Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

*****************************************************
I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Was 9/11 aided and abetted by heinous, brilliant co-conspirators in federal employ?

We think not, but distinguished commentators wish to correct us, hence this post

We challenge them to produce any remaining instance of odd circumstance unexplained by official story

Comments will start at once but we plan to advance massive rebuttal here anon

In a world where the Bush administration has been increasingly exposed as radically untrustworthy and exploitive on so many fronts, at a cost of a trillion dollar war and a multi-trillion dollar recession, excessive suspicion of officialdom in every other area is understandable. No wonder conspiracy theory has flourished on the Web, especially 9/11.

guy_fawkes-conspirator.jpgCertainly, anyone who has caught up with the true situation in HIV/AIDS and understands that it is most certainly based on a false scientific hypothesis thoroughly rebutted in the scientific literature, but kept going with bureaucratic and political support and funding at the cost of ruining many lives and causing more than a few unnecessary deaths, is going to question officialdom on other fronts.

The question becomes, is there any good reason to dismiss 9/11 theories when the global scam in AIDS (non)science is such a huge error yet so well funded and endorsed by every government and so many charities in the world, with Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Taylor, Bono and many other well known medical authorities, er, celebrities joining in?

What a priori reason is there to discount the theory that there are many fishy things about the circumstances of 9/11 and they all point to the conclusion that the destruction was aided in advance by federal personnel who helped it come off in order to allow the US to invade Iraq and further global domination by the elite who have so successfully raided the coffers of the US and the pockets of the uninformed Wall Street investor and US motorist at the gas pump under the leadership of Bush and Cheney and their friends in high corporate places and in the Saudi Royal family etc etc etc.

Science heretics are not conspiracy theorists

As far as we are concerned, there is every reason not to think the two are comparable, starting with the fact that the HIV/ADS global scam is a simple matter of a medical theory arising out of a false claim which has been thoroughly disproven in the peer reviewed literature continuing to receive funding and political support because the reviews and gathering disproof have been concealed from the public by forcibly discouraging the mainstream media from reporting on the topic, and fomenting enormous public prejudice against the reviewers, including virtually ignoring the over thirty very good books which have been published on the topic (we plan to add a long page listing these books and short guides to each anon).

The 9/11 theories on the other hand, consist entirely of imaginative alternative explanations for the circumstances of 9/11 which may have looked odd and inconsistent with the official story to begin with but which have been exhaustively investigated and accounted for since. The residual oddities are trivial, since as we recently pointed out the thorough review of the collapse of WTC 7 published last month dispensed with the last major puzzle of the event.

However, we recognize that many of our commentators here have studied the topic with much greater enthusiasm and attention than we have and so there yet may be a gigantic conspiracy remaining to be uncovered which has so far resisted being pulled into the open despite the combined efforts of a million or more Web investigators who find the official story incredible because it doesn’t fit the facts as they understand them, or for more emotional reasons.

We therefore will be delighted to host any further comment along these lines under this post, which will have the effect of removing them from the comment threads on posts on other topics, which will be beneficial all round.

We look forward to seeing what if any credible statements and evidence can be produced to justify any further attention to the topic.

But we repeat that it seems important to separate skepticism on science and its paradigms, especially HIV/AIDS, from 9/11 conspiracy analysis, because the political and social disparagement of skeptics in science can only be magnified by association with the unscientific and imaginative elements in 9/11 theorizing, when the two issues are very different in substance.

Here are the comments on this topic so far, moved from the Debate, economy distract as political road bomb awaits post:

Baby Pong Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I completely agree with TS. Conspiracy theories are silly. Everybody knows that conspiracies don’t happen. And everybody knows that a US government agency like NIST is going to produce an objective investigation of alleged government wrongdoing, because, darn, it’s the right thing to do!

Debunking NIST’s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Truthseeker Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Almost all conspiracy theories are silly. That’s what is so damaging about them – they let the true problems sneak through under the Crying Wolf camouflage, with the guards asleep at the post.

Because 9/11 is so fatuous a theory without any credibility or the smallest scrap of genuine evidence everyone is lulled into thinking that elections don’t get hacked.

Baby Pong Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Of course, conspiracies never happen. Two guys don’t plot to knock off a 7-Eleven on a Saturday night. And a guy in a cave (a most unusual cave, which would have needed to have been outfitted with the most sophisticated communications equipment capable of executing an elaborate plot on the other side of the world with split second timing, defeating the vast resources of the world’s most advanced defensive system, and also would have needed a dialysis machine in the cave to keep the guy alive…and lots of electricity to run all this technology…this conspiracy doesn’t happen either.

Truthseeker Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 am

Gee, I guess the fact that they must have power sockets in the caves to run the video cameras proves beyond doubt that that the CIA supplied generators.

stevekj Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm

TS, you must bear in mind that the story peddled by the U.S. government of what happened on 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory. So the choice available to intelligent observers is not “should I believe the official account or some nutjob conspiracy theorists” but rather “*which* conspiracy theorists should I believe?” There is no reason to elevate the official story above the pejorative label “conspiracy theory” just because it happens to come from the government.

When you frame it this way, and look at the available evidence carefully, it quickly becomes obvious that the official story is a fabrication, and that whatever happened that day had a lot of inside help. It was very clearly not just a bunch of turban-wearing foreigners stealing a couple of planes. Where did that help come from? Since the government put a lot of effort into covering up and suppressing evidence, that’s who I would look at first.

Truthseeker Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Well Steve, perhaps you are in possession of evidence that some known or unknown branch of the US government gave them inside help, but it appears that the New York Times does not have it. Would you care to forward it to us or them? Not sure that the government’s “conspiracy theory” and the 9/11 nutjob “conspiracy theory” are on the same plane as far as the definition of “conspiracy theory” goes. Buncha Al Quaeda loonies hitting at the Great Satan’s new brand symbol (G’bye Statue of Liberty) on the grounds it offended their idea of maintaining the innocence of Islam from Western values is hardly the same kind of thing as officials of the US federal government assisting the assault and if so how exactly? How did they assist them? They knew about them but they let them go ahead? OK so did they know it would demolish the WTC Twin Towers so dramatically and totally? If not, was it really such a great idea as it turned out to be? Not beforehand, clearly. It was small scale in prospect, even compared with boarding and downing many more planes at a time. Any Federal Government involvement would have escalated it to a decent level commensurate with the ambitions of the dastardly planners of world domination or whatever.

They weren’t wearing dish cloths anyhow, they were in jacket and trousers as we recall. The government motives in suppressing evidence presumably had a lot to do with various understandable political motives from crowd control and avoiding blame for incompetence to trying to get the Bush friends the Bin Ladens out of town before they got lynched, etc, just as the EPA assessment of the smoke as non toxic was to avoid panic and get business back ASAP. The list of such motives is easy to imagine. The possibility of a conspiracy within the US government executive branch of aiding and abetting a very low tech amateurish attack on the symbols of American global commercial power and keeping it concealed afterwards from the bloodhound media of the world all eager to expose any such thing is by comparison totally inconceivable on any rational basis, that is all we claim.

MacDonald Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Any Federal Government involvement would have escalated it to a decent level commensurate with the ambitions of the dastardly planners of world domination or whatever.

I’m not sure what you’re gettign at here, TS 9/11 worked quite nicely for those dastardly planners of world domination. It ushered in an endless war against a phantom enemy plus Afghanistan, Iraq and soon Iran, unbridled executive powers, accelerated erosion of all civil liberties, got Buch elected twice, and is the only reason McCain is not light years behind in the polls.

Whaddaya mean it wasn’t enuff?

BY the way, why do we need somebody to come forward with evidence when the doting fools that runs the country spill the beans every time they forget to take their medicine on time?

If Rumsfeld himself told you that Flight 93 was shot down, would you believe it? If Bush told you that bombs inside the buildings were part of the terrorists’ plan, would that be convincing? Note, in the usual semantic mess that characterizes every Bush statement, there is an allusion to people trapped above not being allowed to escape. Guess which event. How about 9/11 comission testimony saying that Cheney knew that…. whatever hit Pentagon was coming, but declared that “the order stands” (obviously not the order to shoot the bugger down)? Here’s the trinity for ya:

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was “shot down.”


Bush talks about EXPLOSIVES in building (on 9/11?)

Minetta tells 9/11 Commission Cheney knew exact flight path

Baby Pong Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am

“Well Steve, perhaps you are in possession of evidence that some known or unknown branch of the US government gave them inside help, but it appears that the New York Times does not have it.”

Did you ever serve on a jury, TS? Have you never seen a prosecutor discredit the testimony of someone who is a known and proven liar? Ah, yes, if the NYT had evidence, you imply, they would publish it, even salivate at the prospect, being part of a “bloodhound media… eager to expose any such thing…”

These really shows your disconnect with reality. First, the NYT are known and proven liars, as any good intellectual should know. The media are only eager to expose scandals that involve illicit sex by world leaders and other titillating matters that make good headlines but do not seriously threaten to overturn the established order. The media themselves are the biggest scandal of all, for most of the time they act as though they were state-controlled, faithfully parrotting government’s self-serving stories, and do not dig to get at facts that would really stir the rabble to revolution.

The list of important stories they have censored would probably stretch from New York city to Crackley Falls, Maryland, were it set in 16 point justified Bodoni with 1-1/2 line spacing and 1/4 inch indents.

Okay, now I’m sure you will change your fanciful thinking. You just needed a knock on the head.

Truthseeker Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 2:05 am e

The list stretches from New York to Niagara Falls, yet you cannot name one favorite?

Yes, prosecutors are often liars and abet lying and manage to railroad innocents into jail for ever and then when they are proved innocent, resist the correction, as my next post will record when I return from life ie Photoplus 2008.

Yes, the media are captives of their system, as we all are except the few outside any system, as are the distinguished personnel and resolute commentators of the Guardian of Science.

But what has that got to do with the price of bats flying around your belfry, my distinguished commentator?

We requested evidence, and it appears you come up short. Do we have to laboriously post a list of all the proper explanations of all the supposed mysteries of 9/11?

We are willing to do that but other vital topics must take priority. To avoid confusion of topic, since this post concerns voting integrity, after all, not 9/11, perhaps you will allow us to start the post on 9/11 rebuttal with a couple of sentences and fill in later, and this important discussion can be moved there instead of forcing those printing out the comments on this post to waste paper (in their view) on the topic that concerns you, which is apparently your unlikely belief that those who occupy the top positions in US government and its executive can organize conspiracies of an intricate nature and vast consequence without being found out by any intern reporter on a provincial newspaper in Utah, which seems unlikely a priori but hey, always surprises in store as the planet rolls on in it as yet undisturbed orbit.

92 Responses to “Was 9/11 aided and abetted by heinous, brilliant co-conspirators in federal employ?”

  1. Baby Pong Says:

    This post is a bad idea. I do not have the time to argue about 9-11 with someone who is impervious to evidence and views official government studies as science, not politics, as TS seems to be and do on this topic. I only brought it up in the other posts because TS keeps bringing it up. TS posted about NIST, and that’s why I replied.

    Intelligent and devastating rebuttal of the official story can be easily found by reading David Ray Griffin’s books and essays, which are all over the web, visiting the Journal of 9-11 studies and Scholars for 9-11 truth websites and others.

  2. pat Says:

    WTC7 was seriously damaged, yes but how can a bulge on the SOUTH-WEST corner of the building result in a perfectly SYMMETRICAL collapse? with a little help of course.
    TS, it’s on tape. Why can’t you SEE it?

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Imagination is no substitute for reason, and claims are no substitute for evidence.

    So Pong is finally empty handed, it appears, substituting generalities for specifics and grab bag references for precise points, if any, that he has thoroughly researched and personally checked and used to build a seasoned judgement that he can express in a cogent paragraph. In the absence of all these, we must be forgiven if we can’t help thinking of what happens in a dark basement cellar when you turn on the light.

    Pat, if you have a link to video that you wish to reference, or an image, then one could see what you refer to, and discuss it, and see if you could persuade us that it proved that a little help was needed, according to your reasoning, if you cared to give it, and whether other possibilities of a more credible nature were ruled out, and whether any other evidence of whatever you suspect exists, such as any record of explosives being carted into WTC7 by anyone at any time before 9/11, and the absence of any such record or indication explained in a society that tends to record every action in more than one way.

  4. MacDonald Says:

    TS, since you have come up empty-handed on all your boastful claims about debunking 9/11 dissidence, perhaps you should just can it and delete this post.

    Your request for the accounts from the company that delivered the explosives to the WTC buildings, detailing type, quantity and price, are not constructive and, quite frankly, no longer amusing.

    Nobody here, except maybe Pong, has peddled the inside job theory. You have been presented with inconsistencies in the official conspiracy theory, to which you have replied that conspiracy theory is a priori unscientific, which is why we should believe in the one served bythe government.

    Let that be your epitaph.

  5. pat Says:

    “a” video?…sure…at random.

    wtc 7 collapse (on YouTube)

    “notice” how the SW “bulging side” drags the rest of the building down with it.

    PS. don’t let the middle crinck (not SW side) and overall symmetry (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W and NW) of the collapse fool your eyes. THEY are not to be trusted.

    PPS: all those firefighters on crack cocaine who heard explosions…. gee, what a collective drug induced Fata Morgana that was.

    PPPS I don’t claim to know what happened but I sure know what DIDN”T happen.

    “there’s an old saying in Tennessee; I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee…”

  6. pat Says:

    And now for something completely different…

    An e-mail from my bro:

    Mark Twain was ahead of the curve: “October. This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August and February.”

  7. Truthseeker Says:

    Speculation…aaah, the great danger for those with a bias toward suspicion and paranoia of their nominal betters with whom they have insufficient acquaintance to understand how incompetent said betters are at anything approaching grand political secret conspiracy, though if given half a chance the political minions will like everybody else quickly band together to serve their own interests in simple ways eg price fixing.

    So Pat, really. You think that you can see things in that video which might be explosions set off internally to produce collapse courtesy of villains in the governmental superstructure of the US, do you? How do you know that it wasn’t Martians flying past for an inspection of the latest human excess whose slipstream blew into the burning wreckage and induced the final collapse of the beams holding it up, in a design which let us note was designed to collapse in a pancake to avoid knocking into other buildings nearby?

    And the explosions that supposedly destroyed the building were neatly timed to go off eight and a half hours after the Twin Towers collapsed. How come these geniuses at deceptive tactics involving installing major explosives, giving Mahomed Atta pocket money to visit night clubs and booze it up in Germany, etc couldn’t buy a decent clock to trigger this result a little more accurately? According to the live Silverstein quote, it was triggered at will, though.

    MacD, we are not trying to be amusing, and nor are you, it is yourself who are inadvertently so. If you have something specific to claim about inconsistencies with regard to the story the respected media and the established government have generously offered us to calm our fears and suspicions, kindly let us know.

    If WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition set by agents of Larry Silverstein to make him a buck this video is a lot more articulate about it: HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL?

    I will laboriously post expansion of this post to list all the reasons why 9/11 theories are largely a waste of time when priorities allow, MacD, or when sufficiently provoked by you or others with absurd comments which imply that the incredible is the best explanation of the facts.

  8. MacDonald Says:

    Ah, so we are no trying not be amusing when we write about the slipstream of Martians? It still hasn’t penetrated the bulwark of ignorance your brain is ensconced behind that Pat didn’t offer any causal theory, which is why your… wit is as misplaced as your self-appointed role as science guardian.

    I gave you 3 videos where highranking officials contradict the official theory. You could kindly attribute one of them to a senior moment, but the Mineta testimony to the 9/11 Commission (spelling corrected – Ed.) is no such thing, and it flatly contradicts Cheney, who said he wasn’t even present during the exchanges recounted by Mineta.

    Mineta tells 9/11 Commission Cheney knew exact flight path

    It’s really hard, you know, to have a conversation with someone who bloviates without having the slightest clue about the fundamentals of the story he is blindly defending. Gee that reminds me of something… can’t quite put my finger on it.

  9. MacDonald Says:

    Ah, so we are not trying to be amusing. . .

  10. pat Says:

    “So Pat, really. You think that you can see things in that video which might be explosions set off internally to produce collapse courtesy of villains in the governmental superstructure of the US, do you? How do you know that it wasn’t Martians flying past for an inspection of the latest human excess …”

    You are now behaving like tara’s hitmen by putting words and really crazy theories in my mouth (keyboard?). What I find amazing coming from you is this increadibly stupid statement:

    “If you have something specific to claim about inconsistencies with regard to the story the respected media and the established government have generously offered us to calm our fears and suspicions, kindly let us know.”

    Let us assume for a second that bombs were placed. You say this:

    “And the explosions that supposedly destroyed the building were neatly timed to go off eight and a half hours after the Twin Towers collapsed. How come these geniuses at deceptive tactics involving installing major explosives, giving Mahomed Atta pocket money to visit night clubs and booze it up in Germany, etc couldn’t buy a decent clock to trigger this result a little more accurately? According to the live Silverstein quote, it was triggered at will, though.”

    How would “they” explain the WTC7 collapse when nothing hit it? It had to burn first to give the cover story that fire weakend the structure (leading to the third collapse of a steel framed building in human history, all on the same day).

    Here’s a theory you might be able to swallow:
    Americans simply suck at building steel-framed buildings. I hope you dont live in one.

  11. Baby Pong Says:

    Well, I prepared this post in advance, so I’ll post it even though several others have beat me to it regarding some of the points:

    WTC 7 falls despite not having been hit by any plane, becoming the first steel framed building in history to collapse from fire alone. It collapses perfectly symetrically (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A) despite asymetrical damage. A number of people said they heard a countdown to the collapse. The owner of the building, recalling his actions that day, said that he said “maybe the best thing to do would be to pull it. So they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” He later said that he meant something different.

    The building contained one of the largest CIA offices, as well as Pentagon offices. When it comes to pulling off the biggest psyop in history, CIA and Pentagon are the first groups any well informed person would suspect. If they were orchestrating the mayhem at the other WTC towers from Building 7, having the building collapse would neatly destroy the evidence of their activities.

    The BBC and CNN both report that Building 7 collapsed well before it actually collapsed, even giving the reason it collapsed (9-11 WTC7 BBC and CNN Foreknowledge?). This is documented fact, and makes clear that the media are really run by the government, were given a script in advance of the day’s events, and made the mistake of getting ahead of their script. Why anyone, especially TS, would defend a media that has lied so flagrantly and murderously about “HIV” for so many years, and assume that, on all issues other than “HIV,” they are honorable eager beavers who lust to report mass murderous behaviors of their government to the public, is baffling.

    Can TS recall any other major (or minor) news event in history that was reported before it happened? I’m sure this must be very common! Enlighten us, TS.

    To believe the official story and its NIST justification in light of all these incredibly suspicious circumstances requires TS to abandon his usual skeptical demeanor to an extent that raises concern among his many fans.

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
    Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
    Patriots Question 911.com

  12. stevekj Says:

    TS definitely seems to have a blind spot when it comes to government propaganda. If it has to do with HIV/AIDS, his BS detector works fine, but for everything else, it appears to be shorted out. TS appears to be of the opinion that the government is honest, hard-working, and operating in the best interests of the public in every area of government activity except HIV/AIDS. This is a fairly bizarre worldview.

    TS, there’s nothing brilliant about the government’s 9/11 conspiracy. It’s not really all that secret, even. But you certainly won’t read about it in the New York Times. In fact there are an awful lot of things you won’t read about in the New York Times. You can read about a lot of them on the Project Censored web site (http://www.projectcensored.org), if you are interested. One of the top censored stories of 2007 was in fact the challenge of the official 9/11 conspiracy story by Prof. Steven Jones, physicist.

    You need to bear in mind that for a long time, the role of the media has had nothing to do with informing the public of what the public really needs to know. The mainstream media has two primary goals: First, to sell as many copies as possible of whatever it is they are publishing; and second, to retain their existing power, influence, and employment, by not publishing anything that really annoys anyone with the power to reduce those benefits. If those goals can be accomplished while reporting interesting and useful information, great; but if not, guess which gets the chopping block?

    You already know that this is the case for HIV/AIDS. Yet you seem to be incapable of even considering the notion that the travesty of uninformed lack of consent that occurs regularly in that field may have parallels in many other fields as well. I have no idea why you may be choosing to limit your thinking in this way.

    In 2006, the #1 censored story was “Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government”. One question I might ask you is this: what reason have you been given to believe anything that this administration has ever said? Or indeed, that anything they do is in your best interest, and not theirs?

    Or how about the #3 censored story for 2005: “Bush Administration Manipulates Science and Censors Scientists”. After this, you want to trust a scientific report issued by an agency like NIST over analyses by independent uncensored citizens?

    Did you know that a RICO charge has been filed by one of the 9/11 widows against the Bush administration for its complicity in that day’s events? What are the odds that you know more about this case than she does? (Yes, that was a censored story too, which is why you haven’t read about it in the New York Times.)

    (And in case you are wondering whether the Project Censored folks are paying attention, they also ran the ICC AIDS story in 2006, at #19.)

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    We are merely acting in our usual skeptical manner when presented with a concept that has no rhyme or reason to it – the idea that the Bush Administration who had no idea how to handle post victory Iraq even though instructed by the State Department with thousands of pages of fully worked out details somehow was so far ahead of the game with Osama’s 9/11 that it was able to coordinate explosives in WTC7 in such a manner that with the entire world watching and smelling a rat the little animal was able to decamp without a trace visible to millions of eyes and resolute Webheads who leave no pixel unturned in their determination to expose said plot, and without any conceivable purpose in doing so.

    Was the idea architectural balance?

    As to the remark about my role as science guardian as self appointed, this is an egregious error. There is a closeknit cabal of truthseekers at the highest levels of media and government in the US who are determined to maintain classical standards of decency and professional integrity in science and politics, and they shanghaied me kicking and screaming into this thankless role of running a Web tipsheet of 100% doubled checked factual accuracy as a corrective to the appalling trend in modern life to leave truth far behind in promoting political and social causes in science, where our main work consists in checking loose penned reports in the New Yorker and other liberal sheets (honorable exception of Harpers here) against the published scientific literature to ensure a match.

    All constant commentators here are pledged to support the same values and we are gratified to observe that to date most do, including the ones most recently posting above, although MacDonald veers towards the inappropriate with his slashing and often near fatal attacks on the self confidence and resolute purpose of the host.

    However, our recovery is swift whenever we observe a spelling error of such telling enormity as “Commision” that we feel we have a corrective role after all even in the otherwise supernaturally accurate posts by said miscreant.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    One reason it is hard to take 9/11 anti-establishment theorists seriously is that they never read or listen to their own links properly. For example:

    Minetta tells 9/11 Commission Cheney knew exact flight path shows nothing of the sort, if the implication intended is that Cheney knew the flight path in advance of 9/11. The spelling of Mineta as Minetta gives away the stupidity and inattention of the You Tube poster.

    9-11 WTC7 BBC and CNN Forknowledge? proves nothing of the sort, if the intended implication is that is shows foreknowledge, and the label on the CNN screen clearly states Building 7 at World Trade Cente On Fire May Collapse. The spelling of Foreknowledge gives away the stupidity and inattention of the You Tube poster.

    On the stupidity and inattention of those who quote these things we shall say nothing at all, since we have plenty of it ourselves, as MacD is fond of pointing out when he wishes to distract attention from his own. However, forgive us if we find ourself confirmed in our prejudice against 9/11 conspiracy thinking.

  15. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    I am guilty of the typo/spelling terrorist act you attribute to me – and far worse. However, and let’s follow the inside job conspiracy theory for a moment, how can it boggle, bend and explode your mind to think that somebody might be able to plant explosives in WTC unnoticed? What’s so outlandish about it? Has somebody from the previous WTC bombing come fwd and said “yes, we from FedEx sent the explosives”?

    As far as reporting the collapse before it happened goes, the BBC needn’t be complicit in any other way than serving the menu presented.

    Do you, Mr Research, know who told BBC and CNN that WTC7 had collapsed 23 minutes before the fact?

    Do you, Mr Well Informed, know how many of the phone calls allegedly coming from the doomed planes could possibly have been made from cell phones?

    Do you have an explanation to the discrepancy between Mineta’s and Cheney’s stories?

    Do you know why George Bush said it was vital to know that part of the terrorrist plan was to have operatives plant explosives inside buildings, when it is impossible to plant explosives in buildings without somebody ringing the alarm? And who were the trapped people that the planted explosives were supposed to prevent from escaping? What IS Bush talking about in that clip I sent you?

    Do you know how Bush could have watched the first crash on TV before he entered the classroom that day? He recalls it vividly, saying to himself ” that’s one terrible pilot?” The most important event in his entire presidency and he imagined all that, incl. the inner monologue? Perhaps the most important single event in the entire post- Berlin Wall period and the president of he United States’ recollection of it is beyond trippy?

    Somebody’s gotta spill the beans sooner or later, right? Why hasn’t anybody spilled the beans on Bin Laden? How is it possible to keep his whereabouts secret? There’s been a 25 mil reward on his head for 6 years now. One of ’em drones or sattelites can count the pubic hairs on a eunuch in a fur coat from outer space, but a 7 foot tall guy, known to and by everybody, residing in a dialysis canon – impossible.

    Please enlighten us as to 3 symmetrical collapses within hours, due to 3 x asymmetrical damage. Next time we want to pancake a steel-framed building, why don’t we just light a match in the hall and let Nature take its course instead of calling in some expensive demolition team? Huh!? Why don’t we?!

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    How to write a link as a real link in html:

    Since it would help if people could kindly write their links properly in html with the proper title, here is an explanation of how to do it:

    Just add the following before the link: A left pointing angle < , then the phrase a href=" then put the link from http:// to the end of the link eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30 then close the quote ", and put a right pointing angle >

    Then write in the proper title, eg Video of Cheney meeting Atta,

    then close the url with

    a left pointing angle < , a forward slash /, an a, and a right point angle >

    That gives you Video of Cheney meeting Atta

    Video of Cheney meeting Atta

    That’s it unless you want to be even more helpful by adding bold to the title, and underline.

    Bold is b and /b before and after the title, enclosed in left and right angle brackets. That gives you 9-11 Video of Cheney meeting Atta

    Underline is u and /u before and after the title, enclosed in left and right angle brackets. That gives you Video of Cheney meeting Atta

  17. Truthseeker Says:

    “Do you, Mr Research, know who told BBC and CNN that WTC7 had collapsed 23 minutes before the fact?”

    The statement on the screen is ON FIRE AND MAY COLLAPSE. That’s MAY.

    Prove that someone told the BBC and CNN it HAD collapsed 23 minutes before it DID collapse.

    To me this is one of the silly things about 9/11 stuff, among so many, all of the same ilk – assertions that do not prove out.

    So prove it. The video quoted above does not. As I expected. But perhaps you have more convincing video?

    Forgive me if I predict you have not. If this did happen and was provable, the world would bust open, and it hasn’t.

    Even the pr stenographers who make up much of the media would highlight that. It would be on the front page everywhere.

    But like flying saucers, this stuff doesn’t get on the front page, just as the Martians like to keep to out of the way places where no one can provably see them and haul idiots up from their bed and analyze their privates and then let them down again and the idiots report their experience with such reliability that they cannot specify any details of the interior of the craft they were hauled to and show no sign of having done anything but occupied that space between waking and dreaming that matches all their silly accounts.

  18. Truthseeker Says:

    Here is a quote from one of your favorite sources, one which has always rung true to me and I suspect any seasoned reporter who has years of separating fantasies from fact, and cracked pates from the level headed:

    BBC’s Premature Announcement of WTC 7’s Collapse

    BBC Reacts

    On February 27, 2007, the BBC’s website published a response by Richard Porter in which he reactively denied the suggestion that there is something wrong with the BBC ( whose “vision is to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world” 1 ) announcing the third of the only three skyscraper “collapses” in world history before it happened.

    1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

    3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

    4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.

    5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

    The problem with 9/11 conspiracy buffs is as I said before, the lack of acquaintance with the real people who occupy visible positions in the established structure whether political or media, in this case on camera reporters and other people who have to work off the cuff in situations like 9/11. They do not understand that the errors exposed in public by reporters or politicians are simply the natural product of being out of their depth with fast moving events beyond their control. This is why the current election is so enjoyable, as everyone involved is tested by having to think on their feet about every little thing they say.

    This is I believe mostly where the deep seated tendency of bureaucracies and other systems to try to control everything and everybody in their public interaction comes from, for it is the best way to minimize public errors and similar embarrassments where incompetence is nakedly exposed.

    Put simply, no one wants to lose his/her job.

  19. pat Says:

    “We are merely acting in our usual skeptical manner when presented with a concept that has no rhyme or reason to it ”

    Bull

    “the idea that the Bush Administration who had no idea how to handle post victory Iraq even though instructed by the State Department with thousands of pages of fully worked out details somehow was so far ahead of the game with Osama’s 9/11 that it was able to coordinate explosives in WTC7 in such a manner that with the entire world watching and smelling a rat the little animal was able to decamp without a trace visible to millions of eyes and resolute Webheads who leave no pixel unturned in their determination to expose said plot, and without any conceivable purpose in doing so.”

    It was so far ahead of the game that even YOU missed the kik-off. Iraq is going according to plan (forget democratization). The entire world IS watching and YOU are missing it. Resolute webheads ARE at it (not you, of course, you have become the resolute “argument from authority” web-crier)

    “and without any conceivable purpose in doing so.”

    Now you are fucking with us…?!?!?

  20. pat Says:

    “Put simply, no one wants to lose his/her job.”

    so poetic

  21. pat Says:

    why would a reporter, trained in the art of reporting events AS THEY HAPPEN, report an event BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED??? (caplocks are for effect)

  22. pat Says:

    that is not a cock-up; that is jumping your cue!!!

  23. pat Says:

    talking about “nakedly exposed”

  24. pat Says:

    “However, our recovery is swift whenever we observe a spelling error of such telling enormity as “Commision” that we feel we have a corrective role after all even in the otherwise supernaturally accurate posts by said miscreant.”

    when all else fails; correct spelling, conjugation…

  25. Truthseeker Says:

    Oh dear, we seem to have reduced Pat to gibbering ineffectuality spread over multiple posts. By the way, Pat, “and without any conceivable purpose in doing so.” refers to the purpose of the brilliant plotters who planned the tidy collapse of WTC7, not your distinguished self, of course.

    But could you possibly reduce the posting of every thought that occurs to you as you stare in stunned horror at the unanswerability of my ripostes? It seems that even four minutes is not enough to produce any coherent originality and this thread depends for its life on posters adding something cogent, and misunderstanding the joking tenor of the host’s remarks is not enough.

    Perhaps this is a quote that will satisfy your hunger for the world to appreciate the Bush attitude to truth in science:

    “This administration looks at the facts and reviews the best available science based on what’s right for the American people.”– White House spokesman Scott McClellan on accusations that the administration manipulates science for political ends, as per the New York Times Aug 7 2003.

    This is exactly the spirit in which this blog is written. We try to publish all the science that we feel is good and right for the American people, and indeed all the people in the world, all over the world, or at least the literate ones who may however be unable to read the scientific journals for themselves, owing to the illiteracy and mendacity of certain scientists who take safe refuge in the impossibility of the general public understanding what they publish, otherwise they would understand that they are being taken in a shell game where the take so far amounts to billions, a Nobel, several Laskers and a fine career for a certain bureaucrat atop NIAID who has often been seen on Charlie Rose peddling stuff he knows very well is misleading to the point of being blatant prevarication, but who is so lacking in conscience that he recently misled a Congressional Committee along the same egregiously untruthful lines while giving testimony designed to top up the coffers of his languishing research area where absolutely nothing is working out as planned.

    You see, Pat, there you have an actual conspiracy, of the unspoken sort, where as Adam Smith noted happens all over, those who have a trade in common gather together and somehow without actually explicitly arranging it manage to further all their interests by acting in unison and cornering the market in what they have to offer, concealing the fact that it is worth absolutely nothing in terms of use.

  26. MacDonald Says:

    Prove that someone told the BBC and CNN it HAD collapsed 23 minutes before it DID collapse. The statement on the screen is ON FIRE AND MAY COLLAPSE. That’s MAY.

    You mean the anchors just make up stuff off the top of teir head? Like “Oh seems there’s a lull in the action here, how can we keep our ratings up…? I know, I’m just going to panick people by telling them a third building has collapsed”. And why are we to take “the statement on the screen” as evidence that the reporter is inventing his reporting? Have you been eating Bushrooms or something?

    The CNN anchor is reading: “We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, building 7 in the world trade centre complex is on fire and may collapse, but thinks to himself real time may is an awfully dull word, I’m just gonna change it to has either collapsed or is collapsing”

    The early warnings that WTC MAY collapse taken together with HAS collapsed is exactly what Pat says it is, a script where the cues got messed up. What would make the central source of information think that anything MAY collapse from a small fire when its a first in the history of the world? Remember, at that time nobody knew what had caused the first collapses if not the impact from the planes – except of course Joe Plant here, who somehow knew that the collapse was “mostly due to the intensity of the fires” – Mostly:

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YEgHU6pS-tg&NR=1

    And, you know, “we’re getting information” usually means that somebody is feeding that information. Since BBC also reported a collapse that hadn’t occurred, your hypothesis necessitates that the BBC anchor also thought MAY was a dull word and decided to spice up the reporting a bit.

    To top it off, the calm businesslike Xray-eyed police and firemen in this video,

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm

    also decided to add a little spice by telling everybody to move back because WT7 was about to “blow up” or “come down”.

    So give me fing break with your pathetic

    4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.

  27. pat Says:

    Consider my multiple posts a sort of stream of consciousness if you will. I admit to being in stunned horror but not at your unanswerable ripostes but rather at your stunning level of denial and blatant disregard for the facts and not least your shameful gullability. Bush’s administration leaves nothing but a trail of overt and shameless lies and here you are, convincing only yourself, that in this instance the government is speaking pure truth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_KdjJzIt4k

    “By the way, Pat, “and without any conceivable purpose in doing so.” refers to the purpose of the brilliant plotters who planned the tidy collapse of WTC7, not your distinguished self, of course. ”

    Of course you were refering to “the plotters” TS. My “WTF???” outburst was directed at your inability to conceive a purpose behind such self-inflicted wounds.

    I am looking forward to your thorough expose on how Americans are ridiculously bad at building steel framed structures and how the Iraq war, despite the best of intentions, was a total cock-up led by incompetent paper pushers. I really am.

  28. Baby Pong Says:

    Here’s another good one in which the firemen talk about hearing the rapid explosions that sounded exactly like a demolition:

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1182064/9_11_firemen/

    I’ve spent the last hour searching for the closeup video of the first plane (I think it was the first plane) penetrating the WTC tower like a hot knife going through butter. I remember when i first saw that video, in 2001, doing a double take every time it played. There was something so unreal about it. Perhaps it was the idea that a hollow aluminum plane with hollow wings could meet a concrete and steel building and just penetrate it like that. Shouldn’t the wings have broken off and fallen outside the building?

    I am frankly open to the idea that there were no planes, only fake videos and carefully orchestrated explosions. One of the things CIA may have been orchestrating in Building 7 were the car bombs that reportedly went off on the street just as the towers started collapsing, if I’m remembering that correctly. A fine way to distract witnesses from looking up to see the ring of explosions going around the buildings.

    Anyway, that closeup of the plane going into the tower is one of the fishiest videos of all, which might explain why I’m having a hard time finding it. I’ve read that YouTube has started removing certain videos. YouTube is owned by Google, of course, which allegedly was founded with CIA seed money. Eric Schmidt attended the most recent Bilderberg meeting, so there’s plenty of reason to distrust Google.

  29. Baby Pong Says:

    I have never thought that the Bush admin. was behind the attacks, though clearly they were complicit. This psyop would have taken place the same way had Gore been president. It was in the planning for years. The Oklahoma bombing was a precursor, designed to get the public used to the idea of terrorists collapsing buildings.

    It was not Bush, it was his puppetmasters, who are the same puppetmasters who pull the strings on the Clinton puppet, the Gore marionette and the Obama dummy.

  30. Baby Pong Says:

    Needless to say, TS, there was absolutely no reason to believe that WTC7 would collapse, as no steel frame building that had not been penetrated by a huge phallic symbol had ever collapsed before due to fire. The caption that said it “may collapse” also indicates that CNN knew in advance. Other WTC buildings, I think 4, 5 and 6, that were closer to ground zero than 7 was, were also on fire, and had more severe damage than 7 had, and nobody reported that they might collapse. So it’s hard to accept that CNN and BBC just got a little overexcited with their coverage. Anyway, the story about the BBC’s and CNN’s prescience is another story that the mainstream media failed to report, even if only to ridicule the conspiracy theorists.

  31. pat Says:

    “Perhaps it was the idea that a hollow aluminum plane with hollow wings could meet a concrete and steel building and just penetrate it like that. Shouldn’t the wings have broken off and fallen outside the building?”

    No. The velocity is so high that these hollow wings are more like cannon balls.

    “I am frankly open to the idea that there were no planes, only fake videos and carefully orchestrated explosions.”

    that is streching the imagination to breaking point. Millions saw them, hundreds filmed them on their camcorders and cell phones. The planes are unfortunatly real.

  32. MacDonald Says:

    By re-reading the thread above, it has just occurred to me that our sleepless GUardian may actually not have managed to Google the BBC footage, simply relying on the BBC’s story about the lost tapes. Here you go:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fs_jrq6l7E

    Nobody is making this up in the heat of the moment. The London studio already has the story of the WT7 collapse. They presumably switch to the New York studio and the false reporting is CONFIRMED and continued forever while we’re enjoying a splendid view of. . .WT7. No MAYs here, Mr. Pulitzer.

    One of the Commenters on the video says the false info was disseminated by Reuter’s, as if that explains anything. Anyway that cannot be because our own intrepid investigative reporter, the inimitable Truthseeker, has noticed that it says “MAY collapse” on the CNN screen. . .

    Once more, this requires absolutely no complicity by the news media. Information according to script was released, which was supposed to proceed from MAY to HAS collapsed, in order to make people swallow the story about the “structurally damaged” WT7. It ogt messed up along the way.

    Pong, the planes getting swallowed by the buildings do look weird I think you’re thinking of the second plane, which cut all the way through the building, since there is only one known recording of the first hit.

    Even the plane that hit the Pentagon was supposed to have been absorbed, wings and everything, although it was not a direct hit. The plane supposedly came in from an angle. In the Pentagon, there was some damage to the facade, but clearly not a plane-shaped entrance hole that would indicate that the wings had actually cut through the building. As we all know, there are no large pieces of wings on the lawn. I don’t know if it’s ever been explained satisfactorily what happened to those wings.

    However, looking at the WTC videos to determine whether these were real planes in my opinion leads nowhere. Photographic evidence, unless it is of the highest quality, fools the eye in all sorts of way. F. ex. if you run the videos in slow motion, you wil see the wings disappearing midair in some frames. That doesn’t mean they’re a hologram or photoshopped in or whatever. A video camera is not a faithful recorder of what’s actually there. You can take almost any 2 shots of the impact and see strange discrepancies. I googled this one at random:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FAWi_u1hg&feature=related

    The guy thinks he sees the nose of the craft in one video and not the next. I don’t know the merit of that. However, he misses other peculiarities. Compare the shape and angle of the shadows cast by the smoke plume at the plane’s exit point. They appear completely different in the two videos.

    On the footage of the first plane hitting there’s a preliminary large flash before it even hits the tower. Here for example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io&feature=related

    I think speculation is pointless as far as plane vs missile is concerned, but even if it were standard passenger airliners that hit all the buildings that day, it doesn’t mean any of the other legitimate questions have been answered.

  33. MacDonald Says:

    By re-reading the thread above, it has just occurred to me that our sleepless Guardian may actually not have managed to google the BBC footage, simply relying on the BBC’s story about the lost tapes. Here you go:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fs_jrq6l7E

    Nobody is making this up in the heat of the moment. The London studio already has the story of the WT7 collapse. They presumably switch to the New York studio and the false reporting is CONFIRMED and continued forever while we’re enjoying a splendid view of. . .WT7. No MAYs here, Mr. Pulitzer.

    One of the Commenters on the video says the false info was disseminated by Reuter’s, as if that explains anything. Anyway that cannot be, because our own intrepid investigative reporter, the inimitable Truthseeker, has noticed that it says “MAY collapse” on the CNN screen. . .

    Once more, this requires absolutely no complicity by the news media. Information according to script was released, which was supposed to proceed from MAY to HAS collapsed, in order to make people swallow the story about the “structurally damaged” WT7. It got messed up along the way.

    Pong, the planes getting swallowed by the buildings do look weird I think you’re thinking of the second plane, which cut all the way through the building, since there is only one known recording of the first hit.

    Even the plane that hit the Pentagon was supposed to have been absorbed, wings and all, although it was not a direct hit. The plane supposedly came in from an angle. At the Pentagon, there was some damage to the facade, but clearly not a plane-shaped entrance hole that would indicate that the wings had actually cut through the building. As we all know, there are no large pieces of wings on the lawn. I don’t know if it’s ever been explained satisfactorily what happened to those wings.

    However, looking at the WTC videos to determine whether these were real planes in my opinion leads nowhere. Photographic evidence, unless it is of the highest quality, fools the eye in all sorts of way. F. ex. if you run the videos in slow motion, you wil see the wings disappearing midair in some frames. That doesn’t mean they’re a hologram or photoshopped in or whatever. A video camera is not a faithful recorder of what’s actually there. You can take almost any 2 shots of the impact and see strange discrepancies. I googled this one at random:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FAWi_u1hg&feature=related

    The guy thinks he sees the nose of the craft in one video and not the next. I don’t know the merit of that. However, he misses other peculiarities. Compare the shape and angle of the shadows cast by the smoke plume at the plane’s exit point. They appear completely different in the two videos.

    On the footage of the first plane there’s a preliminary large flash before it even hits the tower. Here for example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io&feature=related

    I think speculation is pointless as far as plane vs missile is concerned, but even if it were standard passenger airliners that hit all the buildings that day, it doesn’t mean any of the other legitimate questions have been answered.

  34. Truthseeker Says:

    I am frankly open to the idea that there were no planes, only fake videos and carefully orchestrated explosions.

    We have to part company in our analysis here, Pong, since you now seek to maintain your premise by questioning the very evidence we are using to decide what is true, stretching credibility to an outlandish degree and making it impossible to follow you on your path wherever you say it might lead. No way in which the videos are fake ie concocted and then sprung on the unwitting public with the secret cooperation of the news networks in a perfectly timed coordination involving every outlet on the planet. Even Pat rejects this out of hand. Wake up and smell reality, Pong! The time for rationalizing a 100% insane vision is over!

    And why are we to take “the statement on the screen” as evidence that the reporter is inventing his reporting? Have you been eating Bushrooms or something?

    No MacD, no mushrooms here, but one wonders if there are some in your pipe. Your sentence structure doesn’t even make sense. Evidently the reporter was told that WTC7 was on fire and the fear was it might collapse as well as the WTC towers, which had just led the way in showing that such buildings could collapse despite normal expectations to the contrary.

    Pong, you similarly interpret things according to your paranoid premise when the premise is the thing at issue. Larry Silverstein said that they should “pull” WTC7 and presumably meant pull out of it, or pull away from it, and not explode previously placed munitions in it, as you and others like to think, and which he denies, as you note.

    The problem is essentially this, in the end. Preconceptions can always be rationalized and will be, however hard it is to make a square peg fit a round hole. Its hypothesis bending data rather than data building hypothesis. People start off with a certain frame into which they fit data as it comes in. In the case of conspiracy allegations, on the contrary, you have to start with the data and build the frame or interpretation around it, so it fits. Does the data yield a hypothesis that fits in every respect?

    Girls who try to climb into jeans which are too small stop trying. They pick a larger size and then wear them in a hot bath so they fit perfectly.

    In this case the too small size is the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Doesn’t fit the facts. You need a different framework. Bigger jeans, open mind. The hot bath is reasoned discussion which brings the two into line. Careful post-bath inspection is needed to ensure a perfect fit.

    Anyway, that closeup of the plane going into the tower is one of the fishiest videos of all, which might explain why I’m having a hard time finding it. I’ve read that YouTube has started removing certain videos. YouTube is owned by Google, of course, which allegedly was founded with CIA seed money. Eric Schmidt attended the most recent Bilderberg meeting, so there’s plenty of reason to distrust Google.

    Here you are telling us in so many words that you are using a mental framework for data that leaves normal confidence in one’s fellow man far, far behind, and it leads you into a degree of unreality beyond saleable fiction, even between hard covers.

    You’ll be telling us you believe HIV causes AIDS next!

  35. MacDonald Says:

    Surely there’s a new plot afoot. Chris Noble has taken over Newaidsreview in a silent coup. This pouncing on a tangent of a tangent and pretending one has dealt with the essential points is unmistakable AIDStruth procedure.

    We all know the end is neigh, because you are now resorting to taking perfectly straight fwd sentences and pretending you (you alone) don’t understand what is being said, hoping that in this way nobody wll notice you are lying through your teeth. Mr. Noble, anybody with the slightest interest in the discussion will of course have viewed the clip and seen that you are serving up little porky pies. The message from all sources apart from your ambiguous “screen message” is that WTC7 was certainly going to collapse, was collapsing or had already collapsed. Thefact that in the CNN clip the MAY and HAS collapsed appear at the same time is not a point in your favour.

    You’ve just been told several times that most people attributed the risk of collapse to being hit by an airliner – not fire, which is common enough, so why would they think/know the building wasc going to “blow up”?

    You were also just asked why the fear of collapse only extended to WTC7 and none of the other damaged buildings.

    Your basic problem is you don’t know when to stop (on this occasion you shouldn’t have begun. That’s your other basic problem: you have to endlessly revisit and be snide about certain things, including 9/11 and the Perth Group, instead of informing yourself, otr leaving it to those who have informed themselves. The reason is of course that you have been shown to be hopelessy out of your depth on those issues, something your vanity apparently cannot reconcile, so there will be an endless return in order to try to score a point – endless because you’re doomed to lose the point over and over).

    I have already told you the repeated misplaced attempts at being funny in order to cover up your incurable ignorance have the opposite effect. Everybody sees your increasingly pathetic attempts at substanceless arrogance for what they are. Face it, there just ain’t no substitute for original sources and informed analysis But you just have to keep at it, don’t you, looking even dumber for thinking you’re being clever.

    Pretty please with sugar on top, can’t you just deliver a couple of final sweet little nothings and then f off from this thread to which you are contributing less than nothing, and let those of us who are at least minimally informed, curious and not just looking to be clever, exchange ideas and information?

  36. pat Says:

    “On the footage of the first plane hitting there’s a preliminary large flash before it even hits the tower. Here for example:”

    It is probably due to video being recorded in “interlaced” mode. “pure frame rate is 25 FPS in PAL and 29.97 in NTSC. Interlacing is basically the doubling of the frame capture and sliding the horizontal lines together to give it a smoother look; to reduce screen flickering in other words. In this case a flash from the impact becomes somewhat visible over what appears to be a lagging fuselage. Nothing crazy here. It could also be light reflection off the fuselage or off the windows being pushed inwards from the airpressure travelling ahead of the nose of the plane. Either way, no missile nessessary for anything here.

    Besides, IF you want to make the world believe planes flew into the WTC 1&2 then the chaepest anf fool-safest way to do so is to ACTUALLY fly real planes into them. Period. No hollywood FX guys needed here. And why load it with a misslie? especially a missile that adds nothing to the blast of a “naked” jetliner? Missile, schmissile! Yet none of this in my opinion clarifies any of the steel-framed collapses, especially WTC7

    “Larry Silverstein said that they should “pull” WTC7 and presumably meant pull out of it, or pull away from it, and not explode previously placed munitions in it, as you and others like to think, and which he denies, as you note. ” TS

    He said : “maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it”…not “them”

    of course he denies meaning “it”, the building.

    “The problem is essentially this, in the end. Preconceptions can always be rationalized and will be, however hard it is to make a square peg fit a round hole. Its hypothesis bending data rather than data building hypothesis. People start off with a certain frame into which they fit data as it comes in. In the case of conspiracy allegations, on the contrary, you have to start with the data and build the frame or interpretation around it, so it fits. Does the data yield a hypothesis that fits in every respect? ”

    Ts, I am sorry but this can just as well apply to you. Maybe we will get to read the depth of your wisdom soon, though. As far as the government theory goes, they are working backwards to find data that supports their theory whereas others look at the data and see what it reasonably and scientifically may explain.

  37. MacDonald Says:

    Pat.

    We are in agreement on the missile vs airplane thing. I chose the two examples as representative of all the strange things that can happen to a video recording. Unless you’re an expert with all the technical equipment handy, There’s no way of telling a real mystery from the explanations you’ve just offered.

    There might also be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the Pentagon crash/missing wreckage, but this story has many other inconsistencies, one of them being why they won’t release a single shot showing the airliner

    Excuse me for going off on another tangent, but have you seen the Pentagon close ups of for example the desk with an unscathed open book on it only a couple of metres from the impact zone? It looks surreal, but an explanation could be that these offices were shielded from the fire behind a wall, which subsequently came down when the roof caved in. It still looks surreal though, and certainly gives a good idea of how contained the blast and fire were in this case as opposed to WTC.

  38. Truthseeker Says:

    Please don’t insult the host pretending you believe he has been taken over by Chris Noble, who as far as we know is Down Under. If anyone mimics the unfortunate Noble, it is, sadly enough, you and your fellow detectives, oh honorable but misguided MacD. In your rush to pin the tail on the donkey, you can’t find the ass, and you have pinned it on the horse’s rear end.

    All your huffing and puffing hasn’t blown the house down because it amounts to less than a hill of beans, the desperate attempt to show that muddled commentators winging it in an hour of tension and crisis were scripted by the dastardly plotters somewhere in the Federal spy game and changed pages too early.

    In point of fact you haven’t even shown that tip of the iceberg, since the obvious mundane interpretation still flies ie that they were told it was about to collapse or may collapse by some observer at the scene who saw the fires burning and maybe some windows collapsing or some such and reckoned that the creaking structure would collapse soon enough, and said it MAY do so, and naturally news reporters said MAY or HAS collapsed, we are told, since they hate to be caught short and behind the eight ball newswise.

    This kind of desperation to make a mountain out of a hill of beans or more accurately a single bean is the familiar sign of exciting but empty paranoia. You fear therefore you see.

    We grown ups keep our cool, a la Obaba Rama.

    But due to our extended research study of the difference between such notions and the real thing ie science paradigm scams of a global nature, we are willing to slog on and through ever more videos which demonstrate nothing promised, and our disappointment is minimal since we are more than used to it now.

    We are reconciled to the need for this tiring but dedicated labor in our endless search for truth and reality in the face of fantasies concocted by lesser mortals whose ideas unlike ours are not walled off from emotion but feed off it.

  39. pat Says:

    “Even Pat rejects this out of hand”

    Sorry, I am slow but I just caught this slight of hand.
    “even” Pat??? Stick it in your ear TS; LOL

    “Unless you’re an expert with all the technical equipment handy..” McD

    I am not an expert. I work with video and film and know simply not to trust it as a representation of actual light expression; that is “as the eye would see it”. ( a picture does not only says a thousand words but also says a million lies; our worst kept secret btw but seemingly unnoticed) Pictures, in a technical way, are subject to corruption. But we agree…missiles are nonsense simply by virtue of not being needed (hollywood scriptwriters excluded).

    “There might also be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the Pentagon crash/missing wreckage, but this story has many other inconsistencies, one of them being why they won’t release a single shot showing the airliner”

    That, my friend, is the most glarring missing piece of the puzzle. The three frames, or so released, show nothing of the like. I find it amazing that the pentagon only has one webcam covering some obscure parking entrance.

    McD
    The frames released by big bro show only a blue sky punctured by a firey explosion comming from the side of the pentagon. It is quite possible that a desk, at a queer angle, may have survived the initial fireball…It all depends on what blew up there to begin with. There are many more videos of what crashed there; we just need to wait 25 years for them to be declassified.
    The blasts and fires appear to have been very well contained in all cases. The thick black smoke and orange colour of the fires (all of them) indicate an inefficient burn, i.e. low temperature. I am a volouteer firefighter; basic 101 stuff, even in my puny little village. Firefighter radio communication also confirms this. Forget smeltering temperatures; think smoldering temperatures.
    As conventional wisdom would have it, we should believe that Americans are simply NO GOOD at building anything resembling a shelter, especially if built out of steel. Never mind that they payed WAY TOO MUCH for their houses of cards to begin with!

  40. Truthseeker Says:

    “Even Pat rejects this out of hand”

    Sorry, I am slow but I just caught this slight of hand.
    “even” Pat??? Stick it in your ear TS; LOL

    Why this disrespectful remark? “Even” as in you are a 9/11 detective of imaginative suspicion, aren’t you, and even you rejected this statement, did you not? One characteristic of this discussion is the incomplete nature of the posts. Let’s have chapter and verse for claims, please. And by the way, is it too much to ask people to add italics to quotes? Just put (left pointing angle) i (close angle) in front and (left pointing angle) /i (close angle) after the quote.

    Thanks for setting MacD straight on his attempt to enjoin an undisturbed desk as evidence of skulduggery. We are lucky that Atta’s passport floating down from the collision didn’t get quoted. Also extraordinarily naive is the idea that a fuselage will not have penetrating power of a high order when traveling at 550 mph or whatever into a mainly glass and office partition structure which emphasized central beams for support.

    Momentum is mass times speed, is it not? Even a ball point pen can do serious damage if tossed from a high building, if it doesn’t spin enough in meeting air resistance, presumably.

  41. pat Says:

    Just noticing the word ” even”, as in: “even this nut agrees”. It made me giggle.

    ” And by the way, is it too much to ask people to add italics to quotes? Just put ”

    yes. it is too much. Putting little HTML thingamaggigs before and after all them doohickies stresses my mind. I am not versed at computer stuff. I simply hit buttons with letter tagged to them.

    “We are lucky that Atta’s passport floating down from the collision didn’t get quoted”

    We will be so lucky when you show us how steel-framed buildings only collapse in NY.

  42. MacDonald Says:

    Pat might be content to call them slights of hand, I calll them McCain campaign style porkies, the very definition of dishonesty.

    I mentioned the unscathed book AND the likely explanation. I “debunked” a 9/11 myth if you will, and that was immediately used by the Poohseeker to pin some donkey’s ass on the horse’s mouth (which may explain why I always write “neigh” instead of “nigh” on these disinformative blog pages.)

    Need it be said, that the political smearer once again doesn’t have the faintest clue what we’re taking about, shown by his reference to the passport story, which has nothing to do with the peculiarites of the individual fires. in fact, Atta’s passport floating down is a perfectly acceptable thing, although Atta himself, all the other passengers and most of the plane were vaporized on impact. And, after all, the surrounding area was full of luggage and passports from the wreckage, right? It’s not strange that some of it should belong to Atta.

    Maybe when O Papa Rapa gets elected they will start to construct steel frames as solid as terrorist masterminds’ passports. The Lord knows Arab Hussah Oramadan has plenty connections to those in possession of this secret technology.

    But here it seems I must correct even Pat. Although the fires looked to be low intensity, more smoke than fire, so to speak, the official story tells us they traveled up and down elevator shafts, that they proliferated and ate through floor after floor around and above the impact area in a particularly slow and methodical manner in the whipping winds, so strong that no helicopter could get near the roofs.

    The Pentagon story, however, demands the opposite explanation – and why not? It is a very different kind of building: It is of course not the case, as the plodding Factmisser seems to think, that an isolated book had somehow escaped the fiery carnage. There was zero fire and very little carnage in any of the offices adjacent to the impact zone, where an entire airliner was said to have been vaporized by the intense heat. No burning jet fuel was sprinkled far and wide, no furniture caught a fire that would work its way through office upon office until it reached temperatures high enough to shoot streams of white-hot molten metal out the windows, certainly no molten metal was left to get dug up weeks later.

    The intact book, still lying on the table is merely an illustration of how abrupt the line between Explosion, fire and nothing was. Desks, chairs, computers, walls nothing was touched by soot or fire in the offices adjacent to the collapsed area. In many of the facade offices well within the wingspan of the plane, the windows hadn’t even shattered.

    I have already given the likely explanation: The wings didn’t cut through the building the way they did at WTC, and the walls next to the immediate small impact area must have remained intact until the roof caved. The engineers at Pentagon did at better job than those responsible for WTC, although security and surveillance definitely sucks compared to your average neighbourhood parking lot.

  43. Truthseeker Says:

    What one is meant to make of all that knows God. MacD, is it possible that in your acuity and wisdom you honestly believe that the Pentagon was hit not by an airliner (so what happened to the airliner?) but by a missile?

    The phrase folks is “sleight of hand”. Should I correct your spelling or should I leave it up to maintain a more accurate indication of the level of education of those who question the established order as if it wasn’t the finest system ever devised by human culture to get things done which we need to get done, such as spreading cell phones and computers around the world so that all humanity can communicate with each other all the absurd ideas which foment in their generally severely underinformed brains?

    Are any of you aware that the CERN rap I pointed to in my next post or so is a fun thing and would amuse you far more than torturing the host with the necessity to rebut ideas which are prima facie absurd?

    Possibly not if posters are so lazy they can’t put the italics sign before and after quoted comment text.

  44. pat Says:

    Please leave are spelling mistakes upthere. It is quite clear that aside some english tutoring and scoffing you are unable to bring any arguments to this discussion.

    I will no zip it and await your explanation for the WTC7 collapse.

    The official story was wrong about the weather. the winds were not whipping. It was a rather calm day in NY on sept 11
    http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=smKK8Tzhpso&feature=related

  45. pat Says:

    Please leave OUR …ehemm..spelling mistakes…
    I wil NOW zip it…

  46. MacDonald Says:

    What one is meant to make of all that knows God

    Very good, Sir. Admission of Ignorance and Fear of the Lord is the perfect place to start. Perhaps the several 767s of reasoned argument, which have so far been vaporized immediately upon impact with your towering but unrecognized ignorance without appreciable damage to the petrifed support structure, have finally made a dent.

    Indeed, what is one to make of all this?

    Alas, blinded perhaps by the premature flashes of your own brillant rebuttals(?), it has escaped your rapt attention that Pat and I have agreed to let planes be planes and missiles be missiles as far as this investigation goes. The only reasons I can see for using something other than a standard plane would be that some of the hassle of hijacking might be avoided, and the intricate and largely devoid of purpose maneouvres required to accomplish the feats attributed to a pilot school dropout could have better been performed in a modified or perhaps remote-controlled contraption.

    It is, however, not essential one way or the other, since here we are comparing fire with fire and structure with structure, not plane with missile. One can only hope that the wings and tails of that rationale are able to penetrate the tiny hole the fuselage of various renumerated facts might have blown in your quintuply ringed pate.

    So, assuming it didn’t hit the Pentagon, what happened to the real plane? Perhaps more to the point, what happened to the people onboard, since it is a bit harder to account for 60 people with families than a single plane? Since you, Mr Seek And Ye Shall Find, were the first to formulate this ingenious investigational strategy, I think it only fair that you should have the opportunity to pursue it, utilizing all your finely honed research skills. That would be valuable (so fat chance it would ever happen)

  47. MacDonald Says:

    Pat,

    I don’t see any wind (I don’t see what it is you are trying to show in that video either), however, I am not a helicopter pilot, and they claimed they couldn’t even land or hover above or next to the roofs. There was not a single serious rescue attempt from the air, as far as I know.

    They blamed it on the wind conditions.

  48. MacDonald Says:

    Pat, the white-hot molten metal I was referring to is, as you probably know, part of the thermite theory.

    In these shots, we see the red fire/black smoke, not very scary event, and a couple of metres from it intermittent bursts of something more violent looking. note also the large amounts of pale grey smoke, indicating something unseen going on.

    Here it is in a debunking 9/11 conspiracy video. (Relying on TS to come up with anything like this has been proven futile time and again, so I might as well continue doing the debunking myself)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&feature=related

    Although a lot of the assumptions are not terribly convincing, it does do a reasonable job of questioning the thermite theory. One thing we learn from this video is that airplanes do NOT vaporize on impact. In fact several tons of debris should be left over to produce this effect.

    The piled-up office debris is what should have kept a healthy fire going, so none of this had gone up in smoke in the initial blast. The excessive heat could not have been confined to a small pocket or two since there’s a lot of free molten metal seeping out. If it’s aluminum, the temperature of this stuff is around 1000 C, according to the chart. That means we must assume there”s a lot more even hotter stuff hidden from view.

  49. MacDonald Says:

    The same guy who made the video debunking the thermite theory, in debunking the Pentagon missile theory, tells us about a fire raging for hours in the Pentagon, evaporating all aluminum parts of the 757. This video from 1:54 gives us a good look at the Pentagon inside and outside.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH21gKbEllM&feature=related

    There are almost no traces of that raging fire. There was obviously an impact and a fire but it didn’t do much apart from making the roof collapse and the plane disappear – except for several pieces of the letters on the front part of the fuselage obviously..

    This is not something Mr. TS needs to make anything of. I have no idea how planes and fires are supposed to behave under different circumstances. It is just curious.

  50. Truthseeker Says:

    As far as we are concerned both parties making curious statements on this thread are fully qualified to comment by virtue of their sense of humor, so this blog has no problem with that, though we fervently wish they would check their spelling before posting, since it gives the impression that their thought processes are equally slapdash. We would prefer that people would both type and think carefully before posting on the record, since Google penetrates even the hallowed precincts of this sacred and carefully guarded chapel of Truth.

    While beating up on the long suffering but determined blog host (determined to make sense of what they post) for his insufficiently cooperative attitude towards their prima facie excessively speculative positions, whatever they are, perhaps our generous contributors would rein in their wit and playfulness for two seconds and POST PRECISELY WHAT THEIR CURRENT POSITION IS ON THE MATERIAL WE ARE CONSIDERING.

    This would help in posting our own complete nuclear demolition of all fantastical reinterpretation of what we fondly believe to plain and simple fact, 9/11 wise, which obliterating wind and fire is imminent.

  51. MacDonald Says:

    TS,

    We (I am recklessly speaking for my fellow theorists) don’t really have a position other than there’s something fishy about the whole thing. It just hasn’t been explained satisfactorily.

    You may be referring mainly to the controlled demolition theory. I am following the tradition of the dear Dr. Biernbaum in straddling the fence (post) on this issue. To tell the truth, I don’t really see how an ordinary controlled demolition could have been pulled off in each of the buildings. But we’re not confined to conventional explanations here, and there’s a critical mass of unlikely coincidences, such as 3 symmetrical collapses in the same day, that needs a GOOD explanation. A MUCH, MUCH BETTER explanation than the ones we’re given.

    Instead of coming up with or debunking conspiracy theories, I would far rather that somebody here, somebody like you, presented the Gov’s story intelligibly, detailed and convincingly – and that includes the various responses. It is more mindboggling to me than two dozen free-falling pancakes that the President of the US, after having had all the time in the world to come up with a suitable story, says that the sum of his reaction to seeing an unidentified airplane explode into the WTC was to say to himself, “That’s one terrible pilot”, before he proceeded to read a story to some school children.

  52. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, thanks MacD, so now if you would make a little list of the fishy elements in the established story, which will be posted here as best we can ie the post event reviews and their conclusions presented by the honorable and respected members of the engineering, media and architectural communities which have appeared in report form at conferences and in book form, since at the moment all we hasve in hand as far as the fishy list is concerned is the handout from the band of protesters that passed through Wall Street a while back, that we believe we posted on (though possibly only drafted same and omitted to finish off and post).

    A list of the facts and factors that you think make these narratives stink of fish is all important. In our complacent myopia we have not discovered any at all that prove out in our research, though admittedly said research has been somewhat handicapped by our prejudice against the fish detectives in this field, since we haven’t yet encountered any alternative possible narratives that make any sense.

    For example, we have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting that our esteemed President reacted to this sensational event with the “That’s one terrible pilot” remark, since even if he was involved in a grand scheme to encourage and abet the simple plot of the foolish and ignorant zealots to get on board planes with board cutters and fly them into the largest targets they could aim at, he (George W. “Who me?” Bush) would presumably pretend to be taken by surprise and unaware of how big the event would soon turn out to be.

    The Government’s story as expanded by further investigations and reports should certainly be set up here to see if our distinguished, skeptical and habitually open minded contributors can penetrate whatever cracks they can find and blow it apart with the dynamite of their logic and expertise in detecting inconsistency and paradox and general foolishness in certain scientific paradigms (HIV/AIDS in particular) which do not withstand such penetrating scrutiny.

  53. MacDonald Says:

    Haha, nice try. but it’s your turn. You present the Gov’s position.

    Now I’m going to have to ask you to do something which is apparently extremely difficult for you: Imagine you’re not living in LaLa-land. Imagine if you can that braindead presidents and Veep candidates are not par for the course. Imagine the f-ing Commander in f-ing Chief, surrounded by All His Men watching an event on TV, that wasn’t even broadcast on TV until the next dayImagine them watching an unidentified F-ING PLANE EXPLODING INTO THE WTC!!! and the only reaction is the Preznit, the Commander in Chief saying to himself “That’s One terrible Pilot”, shrugging his shoulders and getting on with his children’s book.

    If that doesn’t immediately explode, collapse and pancake your brain, you are in a parallel universe inhabited solely by you and Bill Kristol, and it’s no point trying to communicate with you. Try the Leslie Nielsen depiction of what happened next. Maybe that will drive the point home.

  54. Truthseeker Says:

    you are in a parallel universe inhabited solely by you and Bill Kristol

    MacD, this is yet another foolish statement. My predictions so far have been 100% accurate eg Obabababarama, etc.

    Bush didn’t have to see it on TV to make such a remark but in fact he was with the children on the morning when the incident involving Osama’s architectural revision of the NYC skyline was on every channel, including presumably the one in the sky that you are permanently tuned to from the region of another galaxy.

    Your link goes to Scary Movie 4 Trailer, with a fetching shower scene, but is that what you intended? Pleasantly distracting from this entirely sober investigation of less amusing fantasies, but again, are you sure you are always tuned to the right channel?

  55. MacDonald Says:

    LOL!! Try to make it through the entire trailer; it should be possible as these trailers are targeted to an MTV attention span audience. Leslie Nielsen will appear after a few seconds.

    Your observations on Bush and 9/11 TV broadcasts are extremely perceptive. Have you shared them with Bill Kristol yet? who knows they may make it into one of his NYT Parallel Universe columns.

  56. Truthseeker Says:

    Fer Krissake MacD et al let us have your razor sharp perceptions on the Election instead of this thread for now, since it is the matter of moment at this moment momentarily, and whether the Twin Towers were brought down by the notorious political and architectural revisionist Bin Laden or a crew led by a modern Mark Felt should wait as you suggested until the post above can be expanded as pledged to include irrefutable rebuttal of all tinges of fishiness detected by the eagle eyed but open minded honorary SG investigative committee.

  57. MacDonald Says:

    The neocons are imploding, pancaking. Proof:

    Mouth-For-Hire Dennis Miller is not Funny on Fox anymore, at all, at all.

    Zero-sexed Gretha van Susteren is spending 80% of her time shilling for Sarah Palin, the other 20% gossiping about Obama.

    Hollywood-Madam Dick Morris is now the most annoying person in the whole world after Sean Hannity, and the most consistently wrong-about-everything hack after Bill Kristol.

    That can’t be all bad. Unfortunately I can’t get passionate about Obama. I’m still waiting for him to show the steel-spine in the face of a manufactured international crisis. Hey Big O, how about Georgia vs Russia? Do you still agree with McSame’s Mannichean interpretation of the situation, or do you have Faith that at least 51% off likely voters are not complete morons.

    And TS, you underinformed buffon. “I saw THE FIRST WTC CRASH on TV the day before it was broadcast, several hours before anybody knew about the existence of the tape”, was Bush’s considred response to why he sat there gaping for 7 minutes when he heard about the second crash. He wasn’t jolted into immediate and resolute action because he already knew about the first one. It was just more of the same. Now is your brain exploding?

    You deserve the same moronic government as every other Yankee bimbo.

  58. Truthseeker Says:

    MacD, you are not only a “buffon” but an ass complete with long ears and tail, pure and simple, about that quote. Do you honestly think Bush said it? Do you REALLY think that he meant to say that if he said it?

    Don’t post about election politics on this thread. Can’t you even understand that was what was requested? Earth to MacD, post about the next President on the next President post, if you will. But please, something that is the product of more than slapdash skimming of the satellite dish informed by schoolboy iconoclasm directed at nonentities who seem to have been your favorites for some reason, is that right? Maybe you could then develop some passion or at least actual sense and feeling about what are in fact matters of considerable moment. If you cannot see the difference in potential outcome between an Obama win and a McCain steal you certainly don’t know what time it is or even what century. If you really can’t tell that Obama is an exceptional candidate head and shoulders above the rest then you are less perceptive than the entire Congress and Senate, all of whom show that they can see it.

    What on earth do you think this is all about? It’s not about politics so much as the quality of man we need to lead.

    And since when has the wit-challenged Dennis Miller ever been funny? Try Jay Leno, who tonight presented a clip of Larry King interviewing McCain and both of them asleep, concocted somehow from actual clips of them sleeping or if not, then brilliant computer adaptation of very great skill.

  59. MacDonald Says:

    Obama may be an exceptional candidate. He just doesn’t turn me on. Sorry.

    The non-entities are all Foxian analysts and investigative reporters – you can add Neil Cavuto, who under normal circumstances try to to cover themselves with a fig of fair and balancedness
    Their increasingly vicious partisanhip, victim mentality and messianic McCain Campaign Resurrection myth creation is a reliable indicator of the increasing desperation of the Right, which in turn is a reliable indicator of Obama’s increasing popularity.

    My method of election prognostication should not appear odd in Bill Kristol Land.

    And no, no, no. I’ve already told you the above was Bush’s considered and rehearsed answer to his peculiar behaviour on 9/11. He is giving details including dialogue/monologue of an impossible event. But even if it did happen that way, it is brain-meltingly impossible to imagine such a reaction from our otherwise superparanoid Commander in Chief to seeing the WTC being blown up.

    You, Mr. Science Gatekeeper, will as always apply the soft bigotry of infinitely low expectations to explain what is yet another piece in the critical mass of total incoherence that makes up the official conspiracy story, and Bill Kristol will no doubt quote you in his La-La Land column.

  60. Truthseeker Says:

    Not infinitely low expectations. First like any hack we apply an ordinary common sense filter to speculative revision of the 9/11 tale, asking merely that the alternative interpretation put forward at least has some semblance of reason and credibility in terms of motive and the known facts which surround the admittedly concealed ones.

    Secondly to expect human behavior in this context to be slow witted is not really blind prejudice is it? We simply have a realistic view, in accord with the known facts and record, of the performance of people in the established governmental and media order, low and high. Is it not realistic to acknowledge that membership and participation in large systems handicaps the mind? Apart from the general burden of group psychology to do with how people behave differently in groups, which anyone can see operating in extreme cases such as lynch mobs, not to mention the intellectually paralyzing effects of sharing a paradigm seen so vividly in the case of HIV/AIDS and many other scientific fields before a paradigm is finally overturned, isn’t it common sense that membership of a large social system within the larger society handicaps performance by introducing all kinds of demands to fit in and influences that have to do with keeping one’s position and protecting the system against ridicule from outside observers who can often see very clearly how poorly the system responds, compared with individuals who are free of such fetters? For example the well known incident where the delightfully unfettered but well grounded physicist Richard Feynman sat on the Challenger investigation panel and refused to be handicapped by said pr requirements for NASA to maintain its reputation and demonstrated with a glass of iced water that O rings shrank and/or became brittle at the temperature matching the Challenger takeoff.

    Anyhow you know very well that the performance of the Bush administration in Iraq has suffered from massive mistakes such as sending home Saddam’s army with their weapons and no pay to become resistance fighters quite apart from Al Quaeda, although that was admittedly a shining example of how one individual can make a mistake of giant consequence by NOT taking advantage of the resources built up in the system he was trying to lead ie Bremer not taking advice from the Army and others who knew better. All in all, when you spell it out it seems that the kind of leader you want is an individual who can still think for himself while taking advantage of the huge resources built up by the system he takes over, which is why we are excited about Obama as someone who seems to be precisely that type.

    A page with some material of the kind which fits our criteria initially is Mainstream Press Begins To Home In On Suspect 911 Events etc which in clips from the Independent reasonably speculates in a sober tone that just maybe Flight 93 was brought down not by passengers fighting their way into the cockpit but by Air Force interceptors who had plenty of time to reach it, but again by the time one finishes inspecting the entire page one is mired in Maharishi kookiness which tempts one to move on to more useful activities, since after all why would it really matter if Flight 93 was in fact intercepted?

    Interestingly the Dr John Hagelin featured on the page as offering a better solution to terrorism than attacking foreign countries is a one time Presidential candidate who mixes scientific enquiry with his advocacy of peace and harmony through meditation. He headed up a company making very fine audio equipment for a time, and he once experimented with group meditation to see if they could influence a whole city and claimed that they lowered the crime rate in Washington briefly.

    We interviewed Hagelin once after making an appointment to meet for lunch at a restaurant and arriving half an hour late to find that the restaurant had permanently closed and the great man waiting outside without the slightest sign of impatience. He explained that he had simply taken the time to carry out his daily half hour meditation.

  61. ren Says:

    I thought that the article was pretty interesting, we need more information about HIV/AIDS out there.

    http://www.aidsdrugsonline.com

  62. Baby Pong Says:

    What does TS have to say about the remarkable coincidence that, on Sept. 11, 2001, the military and CIA were running multiple war games that simulated planes being used as missiles and crashing into buildings?

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

  63. Truthseeker Says:

    That it was a coincidence, among the billions and billions of coincidences that happen everyday and which are unerringly detected by the keen nose of the conspiracy theorist if they occur anywhere near the event whose backstage he/she is investigating, and which are then produced as evidence of the suspected mischief, while entirely ignoring the statistical likelihood of such coincidences occurring close to any event, which approaches 1.

    Forgive this non-conspiracy theorist if we wonder how credible it is that plotters should arrange for Pentagon wargames to occur the very same day as their planned event, and what possible reason they could have had for arranging this catnip for conspiracy mavens?

  64. MacDonald Says:

    Ah the critical mass of coincidences will never be reached, that is clear. The host is once displaying the scientifically vital belief-defying ignorance of the various details surrounding this latest in an endless series of coincidences crowding every aspect of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    It is undoubtedly par for the course that the same administration which cooked up the –

    “I had already watched the first plane hit the day before the tape came out and thought nothing of it, so why should I think anything of it when I heard a second plane had hit the same target within minutes?”

    – Bush explanation for inaction would also claim that not in their wildest imagination had they ever thought to prepare for an event where hijackers woud fly planes into the Pentagon and WTC.

    Now why would they say a thing like that? Why would they repeatedly rehearse the very event which unfolded, then deny that they had even thought of it hmmmmm… ? And why would they think to make an attack under cover of drills that had disabled all normal, well-rehearsed responses to these well-rehearsed scenarios hmmmm…..?

    Prepare, rehearse and execute, and at the same time deny knowledge, preparation and participation hmmmmm. . . Nope never heard of that one before. It must all be those billions of daily coincidences that just happened to cluster that particular day.

    Once again the incomparable independent thinker hosting these pages has shown me what real intellectual rigour looks like. I now believe that tornados assemple boeings in junkyards the world over, and that Shakespeare’s Collected Works are frequently rewritten by chimpanzees with quill pens. Only one question remains, to sate forever my intellectual curiosity: where can I sign up for the Obabababama Junior Fan Club?

  65. Truthseeker Says:

    Believe you should contact the Obama team as soon as possible, MacD, with a worked up resume, since your level of credulity is so high, that you must believe as we do that Obama is the Second Coming, Yea, the Lord hath spake by anointing Our Brother to save the world and possibly even GM, though we doubt it.

    Bush didn’t watch the first plane hit on TV at the time and nor did anyone else, though you can find people who say they did, as someone did at dinner last night, until they were corrected, as reason indicates, even if faulty memory or inability to formulate coherent thoughts in the Bush manner does not. Exactly what you are saying above is not clear either, but that fact stands. TV cameras were not trained on the WTC at the time the first plane hit, since no one expected the event. Your paraphrase beginning “I had already watched…” doesn’t even make sense as it stands. Perhaps you imagine that the CIA group that planned this amateur coup had cameras ready and supplied a tape to the White House … no, it is not worth speculating as to what you mean. The sentence is meaningless as it stands.

    The essential point about 9/11 speculation is clear. The official story makes sense and fits the facts except for tiny little often inaccurate, eventually debunked or simply unbelievable fringe claims from the assiduous archaeologists of the Establishment is Always Lying club. This matches the Kennedy assassination debate, the Martin Luther King debate, and the debates about extra sensory perception, flying saucers, ghosts, and all else of this ilk – the evidence that contradicts common sense is flimsy, ephemeral and highly speculative. Upon close inspection it doesn’t pan out – as in the last round of experiments which proved the power of prayer, until debunked by the rigorous analysis of a Columbia professor.

    MacD, you are sufficiently skeptical not to have swallowed the already scientifically debunked HIV/AIDS claim and you found you were right. Don’t let it go to your head and entirely corrupt your faith in establishment claims. It is an exception which was and is enabled by unique facilitators such as the hysteria of gays, the shameless bureaucrats and false scientists who ran the field, the impossibility of proving a negative, and the politics of blame.

    We are talking of conspiracy theory here and need to note that HIV/AIDS is not even an alleged conspiracy at this blog, unless you count idea sharing at the unconscious level as a conspiracy. We are not talking of the tendency of bureaucratic, corporate or governmental systems to induce lying and cover up among their officials. This tendency is rife, admittedly, and unfortunately feeds conspiracy suspicion, for example, the EPA claim that the smoke from the WTC pyre was not harmful to health, exposed later as a mistake or lie to avoid public panic.

    Neither coincidence nor cover up justifies the conspiracy theory it provokes. You need something solid. In the WTC case, where is it?

  66. stevekj Says:

    TS, your faith in establishment claims is entirely groundless. The establishment has a long history of lying to you; the only lie that you personally happen to have discovered so far is the one about HIV and AIDS. There are many more, but you will find essentially none of them printed in the New York Times. You will need to expand your research horizons a bit.

    You probably swallowed the line about “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. But that hasn’t been the case for a very long time, if ever. It’s more accurately described as “government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporate elite”. And the mainstream media are deep in the pocket of the corporate elite, so they’re not going to tell you this.

    The first part of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes no sense is that jet airliners simply cannot destroy steel-framed concrete skyscrapers. They never have, and they never will. Something else is required to bring down a structure like that, particularly inside its own footprint – usually explosives.

    The second part of the official theory that makes no sense is that the purported perpetrators had neither means, motive, nor opportunity to pull that stunt off – not without a lot of inside help. The Bush administration, and its backing controllers, did have all three of those characteristics, and didn’t make any particular secret of it, either.

    The third part that makes very little sense (not quite no sense whatsoever, but very little) is that the administration did everything in its power to suppress any outside investigation of the event. Structural materials were instantly chopped up and carted off to China; video evidence was confiscated; official investigations were hamstrung. Why, exactly, would they do this? The usual motivation for going to that much trouble to hide something is that you actually do have something to hide. The next most common motivation is to distract attention from other things you’re trying to hide that are even more nasty.

  67. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS,

    You wrote, “The question becomes, is there any good reason to dismiss 9/11 theories when the global scam in AIDS (non)science is such a huge error yet so well funded and endorsed by every government and so many charities in the world, with Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Taylor, Bono and many other well known medical authorities, er, celebrities joining in?”

    You say yes because, “It is an exception which was and is enabled by unique facilitators such as the hysteria of gays, the shameless bureaucrats and false scientists who ran the field, the impossibility of proving a negative, and the politics of blame.”

    You ignore economic interests which I find quite astounding given the financial collapse caused by …. conspiracies. But different from what the propeller-beanie types proclaim. I’m talking about techno-conspiracies hidden in plain sight so-to-speak, and 9/11 is partly that. Certainly HIV/AIDS and the banks use of exotic instuments are “techno-incomprehension” conspiracies.

    I write what I write to bring the “exotic” to the light of day.

    The newly minted fairy tales of “HIV’s” discovery for Nobel Prize propaganda strikes some of us as oversimplified pablum that typically induces conspiracy mongering. What a few “science guardians” are up to these days is attempting to unravel the conspiracy facts associated with Gallo’s remarkable testimony at Parenzee.

    It should be clear from the record that those first four Science papers were a rush job. Margaret Heckler wakes up one day and says to assistants “I wonder … tell me what papers by our scientists are in press? – I need to give a press conference.” Why would this suddenly be urgent? Orders from the White House? Naaaah, that would make me a conspiracy nut.

    In your response to MacD, you say, “It is an exception which was and is enabled by unique facilitators such as the hysteria of gays, the shameless bureaucrats and false scientists who ran the field, the impossibility of proving a negative, and the politics of blame.”

    What exactly compells us to accept your version? Given the “Gonda and Popvic documentations” they very likely were ordered by the White House to back up the Secretary of HHS, notwithstanding the objections from Gonda and Popvic that they really had nothing as of April 23, 1984.

    As far as 9/11, please – it’s as convoluted as the tales of Gallo and Montagnier, legitimately subject to varying interpretations.

  68. MacDonald Says:

    You need something solid. In the WTC case, where is it?

    I don’t know, how about steel frames duuuhhh!

    Friends, I have twice linked the video, THE VIDEO, where Bush says that he didn’t react to plane number two hitting WTC because he had already watched number one hit before he went into the classroom!!!!! However, the truthiful one claims the grammar of this statement – yes, my friends the grammar! – does not make sense, therefore it was never uttered.

    Admittedly this expanation was only offered by Bush 3 months after the fact. The highly revered, even more highly informed, investigative journalist in residence will now tell us what Bush’s account of himself was once he had had an additional couple of years to gather his thoughts on the subject.

    Surely a brillant 9/11 debunker like TS would be able to demonstrate the solidity and enormous depth of his knowledge about the subject by providing this piece of trivia.

    And Steve, who gave you the idea that TS didn’t swallow the official HIV story? He is the only person in the whole world, Duesberg, Gallo and Robert Houston included, who still believes an immunodeficiencey virus has been satisfactorily purified and isolated.

    Why do you think he has turned to. . . . hmmmprrreephhbwahaha!!! political blogging?

  69. Truthseeker Says:

    The problem with 9/11 is that there is nothing substantial to respond to.

    Whatever Bush said you know very well that given his mastery of the language (not) it is evidence for nothing other than his own fumbling grasp of reality.

    MacD we don’t know what you are smoking with such profit but on the contrary we join the people you mention in recognizing that Montagnier was able to mail Gallo something which served very well as an isolated and purified retrovirus of consistent character, though only Gallo would maintain it was an “immunodeficiency” virus.

    If you deny this fact you will have to provide some alternative explanation for what everyone took to be the proof that Gallo was caught red handed in appropriating what belonged to Montagnier as a discovery, whatever it was.

    In three years you have been unable to suggest such an alternative, so may we suggest that just as in 9/11 your conclusions are unfounded?

  70. MacDonald Says:

    if you could persuade your unspeakably lazy self to visit the Perth Group’s site, you will find the point, the exact point that so puzzles you, treated of at length and with great substance and clarity.

    You seem not yet to have grasped that I am not in the business of determining if the planes were planes or missiles, or if the heat from burning desktops cut through the steel beams, or if it was a secret earthquake ray from an orbiting space station that did the job. I can only say with certainty that the official story is incoherent, contradictory and incomplete.

    For you it is easy: Bush is a incoherently babbling moron, Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently suffer from late-stage amnesia; further, they’re all pathological liars and Mineta might be a disgruntled employee on crack. That’s all possible, but even so there is little reason to take their many stories at face value. I am therefore willing to examine alternative explanations. It’s called Truth-seeking,and taht’s what I have applied to the field of viriology as well. You cannot keep holding everybody else responsible for your aversion to visiting original sources.

    .

  71. Baby Pong Says:

    MacD,

    I hear that the Boeing Union, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, is quite upset about Boeing’s plans to use tornados to assemble their jets. They see this as a threat, no doubt, but we know that science must not be hindered in its quest to turn quadrillion to one probability odds into useful productivity tools.

  72. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS,

    Please forgive me it’s not that I want to pile on here but all MacD is asking is that you not keep taking the “easy” way out of these difficult questions.

    How about “institutionalized hidden agendas”, instead of conspiracy theory? How about looking at the entire record before making “easy-way-out” pronouncements on the origin of “HIV’s” molecular signature?

    It’s not that hard, you can go here: http://www.sciencefictions.net/documents.html

    And find 100+ documents with correspondences between all the principle players including Gonda’s letter of March 26, 1984 where he tells Papovic in response to, “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication”; “I do not believe any of these particles are HTLV I, II, or III”.

    This can be combined for narrative purposes with the first of the published papers (pg 497) where the only thing Gallo had was a high count of RT activity published for the H4 culture. The fraud is in the title, “continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV III)” which is a misrepresentation of the kinetics portrayed in Figure 2. We can check this with the Levy Group’s Figure 1 caption*, properly labeled, “kinetics of reverse transcriptase activity”, while Gallo’s Figure 2 caption reads, “continuous HTLV-III production from H4/HTLV-III”.

    Interestingly, H4 may not have been “accidentally” contaminated with LAV since the later extraction of retroviral genomic “pieces” was from H9, which is where the 3 prime half of LAV was documented in the Nature paper of 1991 or 2 (which I don’t have handy but posted here in the Legally Blind Thread?).

    Thus it’s possible that the “French virus” was not necessary for the “continuous production” claim.

    Additionally Andy Maniotis has recommended a focus on, “the nature of Montagnier’s Patient one sample. The theft issue or concealmentof the source of Gallo lab “LAV-HTLV-III-HIV- sample, was debunked when Gallo and Montagnier co-published in NEJM their recollections of their early experiences … so why beat a dead horse …” He continues, “Sinoussi and Luc’s Nobel prize is based on a sample from a man who had been treated for syphilis, had two bouts of gonorrhea, had had herpes I and II, Epstein Barr virus, and of course CMV. This is what the Nobel is based on, as proving that ‘HIV’ causes AIDS? Patient One never had AIDS in the first place. He had lymphadenopathy, and a long history of STD.”

    Given what we now know (or should know) about HERVs, is it that difficult to “see” a retrovirus from this individual “taking over” cell cultures that don’t have an immune system after the requisite stimulations?

    Dr Maniotis concludes, “Gallo thought he had the first AIDS patient survey, in which only 1/3 to perhaps slightly less than 1/2 of the patients ‘HIV-positive’ using a culture system employing a slight amplification of the ‘LAV’ signal using cancer cells that don’t show any evidence of being infected by “an AIDS T-cell-killing virus.” Later (1986) of course Gallo did come up with a cell-line model of “HTLV/LAV” cytopathic effects that would be debunked by Duesberg.

    The devil, as always, is in the details.

    *Science, V225, (24 August 1984), 841

  73. Truthseeker Says:

    What nonsense, MacD, we have visited the Perth site long enough to get past its initial impressiveness and analyse what they are saying, which is now obsolete, since the work it criticizes as not proving a specific retrovirus was found contradicts what both Duesberg and the HIV defenders agree upon, which is that you can mail this stuff around without it losing its characteristics.

    You have been asked to provide an alternative explanation for this and have always proved unable to come up with one so your skepticism is nothing more than an attitude, which we happen to share but go on to TEST by seeing if there is any alternative explanation offered for what is presently established as a fact and the explanation people deduce from that fact. You have none so we conclude that the current universal interpretation stands, especially since it accords with all kinds of work done since 1984.

    The HIV-as-cause-of-AIDS situation is entirely different since not only did Duesberg’s initial analysis blow the idea skyhigh but the flow of research results since then albeit all of it carried on on the assumption that HIV causes AIDS has continually come up with results that contradict the premise and thus dictate that all honest scientists and others should vacate it immediately.

    Sitting around and being an endless questioner is not particularly useful unless the data is analyzed properly and independently and the answers to skepticism are taken into account and a proper conclusion reached, that is, if the clouds of smoke can be fanned away from the bleary eyes of the analyst who is supercharging his/her imagination with unusual substances.

    Everyone knows that Gallo’s lab work was unreliable if not downright fraudulent which is why he temporarily suffered official reprimand although able to wriggle out of it later on a legal technicality. All this came out clearly in the wrangling over credit for discovering HIV. What was not at issue was whether he was working with the very same virus as Montagnier had sent him Fedex twice – in fact it was the identity between the two that finally prised Gallo’s death grip off the credit for the discovery and in the end off the Nobel that came with it.

    Whether whatever Montagnier found and mailed was really a retorvirus or some collection of other things which miraculously kept its identity through mailing and lab work carried out in different locations is the issue that seems to be debated, but how it would keep its identity in this way seems to be unexplained, so at the moment the accepted explanation suffices.

    What always needs to be explained is how any phenomenon which is challenged could be interpreted in some other way. For example, if HIV is so incredibly uninfectious as Nancy Padian established, how come all these studies talk about the expanding prevalence over time of HIV in the many communities studied, eg uncircumcised Africans, different national populations, US blacks, etc etc?

    It is this kind of glaring inconsistency which tells us that something is fishy at a fundamental level. But what? At the moment everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

    You presumably say that the situation is exactly the same in the 9/11 case because the official line doesn’t make sense, but where are the irreconcileable inconsistencies? Saying that Bush is compos mentis and we can rely on precision in his statements doesn’t work for us. Reading mystery into officially unexplained facets of the official account doesn’t work for us if they can be easily explained in other ways eg incompetence, desire of systems to conceal incompetence, political motives of a predictable nature such as shielding the bin Laden family from lynching, etc.

  74. MacDonald Says:

    Not only did you ignore Mr. Naylor’s futile efforts at holding your hand through this – an effort I had advised against for the very reason that is now manifest; you wouldn’t go near any original and/or tech stuff with a barge pole – you also persist in clinging to the only half understood senseless straw, provided to you by the discredited science gate keeper, Robert Houston, that because something can be moved from A to B without “losing its characteristics”, whatever that means, it must be a novel, exogenous retrovirus.

    You may have confused the puzzled silence from your adoring fans with the effect caused by the delivery of a knock-out argument, but rest assured that was all echoes in your mind.

  75. MacDonald Says:

    ARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!

    I didn’t see this at first:

    What always needs to be explained is how any phenomenon which is challenged could be interpreted in some other way. For example, if HIV is so incredibly uninfectious as Nancy Padian established, how come all these studies talk about the expanding prevalence over time of HIV in the many communities studied, eg uncircumcised Africans, different national populations, US blacks, etc etc?

    WHAT ALWAYS NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED???!!! Have you ever heard of a certain Prof. Henry Bauer, his book and his blog, all devoted to showing why this is not consistent with the work of an infectious agent????!!!!

    AAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!

  76. Truthseeker Says:

    The comments like the posts are written for people who have not read Bauer etc MacD, Sometimes you really appear foolish to us with your inability to understand why this is all being discussed and what level of transparency in aimed at. But then we realize that this kind of problem is exactly why those who do explore the details and work out what is really happening so rarely seem able to convey their wisdom to the masses and the untutored influential without whom they will achieve absolutely no shift in public opinion at all. If you did have the ability to work both sides of the issue then we could all count on the correction within a week or two and go home, but Alas! such is not to be.

    Your understanding of what is going on above the details is surely not so limited that you are not aware that Peter Duesberg is the one who has long shown that the Perth group and anyone else who challenges the “existence” of the virus is standing on the quicksand of out of date objections, but if you want to credit Houston as being someone who also sees this feel free. That Bauer has exposed all the inconsistencies in the epidemiological picture and its specious testing is a separate issue entirely though much more important and relevant in rejecting the conventional wisdom and the mirage of global pandemic which it supposedly supports.

    Meanwhile your inability to produce any major paradox or inconsistency in the 9/11 story stands as exposed as the phallic monument in Washington, and as inert. When are you going to produce something more interesting than empty cynicism in that regard? Only when we wheel onstage the armor plated refutation we promised? We will do it, but our motivation is weaker every time these challenges are posted, since they are all so revealing in their vagueness and minor scale.

  77. Baby Pong Says:

    TS, I realize that there are no major paradoxes or inconsistencies or improbabilities in the government’s explanation of 9-11, and it is very credible. I personally admire our government’s quickness and accuracy in establishing the facts of the case, and I pray every night that they finally catch Bin Laden and bring him to justice. It is quite amazing how he has eluded our bloodhounds for 7 years when we have satellite technology that can spot a smashed mosquito on a baseball at a distance of 300 miles.

    However, in the interest of fairness, some loudmouth troublemakers have suggested that there were some suspicious inconsistencies, so I will link some of them here.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8937
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8555
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8352
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/22/02147.html
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/14269

  78. MacDonald Says:

    As one of those irresponsible Troublemakers I wholeheartedly concur with Pong, and I humbly apologize for my stubborn failure to see the Light. After all, is the glaring Flaw in all our loudmouth arguments not revealed and amplified by a mere glance at the vague and intellectually puny list of references supplied above, not a single of which makes mention of Duesberg? In fact, closer scrutiny of the logic of 9/11 theory reveals neither the sacred initials, P. D., nor any of the mystical anagrams of the Name, by which otherwise uninitiated readers can satisfy themselves that an argument is clear, comprehensive and comprehensible.

  79. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, your responses indicate “patience of a sort” and a willingness to reopen these vexing-to-us-all issues, and I appreciate that. As I requested in the Nobel thread, the pressing need is to look at more of the record before agreeing with any “universal interpretation”. Beware of “false-flag” operations, as the conspiracy buffs like to say.

    Hence, “recruiting” careful investigators from outside of retrovirology, but capable and most importantly INTERESTED in these “bottom lines” – the cause of so much sound and fury – is the point of engaging as best we can the boring technical details that may transform into points of excitement once the implications of “retrogenomics” are realized.

    Let’s dispose of the virus in the mail issue first. Easy, because addressed elsewhere and precisely analyzed by Nature, V363 (3 June 1993), 466-469: the “contaminated culture (M2T-/B was sent to LTCB (Gallo’s lab) in September 1983”. This paper also reveals the reason for the “provenance” of LAV in this culture, “the contamination of a culture derived from patient BRU by one from patient LAI was responsible for the provenance of LAV ((original name substituted)).”

    Two points of evidence for recombination in the H9 culture between the 3 prime half of LAV with LTR gag-pol of HTLV variants is 1) the “similarity” of HTLV III/LAV* with “Montagnier’s virus” was detemined with measurements of the “env V1/V2 region” and 2) “We conclude that the pool (HT), and probably another LTCB culture, MoV, were contaminated between October 1983 and early 1984 by variants of LAV* from the M2T-/B culture.” (There’s more besides these two points for a chimeric HTLV/LAV.) H9 and H4, of course, were derived from HT pool. One can say that Popovic/Gallo “massaged” (words fail here) Montagnier’s “isolate” in a manner not unlike the “isolates” from those 48 patients.

    From “Popovic … Gallo et al; Detection, Isolation and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS. Science V224, (4 May 1984), pg 499” we get “As shown in Fig. 2b, the highest RT activity was shown at a density of 1.16g/ml, which is similar to other retroviruses. The highest RT activity was found in the fractions with the largest amount of virus, AS DETERMINED BY ELECTRON MICROSCOPY ((emphasis added)). The actual number of viral particles determined by this method was estimated to be about 10^11 per liter of culture fluid.”

    Thanks to the now available Toplin paper, we can better understand the “working standards” of retroviral isolation that guided experiments 1970 to 1986. Essential details of the great AIDS-virus swindle in May of 1984 can be gleaned from primary-source publications.

    The reference of Popovic/Gallo and Toplin for viral particle count is the SAME (1). Alas, Toplin gives more precision in description: “We adjust the viral level to 2 x 10^11 particles per ml using rapid quantitative negative stain electron microscopy to MEASURE the concentration”. The paper includes type of EM that can be used to determine particle count based on ”double sucrose zonal centrifugation”.

    Thus, the EM Gallo et al refer to is clearly not Fig 1 which includes “cells”. Thanks to the Gonda letter, this fraudulent misrepresentation of virus “continuing production” is confirmed. Nothing else in the paper justifies that particle number.

    Additionally, it helps and is constructive, I think; to answer Mr. Houston’s reasonable question of 7/24/07with more on-the-record stuff finally brought to bear. He said, “But surely in the laboratory mass production was achieved. Or are “viral stocks containing 10^9 to 10^10 [1 billion to 10 billion] physical particles per milliliter” too little to qualify?” He means, surely Mr. Naylor this is mass production. Who cares what Gallo did.

    The point here is what was established in the public mind by continuous production claim transmuted to “mass purification” at Parenzee – certainly not “harmless passenger”. To back up his bosses on a bona-fide AIDS virus, frenetic activity in a cell culture was indicative of anything but harmless in vivo.

    So just like with the retroviral “kits” sold to experimenters, Moore, Lane et al were using “viral stocks”, by 1990 a standard Biotech product thanks to the earlier efforts 1970-1986. This use of prepackaged viruses has nothing to do with any kind of original experiments which would include “detection” of putative virions before clones are manufactured. Of course technologists can mass produce viral titers with cell “packaging lines” (2) such as H9 by inoculating clones into the culture.

    In his eagerness to demolish me, Mr Houston ignores the very common sense he’s wisecracking about. But all this is correctible. The H9:HTLV III/LAV clone was produced at the end of a chain of experiments and therefore could not be used to inoculate the culture at the beginning of the series without a time machine.

    1. Monroe and Brandt; 1970. Rapid semiquantitative method for screening large numbers of virus samples by negative staining electron microscopy. Appl. Microbiol. 20: 259 –262

    2. System Bio: http://www.systembio.com/express/?gclid=CI3p54yuypYCFQNaFQod5W2tzg

    Clontech: http://www.clontech.com/products/detail.asp?product_id=10526&tabno=2

  80. Truthseeker Says:

    Greetings O Pong, and our salutations to your brethren on the Planet Conspiracy where all good men and women detect and examine every minute possibility that devilishly cunning puppet masters in secret government cabals are hiding behind the smooth surface of official explanations for apparently simple events, such as one involving 20 men all identified and backgrounded who merely managed to get onto planes and hijack them with box cutters, after training to fly the planes into large targets.

    Pretty impressive, we’ll admit. Such brilliant government manipulation behind the scenes concealed from a global battalion of hungry investigative reporters but detected in its trivial uncertainties and meaningless inconsistencies void of specific alternative explanatory claims but spotted by the eagle eyed Planet Pongers as unerringly as hawks from 200 feet up are able to see a field mouse shiver the leaves of a compost heap as it moves through the mound of misinformation bulldozed by the government of the US, is that right? (Stop these metaphors, please! – Ed.)

    And who is the leader of the intergalactic group? None other than the not very celebrated Prof David Ray Griffin, with his silly smile but ultra detailed hawk eyed sifting of the detritus of 9/11 to see if everything holds together, or do we have the smallest uncertainty about massively relevant suspicious facts such as the ETA of Dick Cheney into his underground bunker, Mahamed Atta’s luggage itinerary, Bush’s classroom dawdling, and Barbara Olson’s cell phone call to her husband Ted Olson Solicitor General?

    Fair enough, we have a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions. But are these worth the sophisticated attention of Pong, MacD and their respectful host trailing in the wake of their leadership? Are they worth poring over and pondering? Do they yield an alternative scenario which solves the puzzles and withstands equally persistent analyzing? Apparently not. And that is to be expected. Every account of events involving many people will have contradictions and inconsistencies, you betcha. Our reference: any court case you care to attend. The more dramatic, the more of these narrative mice and rats (see experiments on the appalling inadequacy of eye witnesses).

    The indications we would look for before devoting expensive attention to David Ray Griffin’s efforts in his book which appears to have gone nowhere, from which all these instances are drawn, are 1. Significantly hard to believe inconsistencies, paradoxes and suspicious peculiarities not explained by the standard story. 2. An alternative narrative which makes sense ie fits the rest of the facts which are established 3. Evidence that anyone responsible is taking David Ray Griffin extensively detailed book seriously.

    Repeated efforts to read this stuff keep triggering the Crackpot Alert Meter with which we have been armed ever since entering science reporting and which has been refined to ever greater levels of sensitivity over the years, whose needle tends to swing over the dial and hit the stop pillar every time it encounters one of David Ray Griffin’s efforts. Shades of Pierre Salinger! We once were forced to read John Mack’s book on his flying saucer witnesses and the flavor is exactly the same, mainly because it is riddled with the mistake of taking people literally when they are reporting memories of story events. Anyone who doesn’t understand that all recollection in the mushy precincts of the human brain is self organizing from partial clues is not equipped to be a detective of the past, in our opinion.

    MacD, your last post is not up to your usual high standards of sarcastic wit, since you seem to be confusing two exposures of false claims which occupy opposite ends of the spectrum of credibility, namely 9/11 and Peter Duesberg’ s analysis of the unfounded claim that HIV causes AIDS.

    In the former case we have small inconsistencies without necessarily great import and lacking alternative scenario which not even CNN takes seriously.

    In the latter case we have peer reviewed articles in the top literature of science setting the record straight by demonstrating that the current unproven story (that HIV causes AIDS) doesn’t accord in any particular with established science, or with laboratory results or epidemiology before or since, and contains major internal inconsistencies, while at the same time all can be explained by the alternative scenario that HIV causes nothing at all as usual for a retrovirus and all symptoms of AIDS sufferers are caused by standard diseases and ailments and the wrong drugs and treatment, and are simply relabeled “AIDS caused by HIV”.

    Upon the latter misunderstanding a global structure of misapprehension and mismedication has been erected, and because Duesberg’s analysis has been swept under the carpet everybody is under the impression that it is a valid scenario. Ironically this is precisely what happens with all successful conspiracy theory; it is taken as valid by large numbers of people who sustain an alternative scenario in their minds. But what is the alternative scenario in the case of 9/11?

    Please enlighten us.

    If you would like an example of conspiracy theory which seems valid on the surface ie smacks of genuine miscarriage of justice to us, how about Lockerbie? According to Wikipedia, Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University who was the “architect of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial”, told the Scotsman that it was “the most disgraceful miscarriage of justice in Scotland for 100 years. I won’t let it go.” At least all the doubts make sense a priori.

    Certainly official enquiry and famous convictions can be exposed as wrong. Viewers of PBS in NYC have just learned the notorious case of Dr Hawley Harvey Crippen on which all British children who visit Madame Tussaud’s are raised, the American who supposedly dismembered his wife and ran away with his girlfriend to be apprehended on a liner to America, was a miscarriage of justice. Apparently Crippen was innocent!

  81. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS,
    You said to MacD,

    “Your understanding of what is going on above the details is surely not so limited that you are not aware that Peter Duesberg is the one who has long shown that the Perth group and anyone else who challenges the “existence” of the virus is standing on the quicksand of out of date objections, but if you want to credit Houston as being someone who also sees this feel free.”

    Let’s make it clear that above is not the “whole story”. It can indeed be consistently brought “up-to-date”. They sold a signifier without a signified: HIV, which is the point of counter-speaking clearly and knowing what we’re talking about. It is an insult to language to say an immunodestructive virus is a harmless passenger, thus we banish this faulty map from “existence” as guardians of science.

    Nor can I warrant that when “the clouds of smoke can be fanned away from the bleary eyes of the analyst who is supercharging his/her imagination with unusual substances” the above techno-points will make sense. Maybe the opposite? ;o)

    There are still endless experiments with retroviruses that cry out for re-interpretation in accordance with the “new genomics” paradigm. (Professor Strohman, Howard Urnovitz, etc.)

    So surely, “Sitting around and being an endless questioner” IS “particularly useful” when “the data is analyzed properly and independently”. Those dissidents who’ve provided “answers to skepticism” should be “taken into account” so “a proper conclusion” can be “reached” because EVEN IF THEY’VE MADE ERRORS their contributions are valid progress according to many who’ve taken a closer look.

  82. MacDonald Says:

    Aided.

  83. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Nick Naylor, you can define the valid progress for us, right? What is it? Please formulate it in a sound bite that can be included in the briefing to the Obama aide who will brief Obama.

    Hope that is not beyond your powers of non technical expression 🙂

  84. Baby Pong Says:

    Well, it’s settled then. TS’s overwhelmingly rational reasoning has humbled me, and I am ashamed of my conspiracy-theorizing past. It is very reassuring to know that our rulers are good and decent men who would never concoct such a devilish plot.

    I now eagerly await the reign of President Obama, whose administration is beginning to be filled up with the wise men and women of the CFR, persons of courage and dignity who want equality for everybody. And I am heartened that Obama has promised to make tackling the Hiv/Aids pandemic a priority for his administration. We really must concede that it is essential to test everybody, and then to provide medicine for those who cannot afford it. Not to do so makes us evil beings ourselves, truly deserving of the term “denialists.”

    I, for one, am transcendently blissful now that i have discovered the truth. We were wrong. Sit down, brothers, and stop rocking the boat.

  85. MacDonald Says:

    Comrade Pong, you are far too modest in your praise of the Reformer Elect.

    Obama has shown the value of his hard-earned Harvard Law degree by voting to retroactively immunize blatantly lawbreaking telecoms, thereby immunizing the entire Bush admin as well – an admirably bipartisan gesture that shows he understands the need in a democracy for corporations and government to become one, only separated at most by a revolving door.

    Obama has also shown that he is is not a vengeful man by allowing Joe Liberman to retain his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Comittee. Among the countless admirable qualities Obama sees in a Joe Liberman, these no doubt top the list:

    Lieberman is a vehement supporter of one of the most unpopular wars in American history; a
    vigorous campaigner for the McCain/Palin ticket that just lost in something close to a landslide; a champion of reform policies we can believe in, such as the abolition of habeas corpus, waterboarding, refusal to negotiate with Iran, bombing Syria, remaining in Iraq indefinitely, prohibition against criticizing Bush while at war with “taorists”.

    This wise decidion also shows Obama is no mere populist since Lieberman is so generally disliked that no Democratic presidential candidate even wanted his endorsement; and he is deeply unpopular in his own state.

    Of course the pragmatic and centre-seeking revolutionary Uniter of Mankind can be expected to balance his endorsement of the worthy Senator Lieberman by making his own chief of intelligence policy, John Brennan, the new Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan is known as a big fan of various direct and indirect illegal torture policies, such as the life-saving so-called “rendition programs”, whereby terror suspects could be kidnapped and flown to nice places like Syria for a little friendly questioning before Lieberman starts bombing the region.

    Obama’s concept of “spreading the wealth” instead of relying on trickle-down economics has also been clearly demonstrated by his support for Paulson’s $700 billion bailout scam providing tax-payer funded relief to needy kingpins in the financial sector, as well as the $25 billion so that the Auto Maker CEOs can maintain their private jet fleet.

    To some this dramatic departure from the policies and practices of the last 8 years might seem reckless and extreme, but fortunately we can expect the Xavier to become more conservative and elite friendly in his approach once he assumes Power.

  86. Truthseeker Says:

    Shock horror! Are you suggesting that the new Messiah has clay feet? This is indeed worrying. However since these comments are recorded in the wrong thread, perhaps we can head them off with our new post, slightly delayed by Bill “I have $65 billion of your money but this does not necessarily mean that your PC will work” Gates, celebrating the many indubitable outstanding personal qualities of this fine President for the 21st Century which suggest that even though he may worry the congregation with strange choices for disciples, he is really arranging to further democracy and justice for all by drawing his enemies near. At least remember that his finest quality is that he can get people of diverse views into one room and find common ground. He told us this himself when Steve Kroft asked him what made him a good selection for the Presidency. Perhaps you didn’t hear it?

    Anyhow when we get through troubleshooting our sixteen weeks old HP and restoring its ability to access the Web at light speed from its current speed of zero we shall proceed to enlighten you as to what is really going on in the heroic psyche of one of the greatest politicians to step forward and run America since Lincoln, whose style he has adopted.

  87. MacDonald Says:

    Hehe… much obliged.

    We Report You Spin.

    As they say.

  88. MacDonald Says:

    Eh why so silent? Hillary got your tongue? You know Hillary”the Iranian National Guard is a terrorist outfit” Clinton.

    Hey I got an idea, let’s approach the world with some diplomatic subtlety; let’s make that woman Secretary of State.

    That would be SS Hillary. No regrets, KiSSinger is too old anyway und Herrn Lieberman is buzy maintaining ze purity of ze Tribe of Zion.

    Get people of different views in the same room and find common ground? I’ve already found the common ground: Surveillance, Torture, Aggression, Corruption, and that most important attribute of any responsible American politician passion for Israel, as Joe Biden poeteically expressed it.

  89. MacDonald Says:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) yesterday delivered the following remarks to the Christians United for Israel Conference:

    “Thank you for that kind introduction and that warm welcome. May I in turn greet you with the ancient words of welcome offered to pilgrims in Jerusalem – “Bruchim Habaim B’Shem Hashem” – blessed be those who come in the name of the Lord.

    That greeting is especially fitting for you because you have come to Washington not just as men or women, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. You are here as Christians United for Israel. You represent a powerful force of people of faith in America who have pledged to never forget thee, O Jerusalem.

    And I know, as a Christian friend likes to remind me, that there are a lot more Christian Zionists in America than Jewish Zionists. And, I know the support of Christian Zionists today is critical to Israel’s security and strength, and to America’s security and strength.

    So I am honored by your invitation to speak tonight, to thank you for what you are doing, to exhort you to continue to do more — which is God’s work, and to pray with you that you are successful.

    I begin by thanking your founder, Pastor John Hagee. I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an “Eesh Elo Kim,” a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel.
    ——————————————————–

    “Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat congressman for the 5th District of Illinois in Chicago is the son of an Israeli terrorist. Rahm’s father, Benjamin, was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization that coined a new word as they blew up hotels, train stations, and other buildings in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s.

    Rahm was an Israeli citizen until he was 18 years old, when for obvious reasons he hid his Israeli passport in his underwear drawer. In 1991, however, he pulled his Israeli passport out and went and reportedly joined the Israeli Army to defend Zion from Saddam’s Scuds. “

  90. MacDonald Says:

    Pardon me, Joe Biden is indeed “passionate” about Israel:

    “no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.”

    But the poetry effused on a different occasion and was related to various part of his anatomy:

    “My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head .. I promise you, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama’s campaign as vice president if I had any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shared the same commitment to Israel that I share.”

  91. Truthseeker Says:

    The Cabinet too Clintonesque for you? Oh ye of little faith.

    You now have a nice new post to target (not here please – this is the 9/11 conspiracy debate). Just remember that Kroft told Rose that Obama had a spine of steel. He makes his own decisions. See you there.

  92. Nick Naylor Says:

    “Please formulate it in a sound bite that can be included in the briefing to the Obama aide who will brief Obama.” – TS, this thread

    For HHS policy implementation purposes, review Howard Urnovitz’ 3 testimonies to Congress on human genome project and what has held up progress in AIDS, Gulf War Syndrome, etc. – “square pegs in round holes”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1290 access attempts in the last 7 days.