are contradicting NIST who have already acknowledged Diesel fuel played no part in the collapse.I am expecting the same tired worn out drivel just like last time.True investigative journalism is long dead,your programme just might be the final nail in the coffin.Maybe i am wrong,please let me be wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 11:07pm on 29 Jun 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    It's nearly 7 years since that fatefull day in New York and Washington and the BBC are now about to present a programme to establish some credibility to story which is so bazzare and ridiculous that young children wouldn't be convinced by it.

    Professional pilots have agreed after getting the data from the black box of flight 77 the 757 which allegedly flew into the Pentagon that it was nigh impossible and that the aircraft would have flown over the building. Even if it had hit the building the damage would have been massive and the lawn in front of the building would have had two large furrows where the engines ploughed their way at over 500mph.

    If you're going to do this programme at least give the viewers some credit. Many people like me have researched 911 since it happened and we know when we're being made into conspiracy theorists.

    When I was young the BBC was the beacon of truth thoughout the world try to get at least an inkling of that hard earned credibility back.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 04:15am on 30 Jun 2008, OKthatsIT wrote:

    9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

    WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND to reopen the 9/11 investigation.

    - USA

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 04:15am on 30 Jun 2008, monsterland wrote:

    We all know what this programme is - propaganda. In the not too distant past the state-corporate media could ignore dissenters from the official narratives, now they are forced to engage but always (crucially) on their own terms.

    It's encouraging to see that the majority of the replies on this thread are reasonable, well-informed and "conspiratorial". However, anyone who is even hoping (e.g. EdSoup) that the programme will be anything but a smokescreen is either hopelessly naive or just doesn't understand how their state-capitalist society works.

    It is appears more and more likely that popular pressure in NY (from Sen. Gravel, the Jersey Girls, et al) may lead to an open, independent inquiry into 9/11. One can hope that, in time, this will result in some answers to the many glaring contradictions of the official narrative. Possibly this will lead on to criminal prosecutions for those involved in commiting the acts, assisting them, or knowingly covering them up.

    It may be that the Cheney-Bush junta has already commited its crimes. It will be interesting to watch Mike Rudin and the BBC commit theirs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 08:36am on 30 Jun 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    Mike,


    Even if you have already done a great documentary. You'll be too late. NewYorker is reprting covert agents already in Iran causing destruction of Iranian facilities. (Er... not reported by BBC).

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh


    Other sources claim 4th July as the launch of the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Your documentary airs July 6th - therefore will be lost in the noise...

    Another success for the Ministry of Truth, even if you do reveal the "FINAL" mystery (as if any of the other mysteries have ever been established with a proper independent inquiry), it will be too late before the Neo-Cons have completed their agenda...

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 12:15pm on 30 Jun 2008, Kiliwizz wrote:

    Mr Rudin,

    What I hope to see in your documentary is a step by step investigation of the elements of the non-conformist 9/11 claims. These should include:

    * The collapse of WTC 1 and 2
    * The collapse of WTC 7
    * The molten steel in the debris
    * The stand down of US air force interceptors
    * The foreknowledge of the US administration of the impending attack
    * Plans for just such an event made well before 9/11
    * The published essays by PNAC and who they are
    * The size of the Patriot Act, how long it would take to write, and when it was produced
    * The shutdown of WTC 1 and 2 one week before the attack for maintenance activities
    * The former residents of WTC 7
    * The level of skill required to pilot an aircraft into WTC 1 and 2
    * Witness tesimonies of the observed level of skill of the alleged pilots
    * The level of skill required to pilot an aircraft into the Pentagon
    * Witness tesimonies of the observed level of skill of the alleged pilot
    * The damage to the Pentagon versus predicted damage by an aircraft
    * Eyewitnesses in the Pentagon on the number and timing of the explosions
    * A detailed analysis of the timeline on 9/11 including, for example, the Pentagon stopped clocks
    * Interviews with the FAA on why they cannot substantiate aircraft identification numbers in the black boxes involved
    (there's a lot more)
    *** plus balancing interviews with NIST etc, to get their point of view on the government explanation.

    On the other hand, I would be disappointed (but not surprised) to see any time given to the obviously silly theories, for example, anything that Dr Judy Garwood says, etc etc.

    I will watch your programme with interest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 12:23pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    Mike

    Thanks for an intersting article. I look forward to watching the programme next week to see what it is all about. It is a justifiable angle of enquiry and, if these claims have surfaced, they should be subject to journalistic investigation.

    Having read through the comments here though, I fear that there is no chance of the self-convincing circle of conspiracy theorists being discouraged. I suppose that once it became pretty unarguable that Diana died in a car driven by a drunk, pursued by morally ambiguous news hounds and, by proxy, their customers...it is now obvious that this would be the next port of call. It's almost suspicious isn't it.

    As ever I'm left wondering at the bizarre motives behind these supposed conspiracies. Why would people want to do it . Why is that the government agencies that are routinely lampooned for various cock-ups (e.g. failing to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall) can suddnely pull-off not only a feat of technical and logistical brilliance; but at the same time manage to maintain a veil of silence over a conspiracy in which the numbers involved would run to thousands. It just ain't credible.

    If, as some maintain, the CIA has been able to manipulate people's minds for years. Why go to the difficulty and expense of constructingg these vast conspiracies in the first place. Unless it's to hide the fact that they can manipulate people's minds in the first place...clever.

    It always telling that you don't see any women (Ithink) commenting in these types of discussions

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 12:28pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    37 Mike

    Mike...thanks for the tip-off about the strike on Iran dated 6th July. I'll make sure that I sell all my shares just to be on the safe side.

    Mind you...how will we know if has happened?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 1:13pm on 30 Jun 2008, Kiliwizz wrote:

    Anglophone -

    Thank you for your comment, because you have reminded me of something else that should be in the content - a historical brief of false-flag attacks, allowed/intentionally provoked attacks, or plans conducted by previous US administrations.

    For example, they could look at the plans to shoot down a remote controlled passenger airliner over cuba, the naval attacks that started the Vietnam war, the actions of the Gardio group in Italy, or even (if brave) at Pearl Harbour itself.

    The point would be that what is being suggested is not some far-out wacky idea, but something that has historical precedent.

    I hope that the presentation is in the form of examining the issues analytically, and not a "this is the theory and this is why it is stupid" format.

    Anglophone - I understand why you're saying that, the theories around Diana's death were often far out and flew in the face of the evidence. But take a look. Eliminating the silly ideas, many of the issues surrounding 9/11 are genuine. In many areas, the official explanation is as impausible as those of the sillyness brigade.

    Let's put this another way. 33% of Americans believe that their government was complicit in actions that resulted in the immediate deaths of several thousand of its own citizens, the destruction of a major landmark, and significant damage to one of its most important military buildings. They also believe that on the basis of this deliberate action, their country and others declared war on two sovereign nations, resulting in the deaths of thousands more US soldiers, hundreds of non-US allied soldiers, and tens of thousands of enemy solidiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the displacement of millions. This is not an issue that should be dismissed out of hand, it is probably the most serious charge brought against any government since the second world war.

    So please, don't draw a parallel with the theories around Diana's death. It's not in the same league.

    K

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 2:23pm on 30 Jun 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    Anglophone,

    Please follow the link I provided to reputable newslink

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

    and it is also discussed on CNN. The July 4th date is supposition on my part based on less reliable sources. Sorrry, if sounded alarmist but I am alarmed with Bush edging for a war with Iran (which is widely reported in the mainstream media).

    As for comment on 39, I agree with Kiliwizz, no 41, the Diana story is not in the same league. (Let's face it: the Diana investigation was necessary and long overdue!) I am content with due process.

    But there has not been any with 9/11... and it somewhat more serious and the number of Mysteries too amazing. While the forthcoming documentary is billed as the "final mystery" - none of the all the previous mysteries have been solved:

    - How did WTC1 and 2 come down? (NIST can't explain it. They don't even acknowledge the molten steel found at the base of 1, 2 and 7 and yet it widely reported. NIST or the 9/11 Commission Report do not even comment on the numerous explosions heard on the day coming from within the buildings.

    - Moving on from NIST and 9/11 Commission report (where the authors themselves have distanced themselves from the findings), what about air crash investigations? (None), Judical inquiry (none), Investigative journalism on the many, many funnies of the day (planted evidence, identities of the hijackers, the fake Bin Laden video, the fighter stand-down, discrepancies in official stories about why procedures were not followed) - only done by amateurs! Why has the Mainstream Media been so quiet? The BBC report on Hijacker identities suddenly went dead! No conclusion at all (except the FBI have the right people) - implying the BBC reporter on the case was stopped from doing a follow-up.

    The motives for 9/11 are all explained by the Programme for the New American Century (PNAC). (Plus the bullion under the WTC which was never recovered, the insurance scam, the $2.2trillion overspend announced by Rumsfeld on 10th September! (One of the only departments hit at the Pentagon was the audit dept investigating the overspend!) Yes, think about the HUGE amounts of money mentioned above and at least Hundreds of people being involved. Check the money supply figures for the US economy: HUGE ($billions) unexplained blip in August 2001...

    All this information can all be checked and verified on the internet from OFFICIAL websites with just a few google searches.

    So, yes again, sorry about being alarmist. If you can provide a suitable explaination for WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapses then maybe I can relax a little.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 2:58pm on 30 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    The present situation is frightening. We are facing WWIII. It will take one nuke to pretty much end our world as we know it.

    The fact that after 7 years we 'officially' still don't have an understanding of 9/11 makes it all the more worrying. Now 'We are change' know and millions others know what's going on. But the masses in this country seem to not have a clue.

    In the States though they are waking en mass. It will be good to see what sort of numbers they get on the 12th of July when they walk on washington with the intention of upholding the constitution and demanding the federal Govt. be abolished as it has become tyrannical. It is the first step of the second American revolution(third if you count Ludlow).

    Please anyone who reads these comments on this page, do the research and make your mind up. Only the most illogical of minds could reach the official versions of the truth.

    Sadly though i think it is all too late. When we bomb iran, We being the west, it will mean we will have real terrorists after us not the CIA brand of terrorists. We will upset a lot of people and they will fight back and who knows how they will do it.

    My only prediction is that if a rouge nuke goes off it will be from those that went missing during the unreported Minot/Barkinsdale nuclear flights.

    So this is the situation we find ourselves in NOW and we are still waiting for the BBC to tell us what happened 7 YEARS AGO. So what hope have we of them telling us what's going on now or telling us what the plans are for tomorrow.

    Given a choice between the Lindsay Williams of this world and the Mike Rudins, I know which one I trust to give me the truth.

    Sorry Mike either tell all or walk away. This is not a game, people are dying every day as a result of the lies. It must stop.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 3:01pm on 30 Jun 2008, DocGreen15 wrote:

    The reason there is so much of an outpour prior to the episode being released is because of the terrible job made of the previous 9/11 hit piece!! The subject matter was a side note, everyone who had a counter argument was made out to be a crack pot and it was almost unbearable to watch with an open mind as it was obvious you had your own agenda to push.

    It?s strange you say you were accused of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy, I?ve never seen this accusation from the ?truth moment, what that group of people asked was ?who or where did the BBC get the story of building 7 having collapsed prior to the building collapsing?, which you have answered to an extent. I don?t recall reading anyone stating the BBC, you or the presenters of that program knowingly put out a false story?

    What I find supportive of the ?let it happen? is documents like ?Project for a New American Century?, ?rebuilding America?s defenses?. As far as planes being flown into a building, the declassified ?Operation Northwood?s? is worth reading along with several other declassified pieces.

    I think the ?conspiracy theorists? have a good point in the fact that never before has a steel building collapsed due to fire in history, so that is what you are investigating, not a conspiracy! The building?s collapsed a fraction from freefall speed, hence there was no resistance at all, and it was just a total collapse of 3 buildings that caused the concrete to be ?pulverized? to dust.

    If you don?t believe the government would ?lie? then why did they tell all the police/firemen, officer works and children, that the air was safe to breathe and reopened the crime scene, when it clearly was not safe.

    I'll be very, very surprised if this episode is any different to the previous one where all I watched was people?s characters being attacked rather than there?s evidence or facts and ultimately made out to be a crack pots!

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 3:17pm on 30 Jun 2008, TheMaskedMarvel wrote:

    Mike,

    I had a look on t'interwebs to see what else was out there.

    Oddly enough, this http://debunking911.com/pull.htm piece seeks to debunk the conspracy theorists, and does seem well done.

    Is your programme based on any of these questions, perchance?

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:29pm on 30 Jun 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    I also looked at

    http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

    And this is typical of the apologists explainations: trying to stop debate by ridicule and not looking at all the evidence.

    "Not a shread of evidence" is one of the claims made by the debunker when in fact they concentrated on hearsay and not looked at physical evidence and other matters:

    a) How did the fires start and why did they persist? (This was the NY mayor's emergency bunker after all! (Coincidence No 1). Sprinkler system set onto "test" or something? Surely not) (Coincidence No 2)

    b) Free fall collapse (Coincidence No 3)

    c) Building occupants (CIA, secret service, and fraud dept) (Coincidence No 4)

    d) Thermite residue found in dust (Coincidence No 5) Concrete turning to dust (Coincidence No 6)

    e) First steel building to collapse due to fire and minor structual damage (Coincidence No 7)

    f) Molten steel at bases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 (Coincidence No 8)

    g) Electricity supply disconnects (Coincidence No 9)

    h) pre-knowledge of collapse by firefighters, media etc (Coincidence No 10)

    i) Silverstien's (and repeated by John Kerry) comment about Controlled Demolition (Coincidence No 11)

    j) TV transmission cut at time of collapse (Coincidence No 12)

    h) Barry Jennings story of explosions before WTC 1 and 2 collapses (Coincidence No 13)

    i) Barry Jennings changing his story (Coincidence No 14)

    j) The "unusual building architecture" argument - same as for WTC towers to explain their collapse ((Coincidence No 15)

    Say each coincidence has a probability of 1 in 5, then the probability of the official story is 1 in (5 to the power of 15) (a very conservative estimate)

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 4:39pm on 30 Jun 2008, cattymccat wrote:

    Mork Anthony, News night forum

    "Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. 'The CIA killed Hendrix', 'The Pope had John Lennon murdered', 'Hitler was half Werewolf', 'Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone' etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.


    So its hardly surprising that the events of September 11th, 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is -- sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

    One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th -- and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs -- is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they 'hate our freedoms.'

    Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

    Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

    These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks -- linked to the CIA -- the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about nineteen Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

    The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposterous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

    It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as 'the fruit loop' and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.

    According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, nineteen Arabs took over four planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

    The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID -- but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities -- they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

    "Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

    "A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

    "Very strange", thinks the security officer, "that's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask ... and why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess ...."

    Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there! They exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

    Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented! And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?" "You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers! And so on ....

    Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational skeptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

    "Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen.

    This is another favorite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The 'improbability drive', in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens -- just about all the time in their world. There is a principle called 'Occam's razor' which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

    Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the nineteen invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

    Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that September 11th, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, and spraying gas -- after they had attached their masks, obviously -- but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

    So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of 'our freedoms', it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -- really impeccable Islamic behavior -- and then got up at 5 o'clock the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

    They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning Kerosene.

    For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose Kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporizing a sixty-five ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees centigrade for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of Kerosene is enough to:

    - Completely vaporize a sixty-five ton aircraft

    - Have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel -- melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel

    - Still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building

    This Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those Kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporized. And never again will I take Kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp -- the next -- kapow! vaporized into nothing along with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

    These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning Kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the black smoke coming from the WTC indicates an oxygen starved fire -- therefore not particularly hot -- they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 degrees centigrade, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

    Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

    Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

    The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of September 11th. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

    Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why. "Muslim terrorists stole my notes, Sir." "No Miss, the Kerosene heater blew up and vaporized everything in the street, except for my passport." "You see, Sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

    Or perhaps they misunderstood the term 'creative science' and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

    The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly Kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat -- although 2000 degrees centigrade isn't really required, 100 degrees centigrade will generally do the job. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

    That's right, if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporize a sixty-five ton aircraft.

    You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporized by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

    So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

    This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between. Each ring of building is about 30-35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 foot diameter through three rings -- six walls. A little later a section of wall about 65-feet wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

    But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell -- why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is 'mumbo jumbo'. It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it 'must be wrong' although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavor.

    Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vaporized by its exploding fuel load, and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. That's a wonderful fruit loop. Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 foot deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building -- even though the building shows no sign of such damage. As for what happened to the wings -- here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

    When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly -- ignoring the undamaged lawn -- while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an 'irrecoverable angle.' How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

    Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

    As America gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

    At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on September 11th, and the subsequent war crimes committed in 'retaliation' are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

    Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

    Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about September 11th."

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 5:00pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    41 Kiliwiz

    Forgive me if I don't suddenly experience a blinding epiphany over the wicked elitist American cabal and its plans to conquer the whole world. I would have thought that the types of policy "ideas" (note the stress on ideas) that were floating around neo-con circles in the early noughties have now been revealed as pathetic hubris rather than as some sort of "work in progress" by forces with power beyond our imagination!

    In these circumstances, everyone starts quoting from "official" websites, whatever that means in practice. Just as in the now minor-league Diana cover-up, endless "facts" appeared on websites regarding the status of CCTV, post-mortems etc etc., hardly any of which stood up to robust analysis. I imagine that many of the 9/11 "facts" have simply taken on a similar mythological status among the true-believers. Equally, the sequence of events and actions of individuals in the heat of the moment probably don't stack up very logically. People behave strangely under stressful conditions, sometimes they do heroic things, mostly they just make mistakes.

    ...and what could it have been for? The immediate fall-out of 9/11 was military action against the Taleban Government. This was already a generally embargoed regime but offered zero real threat to US interests from a country with no oil. The later, clumsy attempts by the Bush Administration to put the finger of blame on Saddam Hussein had very little traction at the time.

    The Neo-cons simply wanted a regime change which they believed would transform the Middle East (hubris again). They could have mounted such an attack on the pretext of WMD and Saddams "previous" without demolishing the World Trade Centre and killing thousands of their own citizens.

    If the whole purpose of 9/11 was to attack sovereign Iraq, why didn't the conspirators lay a trail back to Saddam. Why did they wait nearly 2 years to take action?

    Sorry guys...you have simply demonstrated the overwhelming need for the BBC rather than the clamour of partisan newsgroups that populate the internet. If the slow death of truth is taking place, then it is happening in cyberspace, not on Capitol Hill.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 5:25pm on 30 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Standing ovation catty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 5:37pm on 30 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Anglophone,

    Let me get this right, you believe the official story of 9/11, 7/7 iraq war etc etc etc

    But the Lisbon Treaty and the shennanigans around that your willing to believe there is a hidden agenda.

    you don't need to quote a website or anything else to prove the official story of 9/11 is nonsense, just have an understanding of basic physics. Unless your now saying Newton was wrong on some aspects of the basic physical laws of this planet, in which case that is a whole different argument.

    It doesn't help us understand what did happen or who did it, all it means is that the official story is a nonsense.

    But i guess it is easier to just ignore the physical laws of the planet and just believe what your told, makes life a lot simpler and means that you can hold onto your pride and ego and say that you were not fooled by this 'inside job'.

    How long do you think ignoring the truth will work for you?


    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 5:45pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    47 Cattymccat

    Wow! Excellent prose. I simply cannot match you for writing ability and deep knowledge of the real truth, but I do have some puzzling questions. I simply don't have enough green ink to match your volume of output.

    ...like, what about all those people on the crashed 4th plane. It planes weren't involved, why did one of them crash conspicuouly in a field? Who managed to persuade all those terrified passengers to call home and to persuade their loved ones that they were involved in a massive hoax by the mysterious cabal behind the plot.

    Another one is that setting fire to aluminium, a common component in aircraft, can cause very high temperatures indeed. It's difficult to set fire to but leave enough kindling around in the form of kerosene and office fittings and I think that it could go up. Not possible, ask any Falkland veteran about the horrible discovery that the Royal Navy's modern aluminium warships burned like a magnesium flare when hit. At the same time all the PVC mattresses, cabling etc gave off copious quantities of the thick black smoke that you claim rules out a high temperature blaze. One could go on and on.

    I will not be joining you in the fruit loop as I have some paint that I need to watch drying.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 6:03pm on 30 Jun 2008, cattymccat wrote:

    With 'Conspiracy theories' there is a tendency to fill in the blanks, and thats where they start to become pure fantasy.

    With 9/11 I have no idea what really did happen- but I definatly know what didnt happen and it aint what is written in the 9/11 comission report.

    Who you gonna believe George Bush or Newton?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 6:08pm on 30 Jun 2008, monsterland wrote:

    48 Anglophone

    "Forgive me if I don't suddenly experience a blinding epiphany over the wicked elitist American cabal and its plans to conquer the whole world."

    Straw man: A caricature of the claims of some in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    "I would have thought that the types of policy "ideas" (note the stress on ideas) that were floating around neo-con circles in the early noughties have now been revealed as pathetic hubris rather than as some sort of "work in progress" by forces with power beyond our imagination!"

    Faith-based reasing: No offer of evidence to substantiate.

    "In these circumstances, everyone starts quoting from "official" websites, whatever that means in practice"

    Demonstratably false generalization.

    "Just as in the now minor-league Diana cover-up, endless "facts" appeared on websites regarding the status of CCTV, post-mortems etc etc., hardly any of which stood up to robust analysis".

    Red herring: Possibly true, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

    "I imagine that many of the 9/11 "facts" have simply taken on a similar mythological status among the true-believers."

    Faith-based reasoning: No evidence offered for the claim.

    "Equally, the sequence of events and actions of individuals in the heat of the moment probably don't stack up very logically."

    False analogy: Personal opinions on 9/11 "facts" have no bearing on "the events and actions of individuals in the heat of the moment".

    "People behave strangely under stressful conditions, sometimes they do heroic things, mostly they just make mistakes."

    Red herring: Possibly true, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

    "...and what could it have been for? The immediate fall-out of 9/11 was military action against the Taleban Government. This was already a generally embargoed regime but offered zero real threat to US interests from a country with no oil. The later, clumsy attempts by the Bush Administration to put the finger of blame on Saddam Hussein had very little traction at the time."

    Red Herring: The discussion is the mechanics of the 9/11 attacks (the programme focusing on the destruction of WTC7) not the possible motivations for 9/11.

    The Neo-cons simply wanted a regime change which they believed would transform the Middle East (hubris again). They could have mounted such an attack on the pretext of WMD and Saddams "previous" without demolishing the World Trade Centre and killing thousands of their own citizens.

    Faith-based reasoning: Claim to know what the Neo-cons wanted without offering supporting evidence.

    "If the whole purpose of 9/11 was to attack sovereign Iraq, why didn't the conspirators lay a trail back to Saddam. Why did they wait nearly 2 years to take action?"

    Straw man: Who in the 9/11 Truth Movement is making such a claim?

    "Sorry guys...you have simply demonstrated the overwhelming need for the BBC rather than the clamour of partisan newsgroups that populate the internet. If the slow death of truth is taking place, then it is happening in cyberspace, not on Capitol Hill."

    Personal opinion: No attempt to supply evidence to justify it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 6:13pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    50 Hank Reardon

    No I'm not a physicist, but I'm surprised by the assertions that a 100 tonne aircraft travelling at c.200 mph would not do a lot of damage to a skyscraper. I would refer you back to Newton on that one.

    I still just don't get the motive. If such supreme logisitical and clandestine skill existed to pull off such a plot undetected and to remain undetected. Why wasn't this skill used to knock off Osama, Saddam or whoever, without the expense of wrecking downtown Manhatten. Surely there must be a better motive than the CIA shorting on airline stocks?

    The fact that 30% of Americans believe that the Federal Government had a hand in it? Well it would be interesting to see the question but I am reminded that one in four Americans believe that they or someone they know have been abducted by aliens. That extra 5% on 911 gives all the necessary extra credibility don't you think?

    You are are using the conspiracy theorist's, Emperor's Clothes defence..."if you can't see what's happening then you must be really stupid". Hmmm, I hope that you look better naked than I do! ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 6:21pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    53 Monsterland

    My friend. Thank you for your incisive deconstruction. I'm not in your club so it would have been helpful to know where I was going wrong.

    I don't have time to trawl the historical documentation to find the small inconsistencies or misconstruable statements to back up my wild, unsupported ideas. So I rely instead on good old fashioned common sense.

    I will have to go now. I have a very long list of subversive movements to destabilise in any one day and this one is loopier than most. The evil genius in the Oval Office pays me well to suppress the truth!

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 6:23pm on 30 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    You do yourself a massive diservice anglophobe, your another one who seems to think they should argue against alternative theories when having no understanding of even the basic facts.

    Not only do you admit you have no understanding of physics but you dont even seem to know what speeds the planes were going according to the official story.

    best you watch your paint dry and let educated rational people discuss this one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 6:33pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    56 Hank...if you're so very very educated and up on the facts, it's noticeable that you couldn't even pay enough attention to get my name right. Doesn't sound like stickler for the facts to me.

    Your claim to education is not borne out by your spelling either...but that's a common bloggers cheap shot, so I apologise.

    You say tomato, I say tomatoe
    You say rational, I say self convinced

    What speed were the planes going in the official story? I only saw the film faked by the CIA so I wouldn't know.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 6:33pm on 30 Jun 2008, monsterland wrote:

    55 - Anglophone

    Touche.

    Sarcasm seem to be the last refuge of the cornered intellect.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 6:48pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    58 Monsterland

    You can't be meaning me then.

    No offence meant guys. I just can't resist wading in to these things where everyone is heartilly agreeing with on another. You are all clearly much, much cleverer than me!

    I promise to watch the programme and see what they say. Must go and feed the kids now...earthly stuff!

    Pip pip!

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 7:29pm on 30 Jun 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    its all a bit of a joke eh, angolphool.

    i never understand you guys who think mass murder is funny.

    but then again at leest you can spell

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 8:01pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    60 Hank

    Given your nom de plum it is very unwise to start a spat on who can think up the funniest play on words for each other's name.

    That being said, the word that springs to mind does neatly encapsulate my views on conspiracy theorists...but that is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    I don't find mass murder remotely funny. It's even less funny than mass-hysteria. I don't like cover-ups either and I remain deeply sceptical on many aspects of the execution of the so-called "War on Terror". I keep coming back to the question though..."what on earth would the motive of the alternative 9/11 actually be?". To simply rule this question out of the discussion is no different from the causes of the Iraq war being ruled out of the Hutton Inquiry.

    To Hell with physics. I know enough about quantum theory to know that large parts of the "laws of physics" have been in a big mess for some time. To reduce 9/11 to a debate about the physics of a collapsing building is equally dehumanising as trying to trivialise the event. The truth, whatever it is, must be sought in the "why", not the "how"

    It makes you hanker for Princess Di (geddit?)

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 9:42pm on 30 Jun 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    Anglophile the WHY is simple it was a false flag to generate sympathy for a pre-planned attack on Afghanistan , Iraq and almost certainly Iran . Neither the Iraq or Afghanistan operations have been successful so the Iran crime will have to be postponed as a complete invasion but a partial attack is likely.

    The 9/11 operation was as we all know a complete mess, nothing went right because only a few knew the whole plan and they hoped they could ad-lib as they went along.

    The 757 flying over the Pentagon provided the eyewitness accounts of seeing a large aircraft etc. but the idiots forgot to do their homework with the actual building and the damage which would have been done.

    The three towers falling in free fall time which clown thought of that one.

    NORAD being grounded is the most telling of all that the operation was planned by the Bush people.

    And so it goes on, how anybody could believe such a fairy tale is beyond comprehension.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 10:01pm on 30 Jun 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    Anglophile, cell phone calls from a metal aircraft are impossible above a certain height and speed. A cell phone system works on a very local basis, they have a very small output just enough to interagate the nearest tower. Now imagine a person at 30,000 feet with a velocity of 500 mph trying to contact a tower. First of all the receiver checks the authenticity of the caller then starts the process of directing the call to a destination meanwhile our caller is out of range. Of course the weak signal has to pass through metal which is a bit of a problem with electromagnetic waves, they just aint up to it.

    Believe me the events of 11 September 2001 were not carried out by 19 arabs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 10:18pm on 30 Jun 2008, cattymccat wrote:

    Sorry, but this is absolutly mind-boggleing, I really do wonder what type of edivence some people need. Witnesses can say one thing, be confused, be lying, give different accounts or be threatened to change what they say. You can discredit them by their character, their job or their past.

    You cannot do this with the Laws of Physics, they are none negotiable and yet this isnt strong enough edivence for you?

    Please tell me, what would it take? there is so much edivence out there, there really is somthing for everyone, but nothing as concrete as the laws of the universe!

    Anyways to answer your question, motivation is theories, but I feel it is jumping the gun a bit, I mean thats where the real detective work comes in. I could point the finger all day long- and that is where most 'Conspiracy theorists' start dealing in 'Theories' and not 'Facts.'

    Think of it like this: Police are called to a house where there is a dead man, he is at the bottom of some stairs with 2 gunshot wounds to the head, and yet the police believe he died from natural causes, by falling down the stairs.

    Do I have to find someone how has a motivation for murdering this guy before the police will even begin to consider the gunshot wounds?

    If it makes you feel better- whos not to say that Al-Qaeda got into the Twin Towers and WTC7 and planted the bombs?

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 10:19pm on 30 Jun 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    61 Anglophone wrote: "To Hell With Physics".

    You would prefer George Bush's story than to something that can be proven with science? We are dealing with "Laws of Physics" not theories. You really ought to know the difference.

    Ok how about Psychology if Physics isn't your bag.

    Psychology 101: a) I know everyone wants to believe Authority: Nurses will administer lethal doses of drugs if a doctor tells them to. Or randomly chosen students playing guards and prisoners adopt the roles instantly. But guess what George Bush told us the whole 9/11 story on the day it happened. It was Bin Laden! Ok, where is the proof? The FBI doesn't have any!

    Psychology 101: b) Almost everyone complies with their peers. If everyone says "mobile phones can be made from planes" yet the physics says otherwise, then people will still believe you can make mobile phones from planes. This peer pressure thing has been tested again and again. For example, students sitting an exam and smokes appears under a door and nobody moves. In fact there was only one test subject in the exam - less than 10% of test subjects actually buck the peer pressure and leave the room. So, if you have a mainstream media (such as the BBC) who re-inforces the official story, then MOST people will continue to believe that story despite the evidence of their own eyes of impossible collapses and Impossible crashes. If the impossible has happen, wouldn't you want Overwhelming proof of that?

    So where do you get your certainty from? You have the politicans story and the media and er... the 9/11 Commission Report (based on torture and "set up to fail" according to its own authors).

    The NIST still can't explain the twin towers collapse and we have waited 7 years for the WTC7 report!!! They are finding it hard to explain mainly because the most obvious explanation, the use of explosives (secondary devices were reported on the day by fireman and others on the day) were specifically ruled out of the investigation!

    Aren't you interested in what the relatives of the victims have to say? (Most want a new independent investigation of 9/11) . Don't you think this is an important subject to have some investigation, some science, some physics, some truth?



    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 10:42pm on 30 Jun 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:

    Anglophone

    You are the thread shill, aren't you? You argue disingenuously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 11:53pm on 30 Jun 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    66 Zeuszeus

    You've got me there...what's a thread shill? Should I be insulted?

    Pistonbroke2

    I still don't get it. Why fabricate a pretext to invade Afghanistan...a turbulent wasteland without known oil reserves? As a potential route to export pipeline gas from Turkmenistan?...it's been talked about but has never been seriously considered. Then wait 18 months trying to find a case via WMD or a risable link to Al Queada to invade Iraq. Why not simply accuse Saddam straight away? Why divide your force in a pointless unwarranted attack on Afghanistan that has seen off a few armies in its time?

    There are numerous examples of manufactured pretexts for going to war as people point out, but they are usually border incidents, vessels fired upon, etc. To manufacture a vast, slowburn conspiracy, pointing the finger at the wrong country, involving thousands of deaths among your own people, with thousands of witnesses and collaborators to be hushed up, with the most dreadful consequences if discovered. And then to pull off this triumph of logistics and clandestine operations....it's a very long way from the Iran Hostage debacle indeed. All together, the holes in the motives mean that this just doesn't stack up for me.

    I am a scientist by training and not a total dunce at physics. There are clearly some odd things happening here that warrant more investigation, but the idea that the laws of physics don't get challenged is touching. Unaccountable phenomena occur frequently, based mainly upon our increasing ability to observe and record these things happening i.e. they have always existed, we just hadn't noticed them before.

    Mobile phones? I've heard them go off in planes (to everyone's astonishment). I don't know that the plane was flying at 30,000 ft and how do you account for all the people who received the calls? Are they in on the conspiracy as well. Or don't they exist at all?

    I'm new to this conspiracy malarkey and it does sound as if a second inquiry should be initiated. We shall have to wait for Barack Obama though...unless he's in on it as well!

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 00:44am on 01 Jul 2008, cattymccat wrote:

    Congratulations- we have a compassionate member of the human race after all.

    Any resonable person who takes the time too look at the edivence (which you really should do- and dont just rely on this BBC program as my expectations are not high) will agree that a second inquiry is needed- or should that just be an inquiry as the first attempt could not really be called that.

    Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theoriest, they think everything is a conspiracy and if you disagree you must be in on it or being paid to disagree.

    Obviuosly there will always be those people out there, but the majority of people who believe 9/11 was highly suspect are just ordinary reasonable people, despite the people who the mainstream media always use from our movement to portray their sterotype.

    At least this time they have Steven Jones and Richard Gage- in my opinion they are a more accurate representation of the 911 truth movement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 07:35am on 01 Jul 2008, Lee Roy Sanders, Jr. wrote:

    Controversy and conspiracies, how else do Country's Government work?

    Crimes bred into you, generation after generation. The very world that your head is filled with isn't real at all. There is no thought that hasn't been given you. Just as easily, it is taken from you.

    The government owns the money and the major stocks of business is controlled. Only a police state actually exist. Government violence is paraded in the streets and their savages are demanded to applaud it.

    Gods and falsified science is given the populous so they will not be aware of what humanity can do.

    Lifetimes are so unjust that oblivious rewards for their long suffering are taught the world citizen acquired after they die.

    I fight to think, and what I write, is the truth I see. If you don't like what I write, then you change the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 10:24am on 01 Jul 2008, EconomyJetSetter wrote:

    You are carrying on the fine tradition of the BBC to do investigative journalism and report the facts. You should be proud.

    I, for one, do believe that the Administration at the very least knew of an impending attack and did everything within its power to let it happen. There is just too much verifiable evidence of that. Many wars have been started by these "false flags" including Hitler's staged attack on a Germany radio station by fake "Polish" troops.

    It is all about the oil - suppliers have greatly exaggerated how much oil is left and now countries around the world are doing anything/everything possible to secure every last drop of oil for their country.

    Keep up the great work and whether the towers where tampered with or not is useful information. We need to know that too. Thank you Mr. Rudin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 12:27pm on 01 Jul 2008, Pat_N_Interrupt wrote:

    Hi Mike, I am glad the BBC is on the case of 'Conspiracy'. However, can I make a point that an interesting documentary to make might be called "The 'Conspiracy Theory' Conspiracy Files" - along the lines of what makes people more or less prone to accept or argue against the whole idea of Conspiracy Theories.

    Almost by definition, these are theories where the evidence on either side is scant or ambiguous, and where people tend to have strongly held opinions in relation to the subject matter. Hence people tend to be agitated and argue what essentially boils down to their point of view - basically arguing whether a glass is half-full or half-empty. The kind of argument that would lead both parties to feel like they are right and are banging their head against a wall!

    The term 'Conspiracy Theory' is a great example of what you might call an argumentum ad hominem - argument against the man - i.e. many anti-conspiracy people label someone as a Conspiracy Theorist to imply that they believe that lizards rule the planet, hence any view they hold, however sensible (such as that maybe governments do, on occasion, lie to us?) must be nonsense. A very lazy, disingenuous and inadequate form of argument.

    Why is it that some people have a strongly held belief that the world is how it looks on the surface, whilst others tend to have a need to dig deeper?

    Solving that dilemma may go someway to 'solving' some Conspiracy Theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 12:43pm on 01 Jul 2008, dotconnect wrote:

    Anglophone, I think for the most part you're making valid and good points above.

    Personally I'm not (yet) ready to believe most of the 9/11 alternative theories involving controlled demolition, missiles, etc - not because I'm not psychologically prepared for it, but rather I've yet to be convinced by the evidence (and I realise how inflamatory that sentence will be to many here!) Essentially, I currently feel that it's quite feasible that the hijackers themselves executed it more-or-less as we've been told.

    I do however think it not an entirely far-out suggestion that those hijackers may have been in the pay of some element of the US that wanted this to happen. (Note: "some element of" - that's not even saying Bush or Congress knew about it - I've always presumed there's a higher-up layer of people with rather more intelligence and responsibility running things - maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part!)

    Essentially, the idea that 9/11 may have been planned and funded (but not executed) by an element either within the US, or with the US's future interests at heart. I don't yet fully believe this, but neither do I think it as far-fetched as others might.

    As tragic and awful as 3,000 lost lives are, is it really that inconceivable that a greater good may have been deemed to warrant it? After all, we have no problem believing that 100,000's of lost Iraqi lives were deemed by the US to be worth "a greater good". In terms of sacrifice, the only difference is surely nationality, which is something of a meaningless construct when it comes to human life?

    My point here is that simply funding a bunch of guys hell-bent on carrying out the job a conspirator with vast resources already wants them to do would surely have been a more simple proposition, and one much less likely to be revealed?

    (In that sense, many of the common 9/11 conspiracy theories could quite feasibly have been seeded and circulated as disinformation in order to discredit anyone who might be sniffing around elements of this much simpler conspiracy. )

    The motive is the obvious next question. How about to usher in a new era in which the occupants of the all-important Middle East - Muslims - were to become the new boogeymen, the enemy, the pretext for "regime change and liberation". So it wasn't so much an excuse to get into Afghanistan or Iraq per se - but more generally, the beginning of a long long campaign involving the whole region - Iran, Syria, Pakistan?

    In an era characterised by the rise of China as a superpower, the increasing scarcity of natural resources (and everything that hangs on that, which is to say, a devastating amount), the economy so delicately balanced on petro-dollars and yes, even the prevalence of hostile regimes that believe the values of the West are utterly deserving of contempt - I can see how there might have been enormous benefit to painting Muslims as the new 21st century enemy, in order to "re-make" that part of the world in an image favourable to ourselves. Of course it all becomes a lot easier when most of us stop seeing Muslims as one of us and start seeing them as "them".

    Bush and Blair have in the past remarked that their problem isn't with Islam but rather the warped strain of Islamism. In practice, many of us know that's not how people typically react, as we can gauge merely from reading the BBC's Have Your Say boards or listening to any phone-in show. Anyone who allegedly planned this would have been fully aware of our tribal tendency, the polarising of debates, the retreat to extremes, be it a more conservative strain of Islam or a more vehement anti-Muslim sentiment. Just look at the way people now dismiss "Muslims" in broad generalised ways, as if they're one single lump, all harbouing terrorists and all ready to be offended by x, y and z. If this schism was their intention, it's certainly working.

    Well it's just a theory anyway. I'm guessing a starting point would be to follow the money, look at the funding and transactions, really investigate al-Qaeda.

    Even the NORAD/FIA stand-downs could have some relevance here.

    The problem of course is that, in the absence of uncovering something blatantly damning, it eventually boils down to us just accepting the word of the secret services, that they operate within the law and never do such things.

    So perhaps that should be the starting point - an investigation into the history of false flag ops and pretexts. Clearing up once and for all whether Northwoods was all it's been baked up to be, looking at what really started Vietnam and how that compares with what people were told at the time. Not a biased testing of theories, but an investigation.

    Getting more clarification of these things is probably a valuable first step, whatever the reality of 9/11.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 12:51pm on 01 Jul 2008, efectnevi wrote:

    Hello Mike
    I have a new concept that I posted to some govts - My concept guarantees renewed power, on a daily basis..and in its expanded form, will markedly reduce gas dependance.
    I heard I can be 'dead' for conceptualising anything that threatens gas companies revenues...and I have heard of real life instances where people have disappeared.
    My concept , by implementation is effectively more generative than wind power etc..and only limited by the installations, which can really be done much more easily,and in more places than wind,solar, or hydro..and can even reduce the need for biofuels.

    Can you help me contact someone thats actually SERIOUS about new power? Even if my concept costs the world $1 billion..thats really a dot compared to what it can generate overall.

    Im hoping to contact Germany ( because they're engineering specialists..and serious) ..or UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 1:43pm on 01 Jul 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    72 Dotconnect

    I think that we are fairly similar ground so I must be careful to avoid "passionate agreement". My basic premise remains, given the amazing sophistication of the "alternative plot", people with this level of intelligence and skill could get what they want without demolishing Lower Manhatten. I'm with you on the simpler explanation that, if elements in the US wanted to spark a massive change in foreign and defence policy, then it is possible that they could have "put-up" the hijackers in the conventionally understood plot. Possibility does however not automatically equate with plausbility and I struggle with the motive.

    You talk, hopefully a little tongue in cheek about the "extra layer" of intelligent, responsible people, running the world. At this point we have to part company. The sad thing is that Government is basically about as dumb and self-interested as the population at large. Huge governmental organisations make comical errors (it happens in in large corporations as well). If these hyper-bright people existed, they wouldn't need to manipulate oil markets...they could simply charge billions for agreeing to fix the NHS. I fear that this seductive theory of shady hyper-intellects running the show is just a God substitute. Perhaps Richard Dawkins could be persuaded to comment.

    Your causus belli argument is a good one and the desire of governments, in particular the US government, to actively point out enemies over the years is marked. There have been notorious "faked" acts of aggression in the past, but I stick to the point of view that 9/11 dwarfs any other examples in terms of scale and the number of participants required by several orders of magnitude.

    You're right in pointing out the crude xenophobia about muslims that has emerged. Was this a deliberate attempt to create a schism, as you suggest, and a convenient new bogeyman? Possible, but equally, if not more plausible is that extreme Islamists, fearing the erosion of traditional practice and the "Westernisation" of their culture, would attempt to create the selfsame polarisation for their own purpose. Either way, this has been regrettably very successful.

    These arguments always seem to run back to some document, quote or remark that "sparks" the whole thing. I'm sure that politicians, policymakers and thinkers in the US will have postulated the galvanising effect of a Pearl Harbour type incident. You often hear people in this country talking about the need to adopt a Blitz Spirit, but I don't think that anyone is seriously proposing night-bombing as a social engineering tool! Likewise, the fact that writers in the US have talked about such things, doesn't mean that they will have gone on to exceute them.

    Lastly, if these events were the work of such sophisticated "Grand Strategiests", why has the aftermath been such an eye-wateringly expensive, blood-soaked failure?

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 1:54pm on 01 Jul 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    73 Efectnevi

    When you talk about "gas", are you talking about natural gas or gasoline?

    I work for an oil company and I suspect that barring a heroic investigation into the political connections of Gazprom, you are unlikely to wind up dead in a ditch if you have some breakthrough idea.

    I suggest that you first make sure that your patents are secure, then speak to the technical or strategy directors of any of the publically quoted diversified energy companies.

    If your idea is more conceptual, then talk to one of the independent design and research houses in the US or Europe...even seek government sponsorship in the UK or Germany. Both are rabbits in the headlights of energy security and will not be remotely worried about upsetting oil companies if you've genuinely got a non-nuclear option on the drawing board.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 1:58pm on 01 Jul 2008, dotconnect wrote:

    Anglophone, good points. Just to elaborate on a couple - I completely agree with you that possibility does not automatically equate with plausibility.

    And this "extra layer" of intelligent people to which I alluded - it wasn't tongue-in-cheek actually, but neither was it meant to suggest (in case it did) a kind of Illuminati or anything like that. Rather, just people operating within various intelligence services who have considerably more skill and are better qualified to influence the direction of a country than the President. Security services, advisors, people like that. As I said, it may well be wishful/hopeful thinking on my part (and as a firm atheist and great admirer of Dawkins, I try to keep that type of thing in check!) but neither was it intended to sound like anything Bilderbergian!

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 3:29pm on 01 Jul 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Anglophone, xylophone, our monikers are of no consequence.

    Your argument against any 'alternative thoery' seems to be two fold.

    You see no motive, Ok apart from, the insider trading and the building insurance, a money motive, and apart from giving a reason to head into afghanistan and build pipelines and military bases. It could be argued that without 9/11 there would have been no 2nd iraq war, even if the Whitehouse never did manage to find a link between saddam and osama.

    So we have money as a motive, and we are talking billions here. We have securing oil as a motive, again we are talking about billions in revenues. You could even say that 9/11 brought about the john warner act, so the motive could also be internal control in the US.

    So there are clear motives and they are bit more realistic than, 'they hate our freedoms'.

    i know it is wild that in this modern world anyone could be motivated to do wrong for the love of money, i know, what a crazy idea.

    you also seem to have some breaking news on the changed laws of physics. Please advise me to the new rules as i am still living in a world governed by the old set of laws, silly me eh.

    Its good that your here to help us understand the changing nature of our physical universe.

    But best of all you tell us you work in the oil indusrty. So you will know doubt have been aware about the plan to keep raising the price of oil.

    I learned of the present oil crisis about 2 years ago, did you.

    I would recommend you watch lindsay williams lectures (he worked in the oil industry for a good 30 odd years and he has some very interesting things to say about it.

    So anglophone, any conspiracy in oil prices you want to tell us about. Or can you just not see the motive for it.

    Your arguements take the usual tract of anyone defending the official theory, in that you don't defend it at all. What you do is examine and seek clarification of any other theories when you have not applied the same test to the 'Kean Commission'

    tsk, tsk, tsk.

    So you start with the usual mockery then
    Denying the laws of physics then
    try shifting the argument to anything else other than the facts, oil patents, NHS.

    You also call the aftermath of Iraq a failure, which means you are once again believing what you are being told, You often say you are dubious about the war yet you will take their word on the planned outcome, without question.

    I have argued with folks like you many a time and what i have learned is that you waiting to be told by someone else, someone official what happened, For whatever reason you wont familiarise yourself with the facts, (this is clear from many glaring factual errors you argue, plane speeds and mobile phone calls as an example.) instead you just argue blindly picking holes in unoffered theories.

    I don't know what happened of 9/11 but i know the Kean commission is not the story of what happened, it even contradicts itself.

    Why you feel the need to counter us 'truthers' without actually learning up on the subject is beyond me.

    But then again you do seem to see it all as a bit of a joke.

    pip pip and all

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 3:31pm on 01 Jul 2008, monsterland wrote:

    74 Anglophone

    "Lastly, if these events were the work of such sophisticated "Grand Strategiests", why has the aftermath been such an eye-wateringly expensive, blood-soaked failure?"

    Although this statement itself is a glaring non sequiter (just because a stratgey fails does not mean it wasn't meticulously planned) it is worth examining further.

    From whose perspective was the aftermath a 'failure'? Sure, if you happen to be a dead Iraqi civilian or US Serviceperson then the scenario certainly failed you. However the elites of the state/corporate world have a curious way of not viewing success/failure in the same way as brown-skinned people in poor countries, or working class grunts with guns.

    So in terms of 'successes', take your pick from: doubling of military budgets, record profits for defence industry, US military power establishing permanent presence in the Middle East, Iraq unleashing billions of dollars in contracts (oil, infrastructure, security) to US companies. There are others.

    I would recommend Michael Parenti's analysis.

    http://worldviewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-bush-failure-michael-parenti.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 4:30pm on 01 Jul 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    78 Monsterland

    If there is one thing that is obvious it is that whatever happned in the years following 911, it wasn't meticulously planned.

    Perhaps we could add to the "successes". How about, ridiculed adminstration, departure of most trusted presidential aides and advisors, collapse in global standing, collapse in oil production capacity and hike in prices, economic recession, renewed stand-off with resurgent Russia, run on the dollar...the successes for the industrial/political elites just go on and on. It's blindingly obvious that they did it.

    Liked the bit about brown skinned people and white trash...very emotive all of a sudden. It simply doesn't quite match up with all those white-skinned corporate high-fliers and the very heart of the capitalist financial system pulverised in the Twin Towers. You're just resorting to standard left-wing lingua-franca without thinking what you're saying i.e. "let's kill loads of people just like us so that we can go on to bomb foreigners and deplete our brave working classes"

    So far we have arrived at...911 was an incredibly sophisticated plot, with a cast of thousands, designed to boost the profits of a few oil services companies close to the Administration. This plan, to boost energy prices, would be incredibly beneficial to the US economy which is a net energy importer?? The plot was carried out with seamless efficiency but the subsequent attempt to gain control of major oil producers started with the invasion of a country with no oil! Only 2 years later is an attempt made to invade a country, already subject to controls on oil exports, with the apparant purpose of increasing oil production thus lowering the price and boosting the profits of international oil companies errr errrr.

    Thousands are pointlessly killed. Halliburton is disgraced and still not an extra barrel has been pumped from Iraq due to the fact that it is simply too dangerous for IOCs to work there. All oil production remains reliant upon old wells, old equipment and old data. As we write, the Iraqi Oil Ministry has only just got around to putting out Production Sharing Contracts to tender. (For those who don't know...a PSC is a means by which an oil company is licenced to produce but not own oil reserves, which remain in the hands of the host government. The oilco typically recovers its capital costs then earns a percentage of the produced oil as a form of profit, which is subject to tax in the host country).

    Surely, in conspiracy land, the oil would already been in production and being piped away onto tankers chartered by the CIA with the Iraqis not receiving a penny. Clearly another failure in the grand strategy that underpins 911.

    Got to deal with Hank now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 5:14pm on 01 Jul 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    78 Hank_Reardon

    Have you been working on this all day?

    I agree with you...hey!...I doubt that the 2nd Gulf War could have taken place without 9/11, but I contend that US plans for a confrontation with Saddam were a result of 9/11. Not a cause!

    That certain neo-cons were fantasising about a new Pax-Americana and spoiling for a fight is hardly in doubt. 9/11 provided the opportunity that, like all good opportunists, they seized!

    Invading Afhganistan, a ravaged basket-case without oil that would undoubtedly absorb billions in aid? Why do it? I love the way that you latch onto the so-called TAP gas pipeline as the reason. What was the US going to do with this gas? Even if you could get as far as the coast you would still need to construct LNG liquefaction facilities to export gas from one of the most distant points on the globe from US markets (LNG vaporises in transit and there is, unlike oil, a distance beyond which it cannot be economically transported). The US market will be supplied with gas from the closer, much larger, much cheaper and much easier to develop North Field in Qatar.

    Military bases? Why when you have already constructed massive facilities in Qatar that are far handier for dealing with Iran (it suits the Qataris too for the same reason!).

    It's all debit so far and we haven't even spent the money invading Iraq, squandering billions on bodged and corrupt deals yet.

    As I explained in my previous post, the idea that a country can "secure" someone elses oil and simply spirit it away unpaid-for is a little out of date. Colonial relationships might have worked this way to some extent but getting host countries to sell their oil for anything less than top-dollar these days is a big ask. Or is it that the grateful political placemen would be so grateful to the Americans for liberating them that they would hand over the black-stuff without a murmer? Using that logic, France would be the US's closest, ever-grateful ally.

    I'm starting to wonder if I was being a bit too modest about my knowledge of physics in your case. To my knowledge there are many things in physics that defy explanation from the serious question of co-determinancy to the trivial mystery of reverse swing in a cricket ball. The point that I was trying to make is that odd phenomena do crop up often. Some can be coralled back into the "Laws" as you put it. Others cannot be immediately explained. Scientific laws are a framework of thought, not a straitjacket. By your standards, the Sun would still be orbiting the Earth...something that was an immutable law in its own time. I'm not saying that what you assert for the 9/11 "science" is wrong...I'm just always a little suspicious of "unshakeable facts".

    You do seem a little worked up about all this. It could be that I haven't understood the details in the same way as you do..I certainly haven't studied it in the detail that you clearly have. Possibly I have a more informed, wider view of the oil business, international relations and still have the capacity to keep an open mind on difficult questions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 5:36pm on 01 Jul 2008, Kiliwizz wrote:

    Anglophone:

    I might chip in with an alternative story of success or failure, since we're departing from factual stuff and delving into the world of speculation:

    The definition of "success" or "failure" as we see it is not the definition that the people at the top have. We look at things such as the strength of the economy, the popularity of the government, the happiness of the people, and so on. The really difficult thing to do is to look at these from a totally different point of view.

    First, some history. You may or may not be aware of the Bush family history, and the things granddad got up to. They involved funding the Nazis, and plotting to overthrow the US government and replace it with a totalitarian regime. Fortunately, they failed.

    The view of some is that those involved did not give up, but passed the gauntlet on to their descendants.

    So, imagine that your purpose is to bring in a totalitarian regime, but with the consent of the people, or at least the ignorance of the people to what is going on. What might you do?

    You would of course need an enemy against whom you can fight endlessly. That enemy must of course be a believably terrible one, so you'd have to ensure that they are able to shock and awe your population into a state of fear.

    You would need to take advantage of this situation to change the nature of your democratic nation steadily, one step at a time, towards a totalitarian regime. You'd put the building blocks into place. However, you can't make that final step without another major emergency.

    The US administration have been doing just this. PD-51, for example, sets out the declaration of martial law and suspension of the consitution in the event of a major emergency. The administration has been holding a successing of briefing events for community leaders, instructing them on how to enforce martial law. The immigration authorities have been putting into place the infrastructure for "Operation Endgame", whereby millions can be transported and detained in huge camps, and which according to their own (published) plan is due to be enacted later this year. The implosion of the economy that is under way helps this along too, because it makes people desperate for change that would help them out of their own personal hole. Various human rights have been steadily eroded, even to the extent of the repealing of haebeus corpus rights. All of these have only been allowed because of 9/11.

    So, if a totalitarian state is your objective, then 9/11 would be the first move, that opens the door to pushing through the changes in the structure of government. Then, another atrocity would be needed to finalise the deal. Maybe one that would be provoked by attacking another country on dodgy grounds, one that already has known widespread terrorist networks.

    Let's all of us hope that this imagined scenario is wrong, eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 5:40pm on 01 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Somebody mass murdered nearly three thousand people and used it as pretext to mass murder hundreds of thousands of people.

    It might not be obvious on first take, but we are actually testing our own humanity with this one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 5:59pm on 01 Jul 2008, monsterland wrote:

    79 - Anglophone

    "If there is one thing that is obvious it is that whatever happned in the years following 911, it wasn't meticulously planned."

    Provably-false statement: You can say "obvious to me" but not "obvious" as this implies everyone thinks as you do - which they clearly don't.

    Personally, I make no claims to knowing whether there was meticulous planning or not. My point in the previous post was trying to showing the illogicality of your assertion that 'failure (as you see it) implies lack of planning'.

    You may take this to mean that I believe that the 'meticulous planning hypothesis' but, again, this does not follow logically. I may agree with your beliefs, just not your reasons. For example, you may say "Apples are green because it's my favourite colour" - I would reply "The fact that your favourtie colour is green does not prove that is why they are green - we could look at the chlorophyll hypothesis". I am NOT however, argueing that "the apple is not green" - and you continuing the discussion under the illusion that this was my belief would be your mistake, not mine.

    "Perhaps we could add to the "successes".

    "ridiculed adminstration" - Why would they care?

    "departure of most trusted presidential aides and advisors" - Why would they care?

    "collapse in global standing"- Why would they care?

    "collapse in oil production capacity and hike in prices" - Collapse is good for increasing prices. Price increase is good for US oil companies.

    "economic recession" - Why would they care?

    "renewed stand-off with resurgent Russia, run on the dollar" - Good for Military-Industrial complex.

    "...the successes for the industrial/political elites just go on and on. It's blindingly obvious that they did it."

    Presumably sarcastic statement.

    "Liked the bit about brown skinned people and white trash...very emotive all of a sudden."

    Point taken. Was merely trying to point out that 'success' is a relative term.

    "It simply doesn't quite match up with all those white-skinned corporate high-fliers and the very heart of the capitalist financial system pulverised in the Twin Towers."

    True. My point wasn't meanging to suggest that the state corportate elites 'care' about the white -collar workers either. But I can see how this conclusion could have been drawn.

    "You're just resorting to standard left-wing lingua-franca without thinking what you're saying i.e. "let's kill loads of people just like us so that we can go on to bomb foreigners and deplete our brave working classes""

    Straw man: I never said this. IF the Bush-Cheney administration did kill the people in the WTC they would not have been killing people "like them" they would have been killing workers.

    "So far we have arrived at...911 was an incredibly sophisticated plot, with a cast of thousands, designed to boost the profits of a few oil services companies close to the Administration. This plan, to boost energy prices, would be incredibly beneficial to the US economy which is a net energy importer??" The plot was carried out with seamless efficiency but the subsequent attempt to gain control of major oil producers started with the invasion of a country with no oil! Only 2 years later is an attempt made to invade a country, already subject to controls on oil exports, with the apparant purpose of increasing oil production thus lowering the price and boosting the profits of international oil companies errr errr"

    The problem, as I see it, is your refusal to extend your analysis beyond "state actors" to a more detailed (realistic?) view of how the world actually seems to operate. For example, you mention the "US economy" as if it were one thing. Its perfectly possible for some sectors of the US economy to benefit (i.e. elites) while others do not (i.e. joe sixpack).

    "The plot was carried out with seamless efficiency but the subsequent attempt to gain control of major oil producers started with the invasion of a country with no oil!"

    Sometimes, in order to control oil (or other natural resource) one must control areas that a) may threaten those supplies or b) may have to be used to transport (i.e. pipes, etc) oil through. An attack on Afghanistan is consistent with these aims. (n.b. I am not saying this PROVES anything, just pointing out that your statement doesn't DISPROVE anything).

    "Only 2 years later is an attempt made to invade a country, already subject to controls on oil exports, with the apparant purpose of increasing oil production thus lowering the price and boosting the profits of international oil companies errr err".

    Why would oil companies want to lower prices when the emergence of more consumers (India, China,etc) mean that it is a seller's marke?. I don't know anyone arguing that that US invaded Iraq to 'lower the price of oil', but rather to control the oil there and have a stronger presence to nearby oil-producing areas - notably Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    "Surely, in conspiracy land, the oil would already been in production and being piped away onto tankers chartered by the CIA with the Iraqis not receiving a penny."

    Your "conspiracy land" implies a homogeny in 911 truth movement which you surely know does not exist, it's also a pejorative term.

    No one in the 911 truth movement (from what I am aware) offered the prediction that "the oil would already been in production and being piped away onto tankers chartered by the CIA with the Iraqis not receiving a penny" so we must take this as another Straw Man.

    "Got to deal with Hank now."

    On a more personal note, I am replying to your posts because I think they deal with important issues that need addressing. However, I do not think that the sarcastic tone of some of your comments is either necessary or productive.

    "Got to deal with" is rather an arrogant comment and I don't think compatable with a respectful debate.

    I claim no innocene in this respect and apologise if I have said anything that has offended you. However, if we are to continue debating these points can we at least do so in a way that sticks to the issues as expressed and not a caricature of them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 6:02pm on 01 Jul 2008, cattymccat wrote:

    Sorry to quote myself but I feel this is revelent and you guys obviously missed it whilst arguing-

    "Think of it like this: Police are called to a house where there is a dead man, he is at the bottom of some stairs with 2 gunshot wounds to the head, and yet the police believe he died from natural causes, by falling down the stairs.

    Do I have to find someone how has a motivation for murdering this guy before the police will even begin to consider the gunshot wounds?

    If it makes you feel better- whos not to say that Al-Qaeda got into the Twin Towers and WTC7 and planted the bombs?"

    At this stage motives are not important, all the 911 truth movement wants is a new investigation. When the investigation takes place then people can start being interviewed, questioned and interrogated.

    But until then your jumping the gun and filling in the blanks yourself to try and make the equation work.

    Just look at the facts people, not the circumstances (yet). Then we might stand a chance of not being called 'Conspiracy Theorists' can you call someone a 'Conspiracy Factualist?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 6:04pm on 01 Jul 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:



    You could choose one of a number of reasons for the Iraq war, I personally go for saddams threat to turn petro-dollars into petro-euros, but 9/11 was certainly used to sell the war to the people. As for not pumping the oil, anything that keeps the price high is good for those who cream the oil money. As long as they control it they don't need to pump it, control is the key

    You also seem to be underneath the assumption that it is America that behind all this, The bush boys, big oil and big business are the ones who invaded Iraq, They used the American Military to do it, and the us media to sell it, they even rigged an election to make sure it would happen.

    The concept of Nations has gone did you not notice, we live in under the New World Order, its why we have private armies in Iraq, again your waiting for someone on the telly to tell you.

    So yes, Countries don't secure peoples oil etc etc, but big business does, the haliburtons of this world will happily use the CFR's the PNAC's and CIA's of this world to help them do their dirty work and its not hard either, because the same guys who sit on the boards of the corporations are the same guys who decide foreign policy. They don't control the entire US military, hence why they have to steal Nukes from themselves

    So, If you think America is behind the war you are more naive than i could imagine, but then again you also seem to think that the law of falling objects and paths of least resistance is defied three times in one day it something to do with cricket bats.

    And yes, you will be much more informed in the oil business, because i have no doubt you spent many years studying it and then working in the oil industry. I spent my years at Uni studying Politics and international relations, I did very well, I then worked in broadcast media for many years, so we both have areas where we know what we know, well done to us.

    The reason I get worked up, is because because people are being killed on a massive lie, and many folks refute attempts question this lie, without checking it out for themselves.

    The only analogy I can think of is telling your neighbour his house is on fire and him calling you liar, telling you that he can see no motive for anyone to start a fire, without even turning his head to check his house aint in flames.

    I apologise for getting worked, but mass murder does that to me.

    What you should do is take your open mind, which is a good place to start, fill it with all the information you can about 9/11, from all sources you can find and look at it all and then make a rational decision of your own.

    Do this first then join the argument


    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 7:25pm on 01 Jul 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    My criteria for believing the official story:

    - Graphical and mathematical models of the WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 collapsing created by an independent team of structural engineers
    - Explanation of the dust and molten steel
    - Open and independent air crash investigations
    - Open and independent judicial inquiry on the alleged hijackers
    - Open and independent inquiry into pre-knowledge of the attacks including stock options
    - Open and independent inquiry into who produced the "fake" evidence such as the fake Bin Laden videos, "magic" passports that survived the plane crashes and evidence left in the boot of the car.

    What would make you believe the official story?



    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 8:31pm on 01 Jul 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    83 Monsterworld

    Monstermatey...sorry if I sound a bit sarkie but I do have to lay it on a bit as you are actually impervious to a bit of good old irony. You leave me no choice because when pressed on questions of the wider picture you simply fold up into semantics and start doing the pedantic "strawman" thing.

    You are labouring under the misapprehension that the Western "independent" oil majors have a big influence on global oil trends. Look up the reserves figures...it's not exactly a position of strength when compared to the State-Owned big boys.

    I've learned my lesson. This what someone else called the fruitloop and I'm starting to understand how it works. I don't think that it's my sort of thing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 8:58pm on 01 Jul 2008, thomas_paine wrote:

    Do not expect any answers.
    We still do not know why Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 and JFK assassinated in 1963.
    All theories are conspiracy theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 9:03pm on 01 Jul 2008, Anglophone wrote:

    85 Hank

    Saddam exchanging dollars for Euros? It would make sense in 2008 but not in 2003...look at the exchange rates.

    If the Bush dynasty is behind this, why didn't they finish the job in 1991? Probably because GB Senior had much better advice on not getting embroiled.

    Enriching "elites" whoever they are? It occurs to me that for every Bush Boy, Oilco executive and all the other supposedly guilty men, there are hundreds of senior people from other parts of the economy. An economy deliberately stifled by the greed of just one sector would be in revolt pretty quickly. If the oil interests sabotaged the wider economy purely for their own gain, then elite manufacturers and financiers would be crashing planes into Exxons headquarters.

    Tyrannical New World Order...I'd be more worried about the behaviour of British politicians. "Tyranny is always delivered in the form of public safety" and we've a lot of that going on in our own country. If there was a period for delivering police state powers on a terrified and grateful populace, then surely it was the Cold War? I think that the Red Army was a bit more frightening than a few guys with hairdye bombs. Why now in particular?

    Killing hundreds of thousands of people...it makes me angry too (you don't have a patent on outrage). But looking around I see that the bulk of victims are poor muslims, mostly killed by other muslims...and where do want to start the counting from? Do you want to include Saddam's victims, his own people and the poor Iranian kids poisoned by chemicals supplied by German companies? Should we take the count back the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and all the subsequent death and dislocation?

    You feel that you have the franchise on the truth and the sole user licence for moral outrage. We can all feel this. We don't all necesarilly follow your line.

    Please don't reply. I've decided to rejoin my life.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 9:11pm on 01 Jul 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    good luck with that

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 9:28pm on 01 Jul 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:

    Kiliwizz

    Your post #81 is very good indeed.

    I would add this: I am worried that Bush et al., with all the machinary for totalitarian government (unbelievably) already in place, will create a situation (through attacking Iran, and/or allowing or carrying out a second 9/11-type event on US soil) which will enable them to declare martial law and cancel the coming elections in the good old US of A, with its formerly much vaunted WRITTEN (ostensibly water-tight) constitution.

    All those who are so confident that 9/11 was not a false flag operation - are you so confident about 9/11 that you don't worry a little about this nightmare future scenario? - don't you think that Bush et al. might fear for their necks and be tempted to make a grab for power? - after all, why else would they have bothered to decimate the American Constitution? Are you sure that the last two elections were not rigged? Are you sure that Bush et al. intend to go quietly? I am not. Perhaps someone can reassure me?!

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 9:33pm on 01 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    We have treason (deception and propaganda included).

    We have mass murder.

    We have lengthy war of aggression (fear and terror included).

    We have war profiteering.

    We have theft (loophole if you wish).

    How do you folks perceive it? Do you call it ''Pax Americana''?

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 9:47pm on 01 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    zeuszeus:

    That's kind of the reason why the US has guns.

    The UK doesn't - which possibly accounts for why the UK is already a virtual totalitarian state.

    Funny how that works out, innit?

    Far be it for me to even think of suggesting that the UK has managed to sleepwalk into a belated "1982" and is quite merrily falling for the aeon-old bread and circuses of government pacification of the masses, of course.

    It might not be much reassurance to you, given the way the media tends to report certain issues regarding the US, but I'm pretty sure than any de facto coup such as the one you describe wouldn't get very far very fast.

    Oh, and Hank? Go read up on the Committee For The Present Danger, then compare membership rolls with "names" in the past 7 years :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 9:59pm on 01 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Umm, governments can't commit treason, since treason is gross acts of disloyalty against a government.

    Mass murder ... that's one way of judging the deaths in a war - murder however requires it be "unlawful", and since no court has said the war is unlawful, it can't be murder - unless you're talking about the deaths in terrorist acts, which are murder yep.

    War of aggression ... this is such a redundant title. War is aggression, unless you happen to have an example of a war of fluffiness handy.

    War profiteering is the improper sale of goods and materials to parties at war ... unless the US is supplying Al Qaeda, it doesn't really apply.

    Theft ... What exactly is being stolen, other than a bunch of opportunistic Iraqi politicians siphoning off reconstruction funds to pay for their second homes in Cornwall?

    I think the phrase for all of this is "Business as usual since the moment the first proto-hominid picked up a rock to bash his mate over the head with so he could swipe the guy's girl".

    Anything else is simply stage dressing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 10:32pm on 01 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Albright, its high treason then? treason against country and its people it is.

    States sponsored terrorism is not acceptable, mass murder for self gain is not acceptable.

    If you're so unsure go and seek Downing Street memo for dummies.

    Theft, as if why is gasoline so overpriced, and theft as who stole my electric car? theft as theft of privacy? theft of sustainable and decent future? we could go on?

    What you call ''business as usual'' I'll designate as atavism? on long run, if one is not capable of taking care of his own offspring, he is really an evolutionary failure.

    Lay down the arms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 00:33am on 02 Jul 2008, warriorEugene wrote:

    The programme was a whitewash, however, it was so poorly done I believe many viewers will go online to investigate the facts. In doing so they will discover the BBC avoided asking dozens of questions which can not be answered by people working for the US government. No pilots were interviewed to say that the manoeveurs of those planes were impossible (they have their own website: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/) No mention of thermite. No mention of insider dealing on 9/10. No mention of the Israeli company which DID tell its staff not to go to work. No interviews with world politicians (e.g. Michael Meacher). In fact I won't bother listing these, they are all mentioned in the amazing documentary, 9/11 coincidences:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw

    I will say this for the deviousness of the Beeb: very clever having a spotty boy as the main protagonist in the documentary.


    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 00:37am on 02 Jul 2008, ajlennon wrote:


    Having just watched your programme I was interested in the research you have done although I did feel your presentation was one-sided in your choice of interviewees.

    I believe you should have highlighted the fact that the officially sanctioned explanation is one of 'conspiracy', but by Al Qaeda rather than elements within the U.S. government.

    Therefore to use the term 'conspiracy theorists', with associated negative connotations, on the basis that they believe in a conspiracy from a different source seems a little rich.

    Secondly I would like to ask why you did not address the much discussed reporting of the collapse of WTC7, by the BBC, before it in fact did collapse, and subsequent reported loss of the tapes by the BBC.

    Lastly why was there not more discussion of the remit of the investigatory bodies employed by the government and their findings so far.

    Many thanks,

    Alex

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 00:37am on 02 Jul 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    Hi Mike,

    July 1st - just seen your Conspiracy Files program and there was some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (not including all the evidence) and then finding a person to stand up and dismiss the theory (with the missing evidence). Don't you think there are enough mysteries there to justify a conclusion: all this needs a new transparent investigation. You included one of the "magic" passports as evidence that the official story Must Be Right (rather than er... it must be planted!), Also you ended up that these theories distress all the relatives of the victims, when in fact, at least some relatives are calling for a new investigation. See the Jersey Girls' "9/11 Press for Truth" movie.

    I also do not cling to conspiracy theories - my acceptance of the official story is given in post 86 - but I do worry about the consequences if the official story is wrong...

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 00:45am on 02 Jul 2008, ChattrinClasses wrote:

    Naive : having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous. I see.. attack by fanatics.. world trade towers destroyed.. thousands of americans dead.. something missing - could there have been a conspiracy? BBC, what has become of you? How far has a once mighty broadcaster fallen. A very low shot - do you not feel a little embaressed to host such unbelievably naive drivel? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 01:12am on 02 Jul 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Moonwolfe,

    I like the way you brush everything off as 'business as usual'. I am guessing it is easy to have this view when your the one wearing the jackboot, Your opinion might change when you realise the american 'business' has gone bust.

    Then again i get the feeling even when you watch veterans of the war being left without care you will find all this business as usual, and the first responders who are dying slowly poisoned by asbestos receiving no help, business as usual again.

    And the war is illegal in the US because the constitution says only congress is allowed to declare war, and congress didn't declare war. I think it is the main reason why Kuccinich has put forward 35 articles of impeachment.

    Treason is committed against the sovereign, which in the US, being a republic, would mean the individual states can sue for treason.

    Mass murder should be quite apparent, thats when you bomb lots people from great heights for made up reasons, and kill them in great numbers. Both the US and the UK excel at this.


    A war of aggression I would imagine when you ignore all the lessons from nuremberg and the fundamental ideals of the UN Charter and just make up a reason to attack a sovereign nation.

    Theft, well apart from having had their country divided up and the infrastructure handed over to contractors I guess nothing has been stolen.

    And you may have your guns now but even that right i being slowly taken away from you. Unless you join blackwater of course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 02:33am on 02 Jul 2008, tonybafc wrote:

    Post : "...flying around for two hours undetected"
    Fact: the first hijacking began at 08:14 and ended at 8:46am...
    the second hijacked between 08:42 and 08:46 and ended at 09:02am...

    Post:"people using mobile phones at 30000 feet,its a lie"
    Fact: people made calls on board using the air-ground phone system until,in the case of 2nd plane,which was diving at 5,000ft per minute until the last minute when it descended at 10000ft per minute,people made calls on cell phones until impact.

    Posts about bombs in the twin towers.
    "....travelling at approximately 545 mph and impacting between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel"

    think that might do some damage.

    Btw...
    i was getting ready to go out the door to jfk from my place in brooklyn at 9:00. My phone rang at 8:50,my mate. I was sposed to go and give him a hand unloading his truck in battery park that morning but had to blow it out as i was flying to UK. He phoned and said that the plane flew down Broadway so close that he could read the numbers on the fuselage.I went up on my roof and saw the whole thing. I even said to my missus "that buildings gonna collapse".

    I could tell you a whole load of stuff about the difference in the reporting of it and the actual event itself. Unfortunately most of it revolves around the sensationalism of the whole thing in the way it was reported.

    I satyed in NY for 3 more weeks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 03:31am on 02 Jul 2008, tonybafc wrote:

    Re: reporting of the collapse of WTC7, by the BBC, before it in fact did collapse....

    Surely people cant be that daft.Its a video loop behind her.
    So the people that run the world had a briefing with all the people 'in on it' and told them all what was going on.Then the middle class,middle england woman reporter who no-ones even heard of let the cat out of the bag 23 minutes early!
    She then blurted out "Oh i forgot" in a voice like Olive from 'On The Buses' live on air just as they lost the link.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 07:09am on 02 Jul 2008, Giggidy wrote:

    Mr. Rudin,

    Last night's program states as fact that WTC7 was engulfed in "raging flames" for "several hours" which then facilitated its collapse - THIS IS FACTUALLY UNTRUE.

    There were several small fires visible through the unbroken windows of the structurally undamaged building. For this program say otherwise is to be clearly complicit in misrepresenting the TRUTH.

    I can't wait to see how next weeks' program continues to expand this falsehood - i know one thing for sure, it will not include any footage of "raging fires" that "burned for several hours" nor will it show any other actual damage to WTC7 that would account for its collapse.

    According to the shows' online intro, "The Conspiracy Files travels across the United States to investigate, speaking to eye witnesses and tries to separate fact from fiction."

    The shows' attempt to separate FACT from FICTION is, thus far, a dismal and inexplicable failure.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 07:43am on 02 Jul 2008, ynda20 wrote:

    hi tonyafc, 101

    "Post : "...flying around for two hours undetected"
    Fact: the first hijacking began at 08:14 and ended at 8:46am...
    the second hijacked between 08:42 and 08:46 and ended at 09:02am..."

    You are ignoring 2 of the 4 aircraft. Shanksville crash was 10.03 (or 10.06 depending on source)

    "Post:"people using mobile phones at 30000 feet,its a lie"
    Fact: people made calls on board using the air-ground phone system until,in the case of 2nd plane,which was diving at 5,000ft per minute until the last minute when it descended at 10000ft per minute,people made calls on cell phones until impact."

    Not fact: seat back were used. See Barabra Olsen story: type of phone in dispute. They finally settled on mobile, then FBI produced telephone record evidence saying the total connect time was ZERO seconds. Other stories include calls made from the toilet (so can't be seat-back phones).

    I must run, but as for the crash impact on twin towers, there is a great video of independent team developing a crash simulation on the first tower. I recommend. It does show the level and extent of the damage, but most of the fuel is burnt off and while some structural damage is received, it is nothing more than what the building was designed to handle! (Multiple 707s crashes was its design goal). What were all the explosions inside the building? Secondary devices, as reported on the day? You don't know, I don't know: they have never been explained.

    All this proves nothing except that there is some doubt and mysteries which needs a new investigation. Don't you think it is kind of important?

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 10:14am on 02 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Oh, I'm sorry Hank, did you get the idea I was American?

    Bzzzzt. Sorry, you are the weakest link. Good-bye.?

    As far as veterans are concerned, I know they're not thrown out of swimming pools around here because they're scaring the children, or bitched at because they're in the pool for free when some welfare-grubbing wastes of skin have to actually *gasp* pay to swim.

    Neither are servicemen and women ordered to leave their uniforms off when they go off-base.

    Neither are war memorials defaced, and the plaques stolen, presumably to be melted down as scrap so some little chav-like-amoeba can go get drunk for a few nights.

    I'm sorry to disappoint you, Hank, but I don't bite when someone tries to use emotive buttons to get a rise out of people in lieu of your arguments actually having any sense.

    "Jackboots" and bringing up Nuremberg? Please, can't you try a *little* better than to be a living embodiment of Godwin's Law?

    I'm just amazed you haven't managed to slot in "Won't somebody think of the children!!" yet.

    Early days yet, I suppose.

    Congress *did* authorize the US to enforce the UN resolutions against Iraq. The reason people complain *now* is because Congress wanted to have it brought to them *again* before action was taken, which wasn't necessary.

    You need to revisit Merriam Webster or some other dictionary to get the definition of "treason", and actually include the whole definition not just the words you want. Isn't that kind of what you accuse the BBC of being guilty of, selective quoting?

    "Made up reasons" is a bad statement because it only works if your basic premise is true, and it isn't. Your "made up reasons" are "So when did you stop beating your wife" transferred to this arena, and it's just as daft.

    As for theft ... Iraq hasn't been divided up - that's one of the more intelligent solutions to the mess that they *haven't* done yet.

    As for guns, I guess you missed the Supreme Court decision last week, the first one to address the second amendment in 70-odd years, on the topic.

    "Missed", of course, being shorthand for "People totally ignored it because otherwise their own prejudices might be exposed for the frauds they really are and required actual thinking instead of sheeple-like parroting of populist claptrap".

    ynda: Has anyone asked themselves what does it look like when steel inside a building snaps under the weight of thousands of tons of weight on top of them when the overall structural integrity of the building has been compromised by impact across multiple floors and the width of the building?

    I bet you it would produce an explosive release of debris through the windows, and sound like the biggest bomb imaginable going off.

    Especially steel that's been softened by fire. Everyone is fixated on the "melting point" of steel, but no-one (it appears) has bothered to remember steel gets soft at a lower temperature, and given friction and jet fuel and internal fittings and fixtures and furnitures burning at high temperatures (jet fuel is designed to do that) it might just be the steel softened, buckled, and things went downhill from there?

    People have been picking and choosing isolated "facts" that support their own ideas on what "really" happened, anything to the contrary, or contextual, be damned.

    Thermite ... Aluminium and iron oxide. Now how could those two elements be present in a building that just got slammed into by an airliner? Nope, couldn't possibly be found, so it must have been thermite instead.

    Reporters reporting on WTC7 before it went down, with it behind them? Are they looking behind them? Do they even know what building in the complex is WTC7? I know I didn't know that building was called "WTC7". I guess the BBC aided the conspiracy by not having a complete diagream of the complex available to all the reporters who got woken up to the whole event on tap beforehand.

    Oh wait, they knew about it beforehand, of course they'd have such a diagram, they're the BBC.

    Yeah right.

    What I want to know is when there'll be a "9/11 Common Sense" movement. Actually, I'm wondering when there'll be one without "9/11" prepended to begin with.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 11:56am on 02 Jul 2008, ajlennon wrote:

    >Surely people cant be that daft.Its a video loop behind her.

    If you refer to my earlier comment, then I would reiterate that whether or not it can be easily explained away, the question should be addressed, as should the questions to which other posters refer.

    I was not, in fact, referring to a video loop, but to the more pertinent point that the BBC reported the building had fallen before in fact it did fall.

    I have no position on the (U.S. government) conspiracy theory but having an awareness of some small amount of U.S. history from the likes of Noam Chomsky would be interested in at least a little investigation on these topics by those purporting to 'inform' me.

    Alex

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 12:14pm on 02 Jul 2008, seeurchin wrote:

    Mr Rudin

    Re : The Third Tower.

    You have stated.

    "And it does matter that according to the official explanation Tower 7 was the first skyscraper to collapse because of fire."

    As far as I know, no "official" explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 has been offered by the 9/11 commission.

    However this can be cleared up swiftly.
    Can you please simply supply the link to the "official" explanation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 3:18pm on 02 Jul 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    If the BBC had any intention of exposing the 9/11 crime it would have done so long ago. The programme in my view is an attempt to delay the inevitable conclusion that it was an inside job. What I do fear is that if the vote rigging fails in November of this year then another 9/11 will occur in order to justify martial law.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 3:47pm on 02 Jul 2008, adamant1980 wrote:

    One thing (of the many) that bugs me is how quickly the conclusions were drawn after the event.
    Within hours, they had all decided that Osama bin Laden was to blame, despite their being no evidence at all of any involvement. The only evidence of foreknowledge about the attacks on 9/11 was the "5 dancing Israelis" who had setup their cameras to record the crash before they happened (and subsequently danced for joy once the planes crashed), who reportedly had boxcutters, fake passports and plenty of explosives. Mainstream media, including the BBC, have erased all records of these 5 Israelis.
    I'm not saying that Israel was involved in these attacks, but it does illustrate the gagging power of the media to whitewash important events and block the rest of us from accessing all the facts.

    Can we trust the BBC to tell us the truth? Remember what happened the last time they tried?
    Before the Iraq war, there were many who cast serious doubt over the motives for war and the WMD claims. They were all called conspiracy loons, just like the 9/11 doubters are called conspiracy loons. The BBC uncovered the truth about the "dodgy dossier" when a single brave man involved in the whole conspiracy attempted to expose the lies of the government. That man quickly comitted suicide soon after (after another all-too hasty investigation), the BBC were dragged before enquiries and were all but destroyed. They have never recovered from that day and have yet to ask the same hard-hitting questions as they used to. They are all too happy to tow the official government li(n)e.

    I think it is unrealistic to expect a pro-Western news agency to come up with anything to undermine the West's official stance, just like it would be unrealistic to expect a pro-terrorist news agency come up with anything to undermine their stance.
    Propaganda is about brainwashing people into agreeing with your plans.
    The neocons had a plan, one which (by their own admission) required a massive national traumatic piece of propaganda to spur it into action. If it was an inside-job, I doubt the truth will become mainstream in our lifetime. Whether we like it or not, the majority of people only believe what's on mainstream news channels, whether it be facts or outright lies like the WMD.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 4:33pm on 02 Jul 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Moonwolfe,

    The Us constitution states that only congress can declare war, Article 1 section 8.

    The congress has only done this 5 times.

    For Iraq the congress voted on HJ resolution 114, This was to allow military engagement for the following reasons:

    Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire,

    Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons,

    Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

    Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

    Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

    Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

    The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

    To remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

    The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

    We can agree on this can we, Moonwolfe,


    Now as the US is a Republic, This means the individual states are sovereign over the federal Govt. Some only ratify the Union on a yearly basis (I think Texas and Wyoming are two of them)

    The treason that Bush is potentially guilty of treason, is if he knew the reasons he gave for HJ114 were not entirely true, WMD's, Saddam's 911 link, then he is guilty of reason to the Union of the states, as they are the sovereign, not the Federal Govt.

    This is how the US was set up, precisely to avoid this sort of thing, and this is thy there are 35 acts of impeachment currently against Bush and Cheyney.

    The reason i mention Nuremberg is that International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg they declared that a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

    This gave us what we know as the Nuremberg principle, and what ultimately led to the UN Charter which states 'a war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent'

    If you don't respond to pleas to your humanity maybe you will understand legal speak.

    And we have not even touched upon War crimes yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 4:52pm on 02 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Moonwolf wrote;

    "War profiteering is the improper sale of goods and materials to parties at war ... unless the US is supplying Al Qaeda, it doesn't really apply."

    A penny for your thoughts Moonwolf.
    Imagine a situation where the US was supplying Al Qaeda related groups with weapons not for profit, but free of charge.
    How would a lawyer describe this?
    I guess it can't be "profiteering" since the weapons are a gift.
    How would you describe it?
    Wold this be "business as usual"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 5:01pm on 02 Jul 2008, newphase wrote:

    There are many questions unanswered regarding 9/11. I am not a conspiracy nut, but I can see "issues": 1)The sale of airline shares in their thousands days before the attack. 2) The simple fact that 7WTC collapsed at all 3)The collapse of the two main towers... just from aircraft fuel? That is near impossible, surely. 4) The swift removal and shipping of the wrecks of all buildings. However you look at it, there are problems with the official explanations, imho.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 6:07pm on 02 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Hankie,

    The States are only "Sovereign" within those states. Foreign policy, war, money etc are all controlled on the federal level.

    Treason is a federal crime, defined in context as being against the country as a whole, there is no crime of treason against the individual states, that would like saying someone can commit treason against the West Midlands (unfortunately, given the massacre of the Bull Ring).

    I know GCSEs don't actually *teach* people anything any more, but I would kind of hope you hark back to the days when the UK *had* an education system and would understand the difference.

    Also, you're incorrect, there aren't 35 acts of impeachment against Bush (which is a pity all things considered) - they were proposed, and sent to committee. They have about as much chance of ever becoming "acts" as a private member's bill brought to the Commons floor at 4am some friday morning has of ever becoming "law".

    It's called political theater. Kind of like Prime Minister's Questions, without the schoolyard insults and total lack of intelligence). Hence it being a "pity" - they was never serious, never had a chance of getting to the floor, and were for one reason only - publicity.

    It's kind of cute though, you're actually believing a politician had anything other than an ulterior motive for what they do in front of the cameras for once?

    I would however remind you of my comments in a different thread about how conspiracy theorists prefer things that fit their own prejudices.

    You're also trying very hard to link Nuremberg with the UN Charter, and it doesn't work. Nuremberg was a war crimes trial.

    In fact, bringing up the UN Charter shoots your own argument down, because Iraq was plausibly sanctioned under the resolutions concerning Iraq, and therefore doesn't fall under the UN Charter definition of war of aggression to begin with.

    My humanity is perfectly fine, I have to wonder if yours (and that of your friends) comes more from the ivory tower that is the culture of entitlement than any concept of reality, however. The world isn't run according to Muffin The Mule, as much as it would be nice.

    I also notice you didn't comment once on the plausible explanations that debunk some of your favourite conspiracy theories too.

    Molly:

    "Business as usual" doesn't imply a moral judgment in either direction. Such things *are* business as usual, from the US supplying the IRA for decades to the UK supplying Saddam Hussein to the UK and the US supplying the Mujahideen in the 'Stan to BAE/ROF supplying the Saudis to the US supplying Iran to the US now supplying Israel to China supplying Zimbabwe to ...

    The list goes on.

    "Al-Qaeda related groups" is possibly the first time I've seen anyone make that distinction around here, so for what it's worth congratulations for that. It's also kind of a misnomer as well however, because the definition of "related" is too fluid, in context.

    Such groups have been supplied by various sources over the years, before AQ became the popular bugbear to scare little kids and gullible fools with.

    Those groups courted anyone and everyone for their own private little conflicts, and paid lip service to whatever ideology would get them the support they craved.

    So "related" is confusing, because it implies support of AQ and its goals, when that's not necessarily the case.

    The IRA is a great example of this - they trained in Libya and the Bekaa Valley by and alongside members of groups that almost certainly *are* AQ "related", in goals and philosophy.

    This doesn't mean the IRA ever gave a flip about the middle east, Islam (especially since they're catholics), or anything else, but they're an AQ related group all the same.

    This *isn't* a claim to "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", however. More a case of pointing out that the world, and alignments, aren't fixed in stone.

    To bring it back to the present and your question, in theory you could even make the case that supporting and training the "concerned citizens" groups in Iraq qualifies, or even down to taking supplies to villages in the 'Stan, helping them build qualifies.

    Those are AQ related groups, they're getting a horde of stuff for free - and in the case of weapons, they always seem to end up in the hands of people that turn them against us.

    That's the risk, and always qualifies as business as usual.

    But it's not war profiteering (in my personal definition) - just stupidity on a governmental level, too little too late.

    It's too easy to toss out emotive definitions to try to manipulate the debate, which seems to be the most common failure of debate on *these* topics that means any of the *valid* questions people like J7 try to raise will go ignored.

    In some ways, it's hilarious. In the US, anyone questions the government is accused of being unpatriotic. In the UK, anyone believes the government is accused of being fleeced by a conspiracy.

    And yes, the BBC *was* defanged by the government because of Kelly. The BBC "Trust" is an oxymoron, the new "Trust" is so afraid of its own shadow that it seems not a week goes by that the BBC isn't groveling and abasing itself for nitpicking errors.

    The BBC threatened the government, the government tightened the leash and reminded them who was in charge (it likely would much rather have Rupert Murdoch handle propaganda anyways).

    There's a slight problem though - it's the people who accuse the BBC of bias and inaccurate reporting that's driving that. Kind of hard to expect them to do their jobs when the same people turn around and keep trying to kick it while it's down.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 6:39pm on 02 Jul 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    monnwolfe,

    If you cant even accept that the US is a republic what hope is there of anything else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 7:11pm on 02 Jul 2008, Tinfoilhat wrote:

    To hell with the lot of you. I doubt any of those of you that have left a comment on this blog know who you really are anyway. Stuff your 9/11 and your politics and your miserable badly run, so called 'Civilization'. I'd rather be with the animals and they are the ones that have been treated the worst of all. At least they had no choice, they could only be what they are. Mankind is a bloody disgrace. I'll die honestly, like my animal friends.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 7:20pm on 02 Jul 2008, poshCrescentmoon wrote:

    If we look back through history there has always been a clash of good against evil.

    Right now what we see is the Evil Ones - the Unbelievers - controlling our governments and media.

    Civilised people who are raised with good morals and belief in God would never commit such crimes as 9/11, 7/7, invading and destroying generations of fellow human beings, animals, cities, historical monuments and suicidally destroying the World we live in - would we?..... So who are they?...... Definitely not the Muslims because they follow not only the 10 commandments given to Moses but the teachings of Jesus and finally the book given by God to the unlettered Prophet Mohamed (may peace be on them all). In the teachings given to PRACTICING Muslims it is taught that if one really has to fight (to defend their homes/families and land or to crush tyranny) then there are certain rules. "To save the life of one person is like saving the whole of Humanity". "To kill a person is like killing the whole of Humanity" -(qur'an). To injure an animal during a battle or to destroy crops is a sin. To injure and kill the weak, old, young and innocent is forbidden - also mentioned in the qur'an. Even so it is better to settle disputes PEACEFULLY as did Moses, Jesus and all the other prophets before them.

    Unfortunately there are a large number of extremely ignorant and easily manipulated young people who are brainwashed by those devils who infiltrate the various communities of (Muslims, Jews, Christians and so on) to wreak havoc. The result is that they are then used to carry out atrocities like 9/11, 7/7 and others: - These devils gain a certain amount of knowledge about Islam, Christianity, Judaeism and so on and twist this knowledge then go to work on the ignorant youth.

    One more thing we MUST be aware of is that THEY want education in general to be very watered down, especially religious education.

    Funny how a certain Bank pulled their offices out of the World Trade Centre three months before 9th September 2000.

    We need facts but then who controls the media?

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 7:47pm on 02 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    You're acting like a sort of a smoke bomb moon brother? you're acting as if all the questions are answered while they are not.

    In light of controlled demolition all of your rationale turns into nothing but a lunacy.

    9/11 atrocity constitutes the High treason, by the very definition of it.

    That said, I've paddled through discussions such as this one way too many times to be amused by a spark of wit or lengthy diatribe.

    i for one don't care much about conspiracy sites or popular mechanically mythological sites or answers given by Avery or firebrand Jones or alike. Sad to say, I care even less about your meaningless apologia which is based on nothing or nothing but insults.

    People who come out of the dark and state something about fire and debris, or a truck full of manure which cut the Murrah building in half just waste our time.

    We're pressing restart to continue for way too long.

    The fact is, the members of Commission publicly admitted their failure, the report is rejected and it is historically insignificant. People around the world demand international and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks. Government cannot defy the will of the people. Corporations are not constitutes.

    As stated before, it is a matter of perspective, and from my perspective the administrations of UK and US are rogue administrations.

    Instead of serving people these administrations murder people. What's your take?

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 8:06pm on 02 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Hankie,

    It's a *Constitutional* Republic (the UK being a totalitarian democracy).

    I think you need to read up on the Supremacy Clause and State's Rights - you may be getting rather bad information on the structure.

    Article VI, Clause 2:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    As loath as I am to refer people to it, Wikipedia seems to be reasonably accurate on those topics.

    The Supremacy Clause is, I think the reason why people like zeuszeus worry about a coup inside the government, but it's not *likely* given the environment in the US - guns, the separation of powers, the establishment clause for example.

    Those things are also why the idea that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is bordering on inconceivable. The checks and balances within the system may be bending at the moment because of the "war" issue, and the spectre of security, but something like that couldn't be kept hidden, couldn't be suppressed, and wouldn't be condoned by any but the most rabid Baptists and Evangelicals (or the new "we're breaking from the Anglican Church but we're not really a breakaway version, honest, we just want to impose Christian Shar`ia laws on everyone" Anglican church).

    Given the differences between governments and their powers, whilst it's understandable that the UK *could* conceive of its government pulling something off such as 9/11 (or 7/7 for that matter), doing it in the US would be *harder*.

    Not to mention the government always keeps in mind the reason for the second amendment to the constitution - the right of the people to kick the crap out of their government if it *did* try something like that.

    Let's face it, the US is so monolithic that they still have a great big hole in the ground at ground zero, despite building *something* is almost akin to the old Soviet Union Hero projects in importance.

    Personally, I think the US government would be really chuffed to know people around the world think it's actually *that* efficient.

    Cos it ain't.

    The old joke "An elephant is a mouse designed to government specifications" is still pretty accurate :P

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 8:56pm on 02 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Why is Rumsfeld still at large?

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 9:21pm on 02 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Or Rice? How about Rice? Coffer Black described her criminal neglect of clear and present danger.

    Asked to which extent he warned her of imminent attacks, he said:

    'The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.'

    How about Rice?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 9:36pm on 02 Jul 2008, Tinfoilhat wrote:

    Anglophone. No offense buddy but in view of all the other comments and their links to the huge amounts of evidence and in view of the fact that amateur psychological profiles, refusal to debate the issues that have been brought up by afore mentioned commentators plus all the 'mainstream' scientists, engineers and various other highly qualified professionals attestations not to mention the fact that CO2 exists in such minute quantities in the atmosphere that it could not possibly by the current 'known' laws of physics cause the so called 'Global Warming' effect which has now been renamed 'Climate change' and the fact that the boss of British Petroleum(BP) just announced that there is enough oil to sustain all of us for at least the next forty years. Oh yes and the fact that a man named Nicola Tesla developed a means by which energy can be extracted from the electromagnetic ionospere and such which i wont bother going into right now because it would take too long and the fact that other technologiess do exist that can produce vast quantities of energy at almost no cost, either physically, chemically or environmentally because they have been suppressed and many inventors of said technologies cannot get patents for their inventions and the fact that actually the planet can sustain the amounts of food that would be required for at the very least double todays population and the fact that real evironmental problems that really do affect us all are being ignored and the fact that populations would not naturally be climbing so highly were we being governed by intelligent, honest people who know that all of humanity can live together in peace and prosperity if only they were able to look at themselves in the mirror and be able to say;"I am an adult and i am able to see that human progress IS possible" instead of childishly ignoring all that is good and trying to suppress all that would make this world a paradise for all so that those who are without a soul, without intelligence and without a face that they could bare themselves. No, ignore all that. You need to get laid, dude and accept that us beautiful, goodlooking, intelligent, advanced, openminded guys don't hold it against you and are perfectly happy to accept you but only if you quit your purile, backward ways and learn to love yourselves as well as others. Surely it is only the truly stupid amongst us that can only see that conquest, domination and thereof the dominion of others is bound by it's very nature and destined to fail as it is only those that are lacking in the ability to see that total dominance is not possible by virtue of the fact that the zero point field is capable of it 's own awareness, has it's own universal intelligence which is a higher intellelligence and operates upon and within a higher dimension whilst at the same time is capable of traversing sub atomic fields and such. If you do not already know it or more importantly, if you are not capable, consciously or otherwise of grasping this diatribe, it is already known by many others besides yourselves that your system of inefectual tyranny, violence, war and oppression is bound by it's very nature to fail. In short because i have neither the time nor the inclination, the truth shall set you free and it shall and always prevails, no matter what.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 9:40pm on 02 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Eh, media? media, media, media? how many guidelines is BBC breaking on daily basis? Editors, have you heard Lee Hamilton publicly stating that the 9/11 Commission "was setup to fail"? How about that one? Should we go for it? No?

    Question of freedom, yes?

    Must say, controversy and conspiracy is slightly better than trying to create conspiracy movement, or whatever your house tried to pull back then?

    So what do you folks think? Will Mike deliver?

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 9:42pm on 02 Jul 2008, cliff888 wrote:

    mike,

    surely you see that no-one here claims to know the absolute truth about the 9/11 atrocities.

    but practically everyone on this board can see and offer proof that the "official" conspiracy theory doesn't make sense.

    that "official" conspiracy theory has been the starting point for mass murder, human rights violations and obscene profiteering.

    obviously something isn't right and the bells must be ringing in the head of a serious investigative programme producer.

    aren't they?

    come on, mike, you've got a chance to do something of real consequence with your life.

    and all you need to do is do your job properly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 11:50pm on 02 Jul 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    Moonwolfe, Most of what you write is very interesting but little of it relates to the topic being discussed.

    You state that it doesn't matter what the melting point of steel is and you're correct, it's a red herring but what does matter is the time taken for the buildings to fall. If it was due to fire then each floor would collapse on the one below or fall sideways and this would obviously cause a delay but there was no delay therefore the collapse wasn't due to fire.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 02:25am on 03 Jul 2008, Tinfoilhat wrote:

    #118 Moonwolf,
    That's all very fine and dandy bud but how will all that apply when the United States of America finally puts paid to the bill of rights?
    What will the chubby, confident little men in Washington do when the population realises that they've been had? Will they run and try to hide?

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 03:13am on 03 Jul 2008, jess_in_colorado wrote:

    As an American citizen deeply concerned about the investigation of 9-11, I want to thank you so much for even considering to do this report. No corporate American media has been willing to touch this with a ten foot pole- no wonder people have been looking to Alex Jones and Loose Change for answers. Shame on those who dismiss our questions as being wacko- our president has lied to us over and over again. It is necessary to press this administration for the truth as they are not willing to offer it up on their own. Again, thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 03:21am on 03 Jul 2008, Tinfoilhat wrote:

    Ah, yes sir!! Number 119, moriaeencomium.
    Would that be the same Donald Rumsfeld that was involved with the whole Genetically Modified food debacle way back in the seventies sometime? I belie.......sorry debunckers. I know that he had something to do with our beloved, wait for it, er, errrr, ah yes MONSANTO!!!!
    The very same MONSANTO that gave the world AGENT ORANGE which maimed and killed untold numbers of innocent women and children whilst at the same time causing catastrophic environmental destruction? KERRRR-CHING!!!!!!!
    I do believe. Sorry, there i go again, know that a certain Donald Rumsfeld had a major role in getting the highly lethal sweetner, Aspartame approved to sell onto the market. Aspartame has been described by a world leading bio-chemist as, and i quote, ".....a molecular holocaust"
    It wouldn't be that Donald Rumsfeld, would it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 03:58am on 03 Jul 2008, Tinfoilhat wrote:

    #113 Moonwolf. Snoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,schgtgah, snooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor. Er sorry did someboby say something?

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 03:59am on 03 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    pistonbroke (another one with a spelling problem):

    The only explanation I can think of personally that addresses your question is the momentum of the floors above.

    The central core design of the buildings might have had some effect on the vertical fall effect too, but that too would be a guess.

    Anyone with eyes would see that the buildings both imploded - and we've all seen the TV coverage of controlled demolitions.

    The problem is - those demolitions require huge amounts of prep work, removing internal structures, weakening key points throughout the building. There's no reasonable way WTC 1 and 2 could have been prepped like that.

    Especially considering the scale of the buildings. This isn't a 20- or 30- story casino or office building, it's 100+ storys tall, all of which landed in a small footprint.

    It might not "feel" plausible. But the alternative, a controlled demolition, is even less plausible given the evidence of the people who survived.

    It's hackneyed, but "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains (no matter how improbable) must be the answer" has to be considered.

    Just because no-one can conceive of the conditions required for the collapse to happen "as explained by the authorities" doesn't mean they *couldn't* have occurred.

    Since the conspiracy-based theories put forward as alternatives tend to have huge flaws in their logic and facts, people are left with two choices - to accept something that no-one can (yet) explain fully (the official version), or deny it and keep floundering trying to find alternatives (the conspiracies).

    No-one has ever modeled or actually imploded 100+ story buildings before, or flown airliners into them, so there's no data to say the collapse was consistent with that, or "had" to be more sinister.

    To be honest, 7/7 is a lot easier to put forwards alternatives on, because the physics involved are much more straightforwards. When it comes to 9/11, I'm pretty sure that even the experts have to "guess" just as much as *I* do.

    WTC7 is more concerning, yes. The lack of visible damage makes people wonder why. But, considering it was right next to two 100+ story buildings coming down, I'm pretty convinced that the shock alone would have been damaging.

    But again, that's a theory.

    The question is, what makes anyone else's theories any more valid than mine? Mine at least try to find reasons that don't involve any sinister influences, whereas conspiracy theories all seem to be predicated on some sinister influence.

    That's why conspiracy theorists come across as crazed foaming-at-the-mouth crazies - it "has to be" something sinister behind it. No-one bothers to look for the simplest conclusion based on the facts without that being part of the process.

    Everyone talks about "proof" of conspiracy, proof of sinister influences - there is no "proof", there's only assumptions and people parroting the latest gossip they got from some blog.

    moriaeencomium asks my take on it, and says governments can't defy the will of the people.

    They can, however, quite happily continue defying the will of the sheeple.

    Here's my take on it.

    I guess people just need to point the finger of blame *somewhere*, have to find *some* reason, for what happened, to try to assuage their collective guilt and culpability.

    Cos let's face it - to admit Bin Laden was behind the whole thing is to have to pay attention to foreign policy decisions he claims caused him to do it.

    Much easier for people to believe the government did it, than to ask themselves if they caused it, by not speaking up at the actions of their government it was claimed to be in response to.

    The question is - if people *really* believe the conspiracy theories, *really* believe there's a cover-up, why are you all just spending your time ranting on the 'net?

    The conspiracy theorists claim lots of people believe in the theories ... But there seems to be a dearth of people who believe it strongly enough to *act* on it.

    In fact, there's only one with the brass ones to act - Brian Haw.

    I don't see anyone else believing their theories enough to stand beside him.

    Until you're willing to put your jobs, your homes, and your liberty on the line and stand next to Brian Haw, come what may, then you'll never get the answers you want.

    If conspiracy theorists *really* believed, they'd be there.

    But they ain't.

    Says a lot about just how much people really believe their governments are responsible for mass murder, war crimes, war profiteering, etc etc ad nauseum.

    If those things *are* happening, and you *don't* go stand beside Brian Haw ... You'll be just as guilty for letting it go on. You have to ask yourselves if you believe in what you claim enough to risk getting carted off by the police.

    One take, as requested.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 04:46am on 03 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    I guess tinfoil is up way past his bedtime on a school night.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 2:06pm on 03 Jul 2008, andyjenk wrote:

    I have yet to hear an explanation as to how the builders of the towers planned to bring them down neatly at the end of their working life. Use of strategically placed explosives would be an obvious way, and placing them while the building was being built would be the cheapest way. Using a different design for the "bricks" containing explosives and incorporating these into the "pattern" of the building would be an easy way of ensuring correct placement whilst keeping the knowledge to a minimum.
    So how do builders of huge structures plan for their eventual demolition in a small footprint? It would be extremely negligent not to have such plans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 3:12pm on 03 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Moonwolf wrote;

    "Just because no-one can conceive of the conditions required for the collapse to happen "as explained by the authorities" doesn't mean they *couldn't* have occurred."

    The point is Mr Wolf, the collapse hasn't been explained by the authorities at all.

    "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
    (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 27/9/2007)


    By the way, the situation I described to you in an earlier post (the US supplying Al Qaeda related terrorist groups with weapons and money) is a real one.
    The US admits sending money and weapons to a terrorist organisation called "Jundullah" (google it) who are known to have close ties to Al Qaeda.

    "the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan."
    (Telegraph)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-%27black-ops%27-against-Iran.html

    This is how Jundullah was described in an article in the Asia Times:


    "Jundullah is a purely militant outfit whose objective is to target Pakistan's pro-US rulers and US and British interests in the country. Members receive training in Afghanistan and South Waziristan, and it is now actively recruiting.
    The organization produces propaganda literature, including documentary films, and has a studio named Ummat. It does similar work for al-Qaeda's media wing, which is called the al-Sahab Foundation.
    These media outlets incite the sentiments of Muslim youths by producing films showing Western - particularly Israeli and US - "atrocities" against Muslim communities. This is the basic tool through which a new generation of jihadis is being raised.
    Jundullah was allegedly headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda operational commander of the September 11 terrorist attack in the US. He was arrested in Pakistan early last year. "
    (Asia Times Online)

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FG20Df05.html


    What's going here?

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 4:13pm on 03 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Molly:

    You pretty much summed it up the moment you said "conducted raids into Iran".

    The US tends to be blinkered when it comes to Iran - they've forgotten that Iran is anti-AQ, but in the current climate the desire to destabilize Iran trumps any other connection anti-iranian groups might have.

    As long as the group doesn't target *US* interests, a blind eye is cast on their allegiances.

    I suppose you could say it's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

    It *is* extreme hypocrisy by the governments, yep. But, it's "business as usual" for them, no different than the US arming and training the "concerned citizens" groups in Iraq - who were busy blowing up US troops only a year ago.

    The US had a chance to really hurt AQ when Iran offered to help go into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, and later when it could be used to go after AQ elements.

    It wasted that chance because the administration doesn't trust the Iranians, and because Israeli interests wouldn't have been too impressed with *any* ties with Iran.

    After Ahmadinejad entered the picture, that was the end of any possible alliance of convenience with Iran.

    Those same blocks mean anything that's "anti-Iranian" becomes at the minimum supportable.

    (the above is my own take on the situation, but international policy is one of those convoluted topics that never makes sense unless you're a politician or diplomat and can justify apparent idiocy to yourself).

    Andy: You're asking about a scenario without any basis such a scenario existed to begin with. Especially since, when the WTC was built, implosion techniques didn't really exist.

    Back then (and now, come to think of it), dismantling the same way it was constructed would have been the assumption of the builders.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 4:43pm on 03 Jul 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    I'm sorry moonwolfe but you haven't done your homework. The towers were worked on for weeks by a subsidiary of, you guessed it, Haliburton. Are you part of the spelling police or just having a go.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 5:19pm on 03 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:


    ".....the desire to destabilize Iran trumps any other connection anti-iranian groups might have."

    Even anti-American and anti-British connections?
    Even Al Qaeda?
    Even a group whose leader planned 9/11?


    The US is giving weapons and money to a group which is "a purely militant outfit whose objective is to target Pakistan's pro-US rulers and US and British interests in the country. "
    Giving weapons and money to an organisation which my country is at war with goes beyond hypocrisy.
    If I was to give money and weapons to this group, I can assure you I would very quickly arrested and accused of a good deal more than hypocrisy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 5:29pm on 03 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    So now we're back to the whole Dick Cheney conspiracy?

    Somehow you expect a horde of Haliburton workers to not say *anything* about going in and tearing apart the towers 3,000 people died in?

    Not a single one?

    And I think the people in the towers would have noticed all the internal retaining walls being brought down that would have been needed the entire way up, they'd have remembered the drilling into supporting columns needed for placement of shaped charges to bring it off, and they'd have notived the longitudinal struts needed to guide the fall in a *controlled* explosion.

    Well, perhaps you wouldn't, since you don't seem to think anyone else would have, but that's more your problem than reality.

    And it's not my fault you can't spell, it's not like the correct spelling isn't attached to every post.

    If you can't get it right, that says much more about your ability to accept facts right in front of your nose than any of your twilight-zone theories.

    I do feel sorry for you that you have such a low opinion of human nature that you think so many people would hide any government involvement in the murder of so many innocents - including their own countrymen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 5:31pm on 03 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Not much of a take there moon brother, would you take another?

    When have you ever read a decent article about any of the disturbing 9/11 issues within mainstream? Fisk was the closest to decent editorial about it, if we ever had one that is. Eh, or Monbiot, he gave us his gibbering take too? may he never ever rest.

    As per your point, do say, have you heard about the chap who went on 9/11 hunger strike? It must have been in the mainstream media, you must have seen it, all bells were ringing?! Yes?!

    Draw your own conclusion about dedication and amount of citizens who demand answers to serious and disturbing questions.

    Yes mollyaida, its way beyond hypocrisy, those who invested in murder will pay.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 5:40pm on 03 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Pakistan's "Pro-US" ruler is(was?) someone who came to power in a military coup, who disbanded the high court in Pakistan and declared martial law so he wouldn't lose an election.

    Kind of like Mugabe. Being "friends" with the US only gets someone so far.

    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in US custody, and has been for many years. Just because their leader was involved in 9/11 doesn't mean the group is *now*.

    And you never know, the group might be supplying intelligence on AQ in exchange for that support as well. Double and triple crosses aren't exactly "news" for terrorist groups to practice - ask the Russians.

    Kind of hard for someone in the UK to complain about such things, when it's released mass murderers in the name of the Good Friday Agreement and put terrorists in government, isn't it?

    That was "Business as usual" too. If you can accept *that*, you can't turn around and decry it happening *elsewhere*.

    "Business as usual" is all *about* hypocrisy. That doesn't make it right, or wrong. Simply the way things get done for short term goals.

    And you're making a leap of logic saying "Even Al-Qaeda" ... Go back to the "related" part you used above.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 5:46pm on 03 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    moriaeencomium, I get the impression your definition of "decent article" is one that shares your own theories, and anything that doesn't will never meet the threshold of "decent".

    I think the comments about the BBC series are proof of what people consider "decent articles" - the series obviously doesn't bother supporting the crackpot ideas, just investigates the reasonable ones, and so you all jump in to slam the production as being simply more cover-up.

    Volume doesn't make things true. One person can whisper the world is flat, or a thousand can scream it at the top of their lungs, the world still won't be flat.

    I do draw my own conclusions, as stated above.

    Sheeple.

    In fact, I go one further. The conspiracy theorists are exhibiting the exact same mistake the government made about Iraq - they're reading the information that supports their own prejudices, and ignoring anything that contradicts their own prejudices.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 6:31pm on 03 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Conspiracy schmuckspiracy moon bat. We're talking about disturbing questions which lack decent answer, and you're trumping about conspiracy?

    You're in contempt of a court, to say the least.

    When exactly we had allowed libel upon citizens, why do citizens carry the libel?

    The Pentagon event is questioned, release the damn 48 tapes and answer the question, I know that you'd rather play ? yes plane, oh no sir no plane - theories, but I'm bored with it.

    Citizens demand international and independent investigation, if you would like to wait until bricks start to smash through the windows, so be it.

    imo, as ever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 6:40pm on 03 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    As for that other point, I'll tell you what I'd find decent after all this time spent in fodder.

    I'd find it decent to see one scientifically and factually accurate NIST report. I'd expect the very same from BBC's production here.

    I'll restrain of sharing my opinion on what we'll get.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 8:47pm on 03 Jul 2008, cliff888 wrote:

    I don?t know if anyone else feels as depressed as I do by the descent of this board into childish mud-slinging. The BBC (and others) are no doubt heartily laughing at the quality of the posts and coming to the conclusion that the whole truth movement has no chance of ever organising itself into any form that will demand real answers to reasonable questions.

    The fact remains that none of us know exactly what happened on that terrible day, which is why we need a real investigation. Surely we can get it together to ask for that. We all appreciate one thing, at least, that the ?official conspiracy theory? contains far too many obvious anomalies to be true.

    Sadly, the BBC Conspiracy Files programme will probably stick to the model used for last year?s blatant and shameful hit piece. Mike, I hope you prove me to be absolutely wrong. Doubtless, Pilger or Palast would have the right amount of backbone to ask the real questions and not be fobbed-off with the standard official line ? but it?s not their show, it?s Mike Rudin?s. Mike, this issue is so important ? I know that you can see that the official theory doesn?t add up because anyone that takes time to do even a little investigation on the internet immediately understands that so much is so obviously wrong with it ? and you have a chance to do something of significance, even if it?s just to say that what is needed, in order to placate the doubters, is a serious non-partisan investigation that is beyond the remit of the BBC. Adding your voice to a call for a real enquiry would be something.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 9:53pm on 03 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Moonwolf wrote;

    "Just because their leader was involved in 9/11 doesn't mean the group is *now*."

    Maybe it was just a phase they were going through.


    "Jundullah has also been involved in attacks on rangers, police stations, as well as the twin car bombings outside the Pakistan-US Cultural Center last month.."


    ""Many of those involved in the recent terrorist attacks in the city received training in camps in Waziristan," says Tariq Jamil, chief of the Karachi police. "Jundullah has close ties with Al-Qaeda."
    (Newsline)


    http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsAug2004/cover1Aug2004.htm


    And their former leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was alleged to be the No.3 in the Al Qaeda command structure, as well as the "Mastermind" of 9/11 .

    It doesn't matter how you slice it, the US Government is giving money and weapons to their enemies. And ours.
    And it needs to be explained.



    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 10:51pm on 03 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Molly, I honestly don't have an answer for you that *either* us would consider acceptable.

    Outside of war profiteering, which I don't think is the case, I can think of many "business as usual" reasons which *might* apply.

    But I think you and I will simply end up disagreeing on how far practicality goes. I would *hope* neither government is supplying stuff it *knows* will be used against us - but as long as they have tunnel vision with regards to Iran, common sense won't break out in the government any more than it will around this place.

    Although with that in mind, I also remember that the Committee For The Present Danger advocates all out nuclear war on the basis that enough americans would survive the holocaust to consider it a "win".

    Which isn't a theory, it's their published policy (read "With Enough Shovels", Robert Scheer 1982).

    Given who makes up the Committee, I'd be much more inclined to believe some "helpful group" of "citizens" is doing the supplying. The US never supported the IRA directly - but lots of "helpful citizens" did. Why break up a proven idea :(

    I doubt it was a "phase" that group was going through - but since none of the 9/11 hijackers were part of the group, KSM might have, and decided to shift his own allegiances to AQ beforehand.

    You can't really go by where they train - again, the IRA trained in some of the same places ... Unless they too went through a phase :P

    But it's a good point and worth reading more on, thank you - A day when you get a decent conversation is never a waste.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 00:14am on 04 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:


    "Jundullah is a purely militant outfit whose objective is to target Pakistan's pro-US rulers and US and British interests in the country."

    "the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah...."


    "Practicality"

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 00:52am on 04 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    cliff: The internet is full of conspiracy theorists who earnestly highlight all the little bits that they consider "couldn't" happen as "advertised", and "must" have happened some other way.

    The difficulty is that most of those anomalies are at best wild guesses predicated on the whole "no way could it have happened as advertised" idea.

    They're *looking* for flaws, and anything they find that can be called "incorrect" they will automatically look for the most sinister explanation.

    The "melting point of steel" theory, the thermite theory, the WTC7 "pre-knowledge" theory, the "free fall" theory ... these alone have perfectly rational and logical explanations, but most of the "Truth" movement refuses to consider those explanations, it "must" be sinister.

    People simply refuse to believe that 9/11 could happen as advertised because it scares them - 19 people, 4 airplanes, 3,000+ dead.

    "No way terrorists could do that, it has to be an inside job".

    Except there's no "evidence" to support that. Even the truly existing "anomalies" you mention aren't "evidence", aren't "proof", of some hideous conspiracy.

    As long as people keep saying they *are* "proof" no-one's going to pay a blind bit of notice. Until someone can show documents, someone can provide physical evidence to support the theories, they're *opinions* - not evidence.

    And we all know what opinions are like - even mine.

    So why should the BBC (or any other news organization for that matter) go chasing down every "theory", plausible or half-baked? Assume that they did, and they debunked every favourite theory, and showed "proof" the official version was accurate, people still wouldn't believe them.

    moriaeencomium provides a perfect example of it, reserving "judgment on what we'll get" - as far as moriaeencomium and others are concerned, any investigation will be part of the conspiracy - unless it comes up with the answers they want it to.

    Actually I personally not "laughing heartily" ... Just shaking my head pityingly. People who can actually discuss the whole thing rationally and make others have to re-examine their own thoughts, such as it seems you can from your post, molly, and j7, are in a huge minority.

    It's kind of amusing moriaeencomium thinks he needs 48 tapes to know about the Pentagon though ... I guess the simple idea of asking someone who was, oh let's say for example, one of the first responders to the Pentagon that morning skipped his mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 02:18am on 04 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Yep, practicality.

    If they're actively anti-Iranian, then they're moving over the border, and that keeps Iranian forces busy on that side, rather than anywhere near Iraq.

    It would also cause the residents of the area to have no faith in the Iranian government and security forces' ability to protect them.

    The first would be practicality in keeping the forces the US might face in the event of conflict with Iraq reduced.

    The second would be practicality in destabilizing Iran's government.

    The third practicality would be intelligence.

    The fourth practicality is - the US ain't the ones doing it.

    Always assuming that's why they're doing it to begin with, it's unlikely anyone would say. Those are reasons I could think of off the top of my head.

    Practicality.

    It's not nice, no. But warfare isn't supposed to be nice. The idea is to kill your opponent before he kills you. Anything else is an exercise for the books written afterwards.

    There's no Marquis of Queensbury rules, there's no do-overs, no saved games, no restart, and civilians hate the military for doing it because it's not nice.

    And sometimes, the enemy of my enemy might not be my friend exactly, but he might just hate my enemy a little more and that can be exploited.

    That's business as usual.

    Like it or not (and I know most people come under "not"), that business (hopefully) ends up keeping the wolves from your door.

    Well, until politicians get involved, then it all goes to hell in a handbasket :P

    If someone in a government somewhere decided that arming the enemy of my enemy is the best way to achieve the goals, then we have to hope they know what they're doing.

    It's a little too much to expect them to have any conscience about it if the weapons are used against *us* instead of the enemy, but that too might just be "business as usual" - the people who are supposed to keep the governments from putting us needlessly in harms way have failed to follow through on their side of the responsibility equation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 02:20am on 04 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Moonwolf

    Why did the US invade Afganistan ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 04:17am on 04 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    "Officially?" Because Bin Laden was there, using it as a base of operations to train and equip the various satellite groups that are associated with the umbrella term "Al-Qaeda", and the Taliban (whom the US didn't recognize as "the government") refused to extradite him to the US for his role in 9/11 (and prior events such as the original WTC bombing, the USS Cole attack, and the bombing of Khobar Towers in KSA).

    There have been "unofficial" reasons mooted, but most of them I don't personally consider very credible, or at best secondary "ohh, nice to have!" motives.

    Refusing to extradite Bin Laden pretty much sealed the invasion occurring - there's no way *any* government would survive not going after the guy behind the murder of 3,000 civilians on its home soil.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 04:45am on 04 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    "And sometimes, the enemy of my enemy might not be my friend exactly"

    I understand the logic, the "practicality" of using such a group to destabilise Iran.
    If that's what you wanted to do, then murdering innocent Iranian civilians (terrorism) might be one way to do it.
    We are not actually at war with Iran though, so these are "preemptive" (i.e totally unprovoked) acts of terror.
    Another slightly troubling detail is that they seem to have an interest in attacking US targets too.


    "Jundullah reveals plan to attack US centre in Karachi"

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/784589.cms


    I'm just not sure how this all fits in to the "War on Terror" that we hear so much about.
    Let me get this straight
    The US is giving money and arms to a Sunni Jihadi group (with close ties to Al Qaeda) which carries out terrorist attacks against US targets, in order to guard against a theoretical threat from a country which is the natural enemy of Sunni Jihadi extremism (being predominantly Shia).
    And if a few Americans die as a result of this strategy, then that's just "business as usual"?
    All for the greater good.
    And if the US government is willing to sacrifice a handfull of American citizens for the greater good, if that's just "business as usual", then why not 3000?
    It's just a different number.
    The thinking is the same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 05:03am on 04 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Re. 149


    A surprising number of people think that the US invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11.
    This however is not true because the decision to invade Afghanistan was made before 9/11 happened.
    On Sept 10th 2001, to be exact.
    So try again.

    "U.S. OK?d plan
    to topple Taliban
    a day before 9/11"

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 05:30am on 04 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    No, *you* try again, and re-read your own link. It says exactly what I just said.

    It might surprise you to know that the military plans for anything and everything. I dare say there's plans to invade the UK knocking around somewhere as well.

    Actually, it probably wouldn't.

    I'm just disappointed it took them 8 months to revise the existing plans when Bush took office to fine tune them into some semblance of usability.

    And as your own linked article notes, the plan hadn't even been presented to Bush by the time it hit.

    So it's disingenuous for you to say "The decision to invade was made before 9/11", because that's not actually the case.

    Selective reading, rephrasing, and a rather bad bait and switch like you just tried is the reason why conspiracy theorists get nowhere.

    You're falling for the same bad logic with the other one too, selective reading - you really should research a little more. (Incidentally, notice the similarities between the second step in that plan and the possibility for the group you mentioned I gave above?)

    You should leave such tactics to Faux News - they're not quite so obvious about it :P

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 5:58pm on 04 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    In your post you say that the reason the US invaded Afghanistan was because the Taliban refused to extradite Bin Laden "for his role in 9/11".
    However it is obvious that there was a fully formed plan to take action against the Taliban "even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred".
    So 9/11 is not the reason, as we were all told it was.


    "And as your own linked article notes, the plan hadn't even been presented to Bush by the time it hit."


    Actually if you read the following MSNBC article (linked to from the above article) it becomes clear that Bush must have been fully aware of the plan.

    "Plan was ready to go"

    "Officials did not believe that Bush had had the opportunity to closely review the document in the two days between its submission and the Sept. 11 attacks. But it had been submitted to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and the officials said Bush knew about it and had been expected to sign it.
    The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant, Miklaszewski reported, because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.
    Such directives are top-secret documents that are formally drafted only after they have been approved at the highest levels of the White House, and represent decisions that are to be implemented imminently.
    Such a directive would normally be approved with the president?s knowledge by his Principals Committee, which in Bush?s White House includes Rice, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Treasury Secretary Paul O?Neill and CIA Director George Tenet, among other senior administration officials."
    (MSNBC, ABC)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/



    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 7:22pm on 04 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Awareness of a plan being drawn up is not the same as "intending to invade", and you seem to be skipping over the first two stages that would have had to have failed and are concentrating solely on "They intended to invade".

    In fact, that they didn't actually follow that plan seems to be pretty indicative that they took it from the original idea to one that was more appropriate after 9/11.

    And, you're still misquoting me and skipping the complete answer - another case of focusing just on the bit that satisfies your own prejudice.

    So while we're at it, he's another piece of disinformation of yours we'll shoot down, shall we? I'll share the research I mentioned I'd do above with regards to jundullah.

    Admittedly, it only took me 5 minutes to get all of this.

    On the first link you provided, it mentioned that jundullah translates to "Army of God".

    So I got to thinking, how many Islamic militant groups might take on such a name?

    So, over to Google and search for "how many terrorist groups are called jundullah?"

    The first link gives us this quote:
    (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html)

    U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

    Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

    ...

    Another link gives this quote:
    (http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsAug2004/cover1Aug2004.htm)

    Coming from a similar middle-class ground, Attaur Rehman is yet another face of the new Islamic militancy in Pakistan. A graduate from Karachi University, he was arrested in June for masterminding a series of terrorist attacks in Karachi. A tall and heavily built man in his early 30s, Rehman was associated with Islami Jamiat-Talba, the student wing of the Jamaat-i-Islami. He later broke away from the Jamaat to form his own militant group, Jundullah (Army of God), which draws its cadres mainly from the educated and professional classes.

    OK, so ... The same name, but somehow it has two different leaders?

    Curious.

    So I look at what's said about them.

    One is anti-Iranian, the other anti-Pakistan.

    One is Baluchi tribesmen from Baluchistan, the other is a bunch of students, scholars, and businesstypes.

    Then comes the fun part - Wiki time!!
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah)

    Peoples Resistant Movement of Iran (PRMI), former Jundallah of Iran, is a terrorist organisation that believed to have emerged on the scene in 2003 and it is known for attacks against high profile Iranian targets, especially government and security officials. Despite Iranian claims of PRMI's connection with the Pakistani Jundallah, no proof of such link has been found by independent sources

    So I'm sitting here thinking, "Did anyone actually try to find out if there might be more than one 'Army Of God' group?" There's actually a good number of them - http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/04/iran-jundullah-phenomenon.html

    Stands to reason really when you think about it, "Army Of God" would be to Islamic militants what "Anglican" would be to protestants.

    So ... There's two groups, with different leaders, different creations, different areas of operations, different goals, different backers ...

    Since all the articles about the CIA supporting "jundullah" mention them as being Baluchi tribesmen, it seems pretty clear that they're not referring to the "Pakistani jundullah", which is never described as being made up of that particular group.

    Iran has tried to link the two groups together but no independent sources have been able to. That Iran has tried to link the two groups together would actually require that they *be* two separate groups to begin with.

    So

    Now this particular conspiracy theory has been dealt with, can we lay it to rest?

    Or are you going to prove my cynicism and in the light of overwhelming multiple-respectable-source evidence contradicting them, cling to the fallacy that somehow the CIA is supporting an AQ-connected terrorist group that's attacking the US?

    Molly, I think that either you found a handful of articles that just said "jundullah" and tied them together in your mind - or more likely you saw what you posted on a website somewhere and simply took it as gospel.

    Hopefully, this proves why you can't just take the links from some blog comment saying such things as being canonical.

    Seems patently obvious that the articles *you* are promoting are referring to two separate groups, and that you didn't even consider "Army Of God" might just be a rather popular name to adopt for those groups.

    There's no reason for people not to go investigate and research more to find support for what they read - other than not wanting to risk what they read being proven to be false.

    After all, it took me 5 minutes. What's your excuse?

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 10:13pm on 04 Jul 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:

    Moonwarg, we already had first responders, we had 'it looks nothing like a plane crashed here' reports, as we had others.

    We also had this talk, year before, here at the blog and elsewhere. I've said it already; I don't care about 'yes plane, no plane' theories while you seem to consistently and persistently insist on them.

    The fact is, FOIA showed there is certain number of tapes which recorded the object.

    So why wouldn't we take a look at what constitutes solid and factual evidence? No, I'll rather paddle here, watch guessing games and spin, the same ol' crap we're doing for years and years now. Uf!

    People will not answer unanswered questions, government has them and government will answer.

    And be kind. Judgment? I've explicitly emphasized that it was opinion.

    Apart from that, please, be decent and ditch the conspiracy talk while we here. To be honest, if there is a single conspiracy theorist in this black hole, it would be you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 00:10am on 05 Jul 2008, Tinfoilhat wrote:

    #130 Moonwolf. I guess you'd be wrong then, wouldn't you. I'm 35 and if you haven't even got the brains to see that there is quite obviously something amiss after reading all the posts on this blog, then perhaps you need to go back to school, pal.
    I bet you haven't even bothered to check out any of the websites or other referenses that have been submitted as reasons why people aren't going along with the official lies. You are obviously one of these pathetic little closed minded, self satisfied idiots who don't know how to recognise a reasoned arguement when you see one whilst at the same time not having one yourself. Get a life, you sad little creep.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 00:14am on 05 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Moonwolf

    "Did anyone actually try to find out if there might be more than one 'Army Of God' group?" There's actually a good number of them"


    But there are, at most, only two in Pakistan.
    Supposedly two separate entities with the same name, in the same country, with the same religious beliefs, who both hate the Pakistani government but who never co-operate with each other.
    Never even talk to each other.
    One is the best friend of Al Qaeda, the other has nothing to do with them.
    Mr Regi has denied any connection between them.
    But Regi also denied any involvement with the US and was proven to be a liar.
    However.
    People can do their own research and decide what they think for themselves, whether they think it's a good or a bad thing for the US to be giving weapons to a group called "Soldier of God", and whether this is really congruent with the "War on Terror".

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


    http://www.thehindu.com/2007/04/17/stories/2007041702131100.htm


    To quote your article:

    "Enquiries with well-informed sources in the Islamic world show that Jundullah is not the name of any particular organisation. It is the name of a pan-Islamic and anti-US and anti-Israel suicide terrorism phenomenon which is creeping across the Islamic world and the Muslim diaspora in the Western countries. Everybody, who takes to suicide terrorism against the US or Israel-----whether individually or as a member of a jihadi organisation---looks upon himself or herself as a Jundullah---a soldier of Allah. All pan-Islamic jihadi organisations---whether Al Qaeda or any other organisation--- look upon themselves as Jundullah fighting to establish the sovereignty of Allah over the Islamic world and to "liberate" areas which, according to them, historically belonged to the Ummah."


    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 02:52am on 05 Jul 2008, cyncastical wrote:

    hi Mike.

    thanks for a response to my comments on your most recent blog post.

    It's good to know that program makers do at least read comments posted by us.

    I await the 7/7 Conspiracy files program with interest and will doubtless post more comments after watching the program.

    As far as 9/11 WTC7 goes. I think that it would do the world a lot of good if the powers that be in the US were to open a proper far reaching public enquiry with several experts from various relevant fields (pilots/architects/engineers etc) to lay 9/11 to rest.

    I suspect this will never happen but think if the majority of the "truth movement" would unite and repeatedly call for such an enquiry instead of arguing on various internet sites the world over about this or that theory we might all be better off as a result.

    I still don't understand why NIST is the chosen agency that's investigating - thats a little like the BSI investigating 7/7 over here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 03:18am on 05 Jul 2008, monsterland wrote:


    At the risk of sounding facetious, is it just a coincedence that NIST's report on WTC7 finally turns up after seven years in the same month the BBC broadcast their own piece of propaganda, sorry, 'investigation' into the same subject?

    Maybe Auntie Beeb thinks we're gonna need all the help we can get swallowing this new report after the indigestion the 911 Commision caused!

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 3:50pm on 05 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Molly,

    You're now jumping to the automatic conclusion that the anti-Iranian one is "probably are anti-US".

    Why *shouldn't* an "Army of God" be supported? The concerned citizens groups in Iraq are, and until AQ showed their true colours and started killing off innocent *Iraqis*, those groups were planting bombs at the roadside.

    You've jumped from claiming the US is supporting the group that attacks US interests and had KSM as a leader once to "OK, but there's only two groups there, and since they're called Army Of God they might as well both be anti-US/UK" ...

    Which makes me wonder if it's the name, the location, or just the fact they're Muslim extremists that has you considering them guilty even with the lack of evidence the anti-Iranian one will attack US/UK "interests".

    To quote your own quote:

    All pan-Islamic jihadi organisations---whether Al Qaeda or any other organisation--- look upon themselves as Jundullah fighting to establish the sovereignty of Allah over the Islamic world and to "liberate" areas which, according to them, historically belonged to the Ummah."

    Last time I checked, neither the US not the UK "historically belonged to the Ummah" - not even Basingstoke or Milton Keynes (more's the pity).

    You've gone from the realms of conspiracy theory to the realms of the BNP now.

    I'm curious now though ... Given that people like yourself obviously don't "trust" what the government says, isn't it kind of selective for you to apparently, at the same time, fall for the propaganda that has them getting you to believe any Muslim that doesn't behave like the rest of the sheeple must be a terrorist, and wants to kill you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 03:52am on 06 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    I just realized I might not have explained one part quite as well as I should have, sorry.

    With regards to the quote, the point is this:

    You started out by saying that "jundullah" is an Islamic militant group, quoting articles that said it was planning attacks against US and UK interests, and another that said it received money from the US.

    I pointed out that there were *at least* two independent groups being referred to that share the same name.

    You then reply pointing out there are "only" those two groups listed, and asking if it's all that wise to support any group called "Soldiers of God".

    The group the US supports is anti-Iranian. There's nothing to say it's trying to do anything other than secure its own homeland (Balochistan) for itself.

    It certainly has not made any claims (as far as I can tell) to want to attack US or UK interests.

    Yet you're implying that its name and the fact it's made up of Islamic militants *automatically* means it's a threat, without a shred of evidence to support such a theory.

    I doubt, unless the US or UK intends to go to Balochistan and start trying to force western ideals on it, the Jundullah group being supported by the US would have the slightest bit of interest in doing anything to US or UK interests, or attack those countries.

    Hence noting that neither the US nor the UK qualifies under those lands "historically" part of the Ummah.

    Again, my apologies for the shorthand version in my previous post.

    As for relevance ... Molly's post about Jundullah, and the response to my research, seems to be a pretty good example of the hysteria conspiracy theories produce.

    Two articles about two groups that simply shame a name and geographic location are posited as referring to the same group, with the emphasis being on its anti-"us" intentions, whilst at the same time misrepresenting information about the other group in order to create conflict and controversy.

    That's the "conspiracy" that was put forth.

    What the source was, I don't know - either Molly came up with it herself just reading those two articles, or more likely what she posted was simply retelling the conspiracy she read on some website somewhere and took at face value without fact checking it.

    The response was an attempt to justify the original "conspiracy", in spite of evidence, with an "OK, well, they're two separate groups but they're both called 'Army of God', so what I said originally still kind of stands because we all know any group that calls itself the Army of God and comes from Pakistan are really a bunch of terorrists, shame on the US for supporting them still!".

    Except, there's no evidence to support that. Even so, anyone reading this thread is going to have that doubt in their minds, and it will grow.

    Kind of like the viral rumour Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, or the one that Dunkin Donuts supports palestinian terrorists because it ran an advertisement featuring a black and white scarf, or AQ's pointing to headscarf bans as being Europe trying to wipe out Islam.

    Or 9/11 "Truth"

    Or 7/7 "Truth".

    Facts are always more accurate, and far more honest, than truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 1:29pm on 06 Jul 2008, seeurchin wrote:

    When two or more people plan to commit a crime, there exists by definition a 'conspiracy'.

    Therefore, any theory about who did it, or how it was done, is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'.

    The question is then not whether you are a conspiracy theorist, but for which conspiracy theory you find the evidence most compelling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 5:02pm on 06 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Moonwolf

    It is by no means clear if there are two distinct groups called Jundullah in Pakistan, or if they are two sides of the same coin.
    Even the Wiki entry about them seems confused, it starts off talking about the Iranian "wing" and ends up on the Karachi "wing" strongly giving the impression that they are related.

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

    The Iranian government say they are the same thing and are both connected to Al Qaeda.
    Their leader Abdulmalik Regi denies any connection between the two.
    But he has already been found to be a liar.
    So it comes down to who do you believe.
    Regardless of any connection to the vague, CIA-created entity of Al Qaeda, is it really appropriate or morally justifiable for the US to give weapons and money to any terrorist group to kill innocent people in Iran, a sovereign country which we are not at war with.
    One might almost think that the US is trying to provoke Iran into some kind of confrontation.......
    And Jundullah is not the only terrorist group being used by the US in this way.
    The US is also using a group called MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq) a group known to have attacked US citizens and which the US themselves have proscribed as a "terrorist" organisation.

    ?A Very, Very Bad Bunch?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/25mar02/dealey032502.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 5:13pm on 06 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    "Yet you're implying that its name and the fact it's made up of Islamic militants *automatically* means it's a threat...."

    So should we disregard the article you posted, Moonwolf ?

    "It (Jundullah) is the name of a pan-Islamic and anti-US and anti-Israel suicide terrorism phenomenon which is creeping across the Islamic world and the Muslim diaspora in the Western countries. Everybody, who takes to suicide terrorism against the US or Israel-----whether individually or as a member of a jihadi organisation---looks upon himself or herself as a Jundullah---a soldier of Allah."

    Maybe it really is the only part of the Jundullah phenomenon that loves the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 7:58pm on 06 Jul 2008, Moonwolf wrote:

    Try again, it says all of the ones who are anti-US etc considers themselves Jundullah, it doesn't say everyone who considers themselves Jundullah is anti-US etc.

    The Westboro Baptist Church calls themselves Christians - does that mean all Christians are apocalyptic fundamentalist militants with a taste for child abuse?

    As for it being "by no means clear", I think two leaders, two purposes, two different pools of members, and the fact that even with the Iranians trying to link the two there are still "no independent sources can connect them" is pretty clear.

    Turn it around - it's "by no means clear" that they *are* connected by anything other than a name and a religion - except in the minds of people for whom any Muslim immediately becomes a terror suspect.

    No wonder presumption of innocence is no longer a practical component of the British system.

    I wouldn't be too comfortable with US State Department definitions of terrorist organizations.

    Nelson Mandela and other ANC members have to apply for special dispensation if they want to go to the US because they're classed as terrorists too. It took an act of Congress for them to even get the chance to do so, passed a week or so ago.

    Do you support animal liberation causes, or environmental ones? There's a load of groups involved with those issues that are classed as terrorist organizations by the US State Department too (not the Lobster Liberation Front however, because they're more just a bunch of total smegheads who are in serious need of a reality check).

    Thank you for proving my cynicism about the probability of a conspiracy theorist ever accepting any evidence their theory is wrong, though. You've managed to wriggle from "it's the same group" to "they're connected" to "the Iranians say they're connected" to "well, they're bad anyways".

    Now we just wait for the NIST report about 9/11 to come out, and watch all the theorists run around calling it a cover-up/how NIST was unqualified/didn't ask the right people (read: conspiracy theorists)/insert more denial responses here.

    And people wonder why the BBC doesn't spend untold money and reporter time chasing up conspiracy theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 01:28am on 07 Jul 2008, mollyaida wrote:

    Moonwolf

    "I wouldn't be too comfortable with US State Department definitions of terrorist organizations.

    Nelson Mandela and other ANC members have to apply for special dispensation if they want to go to the US because they're classed as terrorists too."


    As far as I'm aware, The ANC do not have a history of killing American servicemen and civilians.
    Whereas MEK most definitely do.

    By the way, it's worth hearing what Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker has to say about all this.
    Google "NPR Seymour Hersh on covert operations in Iran "

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 09:22am on 07 Jul 2008, goldtruthseeker wrote:


    I notice you fail to mention the most important points of the whole affair, i.e.

    THE FUNDING FOR THE HIJACKERS!

    The British-born Islamist militant, omar Sheikh is charged with the murder of wall street journalist daniel peaL. previously, sheikh was the person responsible for wiring $100,000 to the 9/11 lead hijacker, mohammed atta in the months before the attacks. Sheikh wired this money on the instructions of general mahmood ahmed, the then head of the isi, pakistan?s inter services intelligence agency
    (see sources; (1) ,(2) ,(3), (4), (9) below)

    on the actual day of 9/11 general ahmed, the man responsible for instructing the money transfer, was in washington DC and in the weeks leading upto the attacks he had a series of top level meetings at the pentagon, the national security council and the white house with the head of the cia george tenet and the under secretary of state for political affairs marc grossman
    (see sources; (1), (6), (7), (9) below)

    when the wall street journal exposed general ahmed for sending the money to the hijackers, President Pervez Musharraf forced him to ?retire? (see sources; (1), (2), (3), (4) , (8), (9) below)

    SOURCES:
    (1) - Michael Meacher MP, environment minister 1997-2003, article; ?the pakistan connection?, [The Guardian, Thursday July 22 2004]
    Michael Meacher MP, article; ?This war on terrorism is bogus?
    [The Guardian, Saturday September 6, 2003 ]

    (2) - ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is replaced after its discovered he instructed Sheikh to transfer $100,000 into hijacker Mohamed Atta?s bank account prior to 9/11. This is according to Indian intelligence, which REPORTS the FBI has privately confirmed the story. [Press Trust of India, 10/8/2001; Times of India, 10/9/2001; India Today, 10/15/2001; Daily Excelsior (Jammu), The story is not widely reported in Western countries, though it makes the Wall Street Journal. [Australian, 10/10/2001; Agence France-Presse, 10/10/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/10/2001] It is reported in Pakistan as well. [Daily excelsior (Karachi), 10/8/2001] The Northern Alliance also repeats the claim in late October. [Federal News Service, 10/31/2001] In Western countries, the usual explanation is that Mahmood is fired for being too close to the Taliban. [London Times, 10/9/2001; Guardian, 10/9/2001] There is evidence some ISI officers may have known of a plan to destroy the WTC as early as July 1999. Two other ISI leaders, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan and Lt. Gen. Muzaffar Usmani, are sidelined on the same day as Mahmood [French author Bernard-Henri Levy and Scott-Clark, 2007, pp. 317-319] [Fox News, 10/8/2001] also reported in [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 2/24/2002; London Times, 4/21/2002]

    (3) - Summer 2000: Sheikh Frequently Calls ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed in 2000. [Source: Reuters] In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct. He notes that someone in the United Arab Emirates using a variety of aliases sends Mohamed Atta slightly over $100,000 between June and September of this year and the timing of these phone calls and the money transfers may have been the source of news reports that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohamed Atta However, he also notes that there is evidence of Sheikh sending Atta $100,000 in August 2001 , so the reports could refer to that, or both $100,000 transfers could involve Mahmood Ahmed, Sheikh, and Mohamed Atta. [Who Killed Daniel Pearl? by Bernard-Henri Levy pp. 320-324]

    (4) - ?It is becoming clear that both the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have found it difficult to have continued functioning?including the latter group?s terrorist activities?without substantial aid and support from Islamabad [Pakistan].? [Jane's Intelligence Digest, 9/20/2001]

    (5) - September 10, 2001: Pakistan Guards Osama as He Receives Medical Treatment CBS later reports that on this day, bin Laden is admitted to a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, for kidney dialysis treatment. Pakistani military forces guard bin Laden. They also move out all the regular staff in the urology department and send in a secret team to replace them. It is not known how long he stays there. [CBS News, 1/28/2002]

    (6) - September 11, 2001: Intelligence Committee Chairs Meet with Gen. Mahmood Ahmed . as the Attack Occurs ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss ([Salon, 9/14/2001; Washington Post, 5/18/2002] [Descent into Chaos: by Ahmed Rashid pp. 26-27]

    (7) - Graham and Goss will later co-head the joint House-Senate investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which will focus on Saudi government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, but will say almost nothing about possible Pakistani government connections to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks [Washington Post, 7/11/2002]

    (8) - Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, a close ally of Musharraf [Guardian, 10/9/2001; STeve Coll, GHost wars, pp. 504-505]

    (9) - www.cooperativeresearch.org complete 911 timeline

    these details are conveniently kept away from public scrutiny and there is huge pressure on anyone that dares turn whistle blower within the ranks of the FBI. Despite this there are still individuals willing to risk all. Like sibel edmonds, the former fbi intelligence translator. she tried to reveal the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated 911 and information that shows clear foreknowledge of the attacks not
    mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report .

    she is under 2 gagging orders, issued by JOhn Ashcroft, that stop her from testifying in court. she is on record as saying:
    ?My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up?
    (see sources; (1), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14) below)



    in addiition to sibel, fbi agent Robert Wright has also been stopped from releasing his 500-page manuscript which details the ignored intelligence which led to the attacks

    The FBI, has even refused to give the manuscript to Senator Shelby,
    vice-chairman of the joint intelligence committee charged with investigating America's 9/11 intelligence failures.
    (see sources; (1), (9), (15), (16) below)

    for years the cia had a close relationship with
    gen ahmed and used the isi as a conduit to pump billions of dollars into militant Islamist groups

    DANIEL ELLSBERG, THE FORMER US DEFENCE department whistleblower has stated: "It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it's hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of."

    W ith CIA backing, the ISI has developed, since the early 1980s, into a state within a state which wields enormous power andThe case of Ahmed confirms that parts of the ISI directly supported and financed the 911 hijackers and it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA.
    (see sources; (1), (9), (17), (18), (19), (20) below)



    (10) - high-ranking State Department officials help Pakistan?s ISI ?moles? in US military and academic institutions according to FBI translator Sibel Edmonds
    [Sunday Times (London), 1/6/2008]

    (11) - The high-ranking State Department official who is not named by the Sunday Times is said to be Marc Grossman by both Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story and former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the American Conservative.
    [Raw Story, 1/20/2008; American Conservative, 1/28/2008]

    (12) - April 2001: FBI translators Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar Learn Al-Qaeda Suicide Pilots Plan to Hit Skyscrapers in US [WorldNetDaily, 3/24/2004; Salon, 3/26/2004; WorldNetDaily, 4/6/2004; Village Voice, 4/14/2004]

    (13) - September 20, 2001 sibel edmonds Sees Pattern of Deliberate Failure within FBI [Washington Post, 6/19/2002] Senator Charles Grassley says ?She?s credible and the reason I feel she?s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.? [CBS News, 10/25/2002; New York Post, 10/26/2002]

    (14) - sibel edmonds website: www.justacitizen.com ; sibel edmonds ;wikipedia
    On October 18, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the State Secrets Privilege in order to prevent disclosure of the nature of Edmonds' work

    (15) - Robin wright discovers evidence that some of the FBI intelligence agents who stalled and obstructed his investigation were the same FBI agents who misrepresented the FISA petitions. [Judicial Watch, 9/11/2002]

    Wright Says FBI Unit Is Making ?Virtually No Effort? to Neutralize Known Terrorists Inside the US [Cybercast News Service, 5/30/2002; Federal News Service, 5/30/2002]

    (16) - September 11, 2001-October 2001: FBI Agent Wright Gagged by FBI in Wake of 9/11,
    May 11, 2002: FBI Agent Wright Sues FBI for Blocking Book Criticizing FBI Failures
    [New York Times, 5/12/2002; Federal News Service, 5/30/2002; Robert G. Wright, Jr., v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 5/16/2005]

    (17) - The ISI grows so powerful on this money, that ?even by the shadowy standards of spy agencies, the ISI is notorious. It is commonly branded ?a state within the state,? or Pakistan?s ?invisible government.?? [Time, 5/6/2002]

    (18) - The Pakistani ISI starts a special cell of agents who use profits from heroin production for covert actions WITH THE COLLUSION OF THE CIA. The heroin is then smuggled into the Soviet controlled areas, [Financial Times, 8/10/2001]

    (19) - Prominent Figures See Ties Between the ISI, 9/11, and Even the CIA [Guardian, 7/22/2004]

    (20) - 1980s ISI-CIA collaboration in Afghanistan. - the ISI trained ?militants? to attack the Soviet Union ; well over 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992 in camps constructed and overseen by the CIA and MI6,
    [THE tELeGRAPH By Rahul Bedi 26/09/2001]



    Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, is on record as saying:"I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of
    the terrorists were assisted, not just
    in financing ... by a sovereign
    foreign government."

    Horst Ehmke, former coordinator of the West German secret services, added:
    "The Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."

    That might give meaning to the reaction on 9/11 of Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism chief, when he saw the passenger lists later on the day itself he said: "I was stunned ... that there were ?al-Qaida? operatives on board using names that the FBI knew were al-Qaida.? It was just that, as Dale Watson, head of counter-terrorism at the FBI told him, the "CIA forgot to tell us about them".

    (21) - Former Justice Dept. prosecutor John Loftus on July 29 2005 edition
    of FOX News Channel's Day Side programme
    view here on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoxPY3H5EqA

    On FOX News Channel's Day Side, Terrorism Expert John Loftus revealed that Haroon Rashid Aswat, the suspect wanted by British Police for "masterminding" the July 7th London bombings and July 21st attempted bombings is in fact an asset of MI6, the British Secret Service. According to Loftus, Aswat has been under the protection of MI6 for many years.

    full transcripots at http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1425

    (22) - The Insider, "US regime actively blocked attempts to stop London bomber",
    26 July 2005. - Why did high-level US officials want to protect Haroon Aswat, one of the four London bombers? US Justice Department prosecutors planned to arrest and detain Aswat, but were ordered not to do so, and these strange orders came directly from the highest level. The fact that at least one of the four alleged terrorists visited the USA before the 7/7 attacks is beyond dispute. In contrast, claims by Western intelligence services that the bombers visited Pakistan have been exposed as false.

    (23) - Seattle Times, "Effort here to charge London suspect was blocked", 24 July 2005.

    (24) - Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
    [By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer ]

    the Associated Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.

    OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.

    (25) - September 11, 2001: NORAD on Alert for Emergency Exercises
    Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins and other day shift employees at NORAD?s Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS) in Rome, NY, start their workday. NORAD is conducting a week-long, large-scale exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002]

    Vanity Fair reports that the ?day?s exercise? (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is ?designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ?traditional? simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.? [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

    Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise

    (26) - (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Northern Vigilance Operation False Blips on Radar Screens - many minutes into the real 9/11 attacks, false radar blips causing confusion among NORAD personnel. Additional details, such as whose radar screens have false blips and over what duration, are unknown. .[Toronto Star, 12/9/2001; National Post, 10/19/2002]

    (27) - NORAD confirms that ?it was running two mock drills on Sept. 11 at various radar sites and Command Centers in the United States and Canada,? one of these being Vigilant Guardian.[New Jersey Star-Ledger, 12/5/2003]

    (28) -At least one military exercise this morning is reported to include simulated information injected onto radar screens (see (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). At the current time, despite the earlier crash of Flight 11, NORAD has yet to cancel a major exercise it is in the middle of (see After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001).
    [Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face Of Air Defence Mission (Hardcover)
    by Leslie Filson 2004, pp. 59]

    (29) - BBC Radio 5 Live's Drivetime programme 7th July 2005
    Peter Power Managing Director of Visor Consultants the private firm running the terror rehearsal operation on Radio 5 Live's Drivetime - from transcript :
    POWER: ?...at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning,

    PETER ALLEN: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

    POWER: Precisely, and it was, er, about half-past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, 'this is the real one' and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from 'slow time' to 'quick time' thinking and so on.?
    The client for whom the terror rehearsal was being organised ha snever been revealed

    (30) - www.cooperativeresearch.org complete 7/7 timeline

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 09:44am on 07 Jul 2008, goldtruthseeker wrote:



    DANIEL ELLSBERG, THE FORMER US DEFENCE department whistleblower has stated: "It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it's hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of."

    W ith CIA backing, the ISI has developed, since the early 1980s, into a state within a state which wields enormous power andThe case of Ahmed confirms that parts of the ISI directly supported and financed the 911 hijackers and it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA.
    (see sources; (1), (9), (17), (18), (19), (20) below and previous post by me)


    Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, is on record as saying:"I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of
    the terrorists were assisted, not just
    in financing ... by a sovereign
    foreign government."

    Horst Ehmke, former coordinator of the West German secret services, added:
    "The Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."


    That might give meaning to the reaction on 9/11 of Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism chief, when he saw the passenger lists later on the day itself he said: "I was stunned ... that there were ?al-Qaida? operatives on board using names that the FBI knew were al-Qaida.? It was just that, as Dale Watson, head of counter-terrorism at the FBI told him, the "CIA forgot to tell us about them".



    here we have connections between the intelligence services and the 911 attacks - but what about the other so called ?Al-Qaeda? attacks, like the london bombings in 2005?

    on The July 29 2005 edition of FOX News Channel's Day Side programme Former Justice Dept. prosecutor and Terror expert John Loftus revealed the mastermind of the 7/7 London Bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, was a British Intelligence Asset double agent.

    Loftus revealed that Aswat was part of the
    Al-Muhajiroun group and assistant to head, abu hamza .
    Al-Muhajiroun, which means ?The Emigrants?, was the recruiting arm of ?Al-Qaeda? in London and had formed during the Kosovo crisis, during which, Fundamentalist Muslim Leaders (Or what is now referred to as
    ?Al Qaeda? ) were recruited by MI6 to fight in Kosovo.
    (see sources; (1), (9), (21), (22, (23) below and previous post by me))

    Loftus stated that
    "...back in the late 1990s, the leaders all worked for British intelligence in Kosovo. British intelligence actually hired some Al-Qaeda guys to help defend the Muslim rights in Albania and in Kosovo. That's when
    Al-Muhajiroun got started." (see sources; (21) below and previous post by me))

    in 1999 Aswat came to America trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon. when authorities tried to act the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch him because he was working for British intelligence
    (see sources; (1), (9), (21), (22, (23) below and previous post by me))


    here we have strong links with the cia, ISI and MI6 in the two attacks - but the similarities do not end there. both attacks were mirrored by training exercises simulating the exact same events

    on 911 September 11, 2001, NORAD held ?Live-Fly? Training Exercises called Vigilant Guardian and OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE simulating hijacked planes hitting buildings on the Northern seaboard. this had the effect of preventing the hijacked flights from being intercepted by Norad fighters - as they thought it was part of the exercise (see sources; (1), (9), (24), (25), (26), (27), (28) below and previous post by me))

    and in london On the evening of 7th July 2005, information came to light about a private company , Visor Consultants, running a terror rehearsal operation in London at the time that real explosions were reported to have occurred on the transport network. the stations used in the exercise were the exact ones used by the real bombers.
    (see sources; (1), (29), (30) below and previous post by me))


    SOURCES - also in previous post
    (21) - Former Justice Dept. prosecutor John Loftus on July 29 2005 edition
    of FOX News Channel's Day Side programme
    view here on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoxPY3H5EqA

    On FOX News Channel's Day Side, Terrorism Expert John Loftus revealed that Haroon Rashid Aswat, the suspect wanted by British Police for "masterminding" the July 7th London bombings and July 21st attempted bombings is in fact an asset of MI6, the British Secret Service. According to Loftus, Aswat has been under the protection of MI6 for many years.

    full transcripots at http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1425

    (22) - The Insider, "US regime actively blocked attempts to stop London bomber",
    26 July 2005. - Why did high-level US officials want to protect Haroon Aswat, one of the four London bombers? US Justice Department prosecutors planned to arrest and detain Aswat, but were ordered not to do so, and these strange orders came directly from the highest level. The fact that at least one of the four alleged terrorists visited the USA before the 7/7 attacks is beyond dispute. In contrast, claims by Western intelligence services that the bombers visited Pakistan have been exposed as false.

    (23) - Seattle Times, "Effort here to charge London suspect was blocked", 24 July 2005.

    (24) - Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
    [By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer ]

    the Associated Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.

    OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.

    (25) - September 11, 2001: NORAD on Alert for Emergency Exercises
    Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins and other day shift employees at NORAD?s Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS) in Rome, NY, start their workday. NORAD is conducting a week-long, large-scale exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002]

    Vanity Fair reports that the ?day?s exercise? (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is ?designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ?traditional? simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.? [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

    Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise

    (26) - (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Northern Vigilance Operation False Blips on Radar Screens - many minutes into the real 9/11 attacks, false radar blips causing confusion among NORAD personnel. Additional details, such as whose radar screens have false blips and over what duration, are unknown. .[Toronto Star, 12/9/2001; National Post, 10/19/2002]

    (27) - NORAD confirms that ?it was running two mock drills on Sept. 11 at various radar sites and Command Centers in the United States and Canada,? one of these being Vigilant Guardian.[New Jersey Star-Ledger, 12/5/2003]

    (28) -At least one military exercise this morning is reported to include simulated information injected onto radar screens (see (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). At the current time, despite the earlier crash of Flight 11, NORAD has yet to cancel a major exercise it is in the middle of (see After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001).
    [Air War Over America: Sept. 11 Alters Face Of Air Defence Mission (Hardcover)
    by Leslie Filson 2004, pp. 59]

    (29) - BBC Radio 5 Live's Drivetime programme 7th July 2005
    Peter Power Managing Director of Visor Consultants the private firm running the terror rehearsal operation on Radio 5 Live's Drivetime - from transcript :
    POWER: ?...at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning,

    PETER ALLEN: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

    POWER: Precisely, and it was, er, about half-past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, 'this is the real one' and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from 'slow time' to 'quick time' thinking and so on.?
    The client for whom the terror rehearsal was being organised ha snever been revealed

    (30) - www.cooperativeresearch.org complete 7/7 timeline

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 1:10pm on 07 Jul 2008, goldtruthseeker wrote:

    it is indisputable with anyone with eyes to see from my above 2 posts with sources

    911 was an inside job

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 1:44pm on 07 Jul 2008, goldtruthseeker wrote:

    go to google video and watch '911 truth rising' to see the thousands of first responder workers testifying to their health problems and how they are helped by the 911 truth movemnent

    hundreds of witnesses ignored by your documentary

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 2:06pm on 07 Jul 2008, goldtruthseeker wrote:

    Mr Rudin

    do you expect us to believe that after your research you did not turn up the folowing proof of a induced collapse

    the FACT Rudolph Giuliani admited to Peter Jennings on abc news that he got a warning that the South Tower was about to collapse

    yet later during his campaign Giuliani is on record as saying:

    , "I didn't realize the towers would collapse." He later added, "No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise."

    transcript of Giuliani's appearance with Jenning on abc news:

    "I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."

    google it if you doubt he said it

    2 options Mr Rudin

    1. you are incompetent

    2. you are deliberately incompetent

    whic is is to be?

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 03:21am on 08 Jul 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    Pilots for truth had a look at the black box from the 757 which was supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon. They state that the 757 could not have carried out that stunt because of various obvious anomalies.

    (1) The lawn in front of the Pentagon was untouched but for the aircraft to fly low enough to hit the wall the engines would have made two massive furrows in the lawn.

    (2) If the aircraft had flown that low it would have created a great gas pressure under the aircraft.

    (3) The 757 although structurely capable of performing the stunt it did it was not possible by someone with Honjour's very limited capabilities.

    (4) The pilots looked at the cockpit gauges and concluded the 757 flew over the Pentagon.

    (5) There is a transponder fitted which transmits a signal should the aircraft have a potential hijacking. The pilot simply throws a switch none were switched indicating there were no hijackers. Which is confirmed by the manifests.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 09:17am on 08 Jul 2008, goldtruthseeker wrote:

    172. , pistonbroke2

    don't forget the official report stated the jet vapourised completely - that means the titanium and steel twin engines

    that was the excuse they gave for the lack of any of the extensive wreckage nornmally associated with a plane crash

    yet they expect us to believe they recovered dna and the black box

    Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in "Between Two Ages" :

    "Shortly the public will be unable to reason for themselves. They'll be conditioned to let the media do all their reasoning and thinking for them and the only topics of conversation they will have shortly is what's been feed to them or downloaded into them on the previous night's news."

    welcome to reality

    it's obvious why 911 was allowed to happen

    Brzezinski also wrote in "Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technotronic Era" about what is needed to usher us into the world government

    in it he writes:

    "The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty... In the economic-technological field, some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position."


    also read works by the likes of Carroll Quigley(Tragedy and Hope) and Jacques Attali (Millenium) among others, where they reveal their agenda for a unified world order and government system

    books written for the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) and RIFA and those who run the politics behind the politics (as CFR historian Prof Quigley states)

    Jacques Attali wrote of the rise of China and the decline of the US over 15 years ago - as a road map to world government (China also took over from Japan as the biggest holder of the US debt some time ago) curious no?

    this is why politics is about getting to decide how to arrange the deck chairs - you will never get to decide the direction the ship is travelling, these decisions are kept away from the 'profane'


    they would much rather have you distracted and kept occupied than to investigate 911 and be placated with hitpieces like the BBc2 propaganda programme - which completely ignore the ISI-CIA-911 Hijacker connections even publicised by the likes of Michael Meaceher

    see my post above - posts 167 and 168 for in depth analysis and proof of the connections that conclude this was an inside job - backed up by extensive sources

    as Prof Quigley historian for the royal instute of foriegn affairs is famous for saying there's always a certain amount of competition allowed with the lower political parties and individuals but the ones at the top and the 'coterie' around them had always been vetted by a much higher organization outside of the democratic rule

    and that we have had a secret government in a managed society for 60 years ... and he wrote this in 1960s


    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 7:05pm on 08 Jul 2008, pistonbroke2 wrote:

    goldtruthseeker, I'm too old to really worry about 911 or any other of the criminal activities of governments but back in September of 2001 I realised the government had murdered 3000 people and my stomach turned. I've been seeking the truth ever since and it doesn't make pretty reading. The culprits were obvious from the start having just rigged an election and the subsequent discovery of the PNAC plan of world domination putting two and two together wasn't too difficult.

    The BBC and the rest of the media just smothered the story with nonsense and kept on message, 911, hijackers, 911 hijackers until it was pounded into the brain of the poor slobs who make up the population.

    In every blog like this you'll get one poster who supports the official story and just posts one after another, we have one on here.

    The 911 truth movement is expanding exponentially and the BBC along with the rest of the media are getting a bit edgy, hence this programme which is being broadcast. The usual ploy is to smother the 911 story with Di., Kennedy, and all the others in an attempt to make the 911 truthers look like fools.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 11:53pm on 08 Jul 2008, rik_james wrote:

    So Mr Rudin,

    Are you saying that the BBC does not check its sources. Instead it just broadcasts news feeds from other unconfirmed sources. Well that doesn't say much for the BBC does it.

    But you fail to see the broader picture. Just about every aspect of 9/11 doesn't add up when considering the official version of events.

    WTC7 was very suspicious, but also was the crash in Shanksville, the hit on the Pentagon, both where no evidence of planes has yet to be found.

    The list of inconsistences in the official story is enormous. Please do your research and inform the British people with the full picture, the evidence in its entirety, or just don't bother at all.

    9/11 was an inside job.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 5:43pm on 10 Jul 2008, whocontrolsthepast wrote:

    Hi there

    Thanks to Mike Rudin for making the odd facts of 9/11 better known to the general public (i.e. people not interested in spending hours on the internet making an opinion for themselves).

    I have to admit though that I have been desapointed for the following reason:

    The piece of news that announces the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it actually happen could have been more investigated. We have a begining of answer as the "on site" journalist admits she knew nothing on what was happenning, and neither anything of the source.

    I know journalists praise themselves for protecting their sources, but without revealing any name it would have been possible to find out more details. Who has warned the BBC that WTC7 was due to collapse? A secret service? People in charge of the evacuation?
    It was an easy investigation, it'd just have been a matter of speaking to a few colleagues, checking diaries of that day and archives...

    Instead the report mentions the inexpected loss of connexion with the satellite, supposedly a form of conspiracy...

    Maybe I expected a study of what happened that day, but it was more an investigation on the conspiracy trend on the internet. Thanks to Mike for that, but next time, please come up with an investigation an what happen on 9/11 instead.

    Thomas

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 1:48pm on 05 Oct 2008, PGPOwer wrote:

    There has been much nonsense written about why my company ran an exercise on 7 July 2005 that had very close parallels to the real thing that day. Since then I have made several attempts to add my own comments to numerous sites that seem to get increasingly excited about their own conspiracy theories and in the process exclude any rational debate. It seems those who occupy the world of finding conspiracy theories to replace just about any coincidence, do not want to have any dialogue with those offering a different view, but I have not yet given up hope. I am therefore hoping, perhaps naively, that someone might like to read an honest and factual account about a particular exercise my company ran in London three years ago.

    Unfortunately, the BBC have just postponed a programme in their ?conspiracy files? series that would have done this. Our client three years ago agreed to be named in the BBC programme since the attitude of the producer and his team was very balanced (several conspiracy theorists were also invited to take part). We even allowed our complete exercise material to be made available to the BBC. Regrettably broadcasting it now might jeopardise an ongoing court case, so they had little choice about postponing it to next year.

    Early in 2005 Reed Elsevier, an organisation specialising in information and publishing that employs 1,000 people in and around London, asked us to help them prepare an effective crisis management plan and rehearse it before sign-off. Several draft scenarios were drawn up and the crisis team themselves set the exercise date and time: 9.00am on 7 July.

    The test was planned as a table-top walk through for about six people (the CM team) in a lecture room with all injects simulated. Everything was on MS PowerPoint. The location of their Central London office near to Chancery Lane was chosen as one test site. With many staff travelling to work via the London underground system, the chosen exercise simulated incendiary devices on three trains, very similar to a real IRA attack in 1992, as well as other events.

    As there had been eighteen terrorist bomb attacks on tube trains prior to 2005, choosing the London Underground was logical rather than just prescient. With this in mind it was hardly surprising that Deutsche Bank had run a similar exercise a few days before and, prior to that, a multi-agency (and much publicised) exercise code-named Osiris II had simulated a terrorist attack at Bank tube station. Moreover, I had also taken part in a BBC Panorama programme in 2004 as a panellist alongside Michael Portillo MP et al, in an unscripted debate (we had no idea at all what the scenario was to be?) on how London might once again, deal with terrorist attacks, only this time it was fictional (created entirely by the BBC).

    In short, some of the research for our exercise had already been done. The scenario developed for our client even started by using fictitious news items from the Panorama programme then, as with any walk through exercise, events unfolded solely on a screen as dictated by the facilitator without any external injects or actions beyond the exercise room. Also factored into the scenario was to be an above ground fictitious bomb exploding not far from the head office of the protected Jewish Chronicle magazine where for exercise purposes, our imagined terrorists would have been aware that commuters would now be walking to work (past a building already considered a target) as some tube stations would have been closed.

    Of just eight nearby tube stations that fell within possible exercise scope, three were chosen that, by coincidence, were involved in the awful drama that actually took place on 7 July 2005. A level of scenario validation that on this occasion, we could have done without.

    An exercise that turns into the real thing is not that unusual. For example, in January 2003, thirty people were injured when a tube train derailed and hit a wall at speed. At the same time, the City of London Police were running an exercise for their central casualty bureau where the team quickly abandoned their plans and swung into action to cope with the real thing.

    For a surprising number of people such coincidents cannot be accepted as such. There just has to be a conspiracy behind them, despite the obvious point that painstaking research will always identify probable above possible scenarios. By the way, the only reason I was asked to speak on TV news that day, when there was still much confusion about the real tragedies, was to encourage more organisations to thoroughly plan their own exercises knowing the threat of terrorism is and remains, very real. One tragic consequence being Islam, a great Abrahamic, monotheistic faith (along with Judaism and Christianity), has undeservedly become vilified by some people.

    Peter Power
    Visor Consultants

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 10:33am on 06 Oct 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Peter,

    Thank-you

    If this is a genuine post from you and all the information is accurate i can only say a big thank-you.

    I would imagine the level of pressure brought to bear on you from 'conspiricy theorists' has brought about your decision to tell what you know.

    It would have been nice if you had offered this information 3 years ago but at least you are now owning up and confessing to who asked you, and what they asked you to do.

    As you say the scenario was thought up by your client, so clearly, if there was a conspiricy, you were just a dupe or patsy regarding your involvement.

    It would have been nice if you had just left it at that rather than going on to say that we just can't accept such a thing as a coincidence. I certainly can, i just can't accept that many happening on one day with no enquiry.

    The visor consultants part of the 'conspiricy' is just one aspect of the strange goings on that day, the train times and the (lack of and 'footage that never was) cctv footage are much bigger indications of foul play.

    Clearly your role in this was just doing your job and following orders.

    Again thank-you for , belatedly, telling your story to the public. Sadly due to the lack of any real investigation by the state, it has been left to people like me to try and understand what happened that day.

    Your new found honesty is greatly appreciated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 10:12am on 07 Oct 2008, spivver wrote:

    On the assumption that you are really Peter Power of Visor Consultants, I remain extremely perplexed at what you say, Mr Power.

    As a professional accountant I have been a long term client of Reed Elsevier?s subsidiary company publications, and just cannot understand why they should have commissioned your services to take part in an ?anti-terror? exercise? It is as strange as if my own practice had commissioned you to undertake similar work. So in addition to my credulity being strained from ?coincidences? (after all, there were similar anti-terror exercises going on during the morning of 911 involving so called terrorists crashing aircraft into buildings in America, and again your exercises during 7/7), I seem now to be wondering just why a publishing company would be conducting those exercises.

    So thank you Peter, I have questions I was not even aware of before your odd explanation - one which has come after three years of speculation. Keep going, maybe one day the real truth will come out, and those criminals actually responsible for the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks will be tried in accordance with US and UK laws.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 3:27pm on 07 Oct 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    Don't know if this helps spivver but Reed Elsevier owned a subsiduary company called Spearhead, who were involved in the arms trade.

    As i say i don't know if this is connected.

    This could all just be a red herring as it is a strange place for Peter to come clean. I am sure one phonecall to an Alex Jones or David Shayler and they would happily send a film crew round to film a statement which would confirm that these are actually Peter Powers words and testimony.

    I found it very odd that he says he has been trying his best to tell his side of the story and nobody seemed to want to listen. I have asked him for an interview which was to be posted online and he gave me a refusal, so i know he has had plenty of opportunity to explain what his role in the events of that day were.



    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 2:57pm on 08 Oct 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:

    There is a cracking piece posted online posted by 'we are change' where they confront Mr. Rudin at ground zero. they keep asking him why they implied that the explosions that Barry Jennings heard were towers one and two collapsing when he had stated that they were still standing when he heard the explosions. They also bring Mr. Rudin to task on why they didn't show any of the footage of the firefighters telling people to clear away as the building was about to be blown.

    Its a bit like the paxman vs howard clip that the bbc are so proud of. Mike has massive problems giving them a straight answer. The smirk on his face as he spins and lies really does turn your stomach when you think about the number of dead involved.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

Explore the BBC

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.