Yes!
I think we all know that this Labour Government have carried out murder - but we will never be able to prove it in our lifetime, thanks to our repressive covering up of the truth, clothed in 'the security of the realm' figleaf.

Labour really are scum; and those who vote for them should take a long, hard look at themselves in a mirror and ask themselves if they feel "clean" after voting for the New Nazi Party.

PAH!

Speak for yourself Silent, I plan to be here after 70 years.
But by then I'm not sure that information would be of any use?

I'm sure you're right here Craig - Kelly embarassed not only the British government but the US government too by rubbishing Powell's UN presentation about 'mobile chemical warfare labs'. He was actually in favour of military action against Iraq (i've no idea why given the fact we have a nuclear deterrent and all the US's and Britain's allies either have one or are protected by their allies' ones) but was not willing to lie about it - and not willing to let lies about Iraq's WMD capacity stand.

Gilligan's misquoted Kelly in that he didn't use Kelly's exact words - but he didn't change the meaning of what Kelly had said. The government meanwhile deliberately distorted and politicised intelligence to make it sound like it meant the opposite of what it actually said (that Saddam was highly unlikely to use WMDs if he still had any unless he was on the point of being overthrown by invading forces). Gilligan and the BBC were punished for not quoting the exact words; Blair and the government got off with lying through their teeth and getting large numbers of people killed un-necessarily as a result.

The other man who could have demolished the two governments' lies about Iraqi WMD - the source code-named 'curveball' died in a Libyan jail in another 'suicide' shortly after Human Rights Watch had identified and talked to him.

"It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney's bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone."

I think they would have.

"AN HOUR BEFORE Dr Kelly even left home on his final walk at 3.30pm, at 2.30pm a senior policeman sat down at his computer at Thames Valley Police headquarters in Oxfordshire.

He began to create a restricted file on his secure computer. Across the top he typed a code name: Operation Mason. Although its contents have never been made public, it would detail the overnight search for Dr Kelly.

Incredibly, he created this file an hour before the scientist even left home, and 9 hours before he was even reported missing."

"One of the country's most respected vascular surgeons, Martin Birnstingl, also says that it would be virtually impossible for Dr Kelly to have died by severing the ulnar artery on the little finger side of his inner wrist.

'I have never, in my experience, heard of a case where someone has died after cutting their ulnar artery."

"As David Halpin says: 'The idea that a man like Dr Kelly would choose to end his life like that is preposterous. This was a scientist, an expert on drugs.'"

"that unopened letter found on Dr Kelly's desk, which had been sent to him at his home by MoD bosses and signed by Richard Hatfield, the ministry's personnel chief.

It emerged at the Hutton inquiry into Dr Kelly's death that it contained threats demanding his future silence.

But he would not be put off. He saw his book as a guarantee of his financial future, which he often worried about. ".

"Most intriguingly, at 8am, half an hour before Dr Kelly's body was discovered under the tree, three officers in dark suits from MI5's Technical Assessment Unit were at his house".

Dark Actors at the Scene of David Kelly's Death

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1164

The computers and the hard-disk containing the 40,000 words of the explosive book were carried away. They have never been seen since."

What - no insults from Larry/Soba to the blog host ("loon" etc.) for disputing an Official Truth? What's the matter, fellows, cat got your tongue?

Personally, I didn't believe for a moment that Kelly had done himself in to save the government a lot of difficulty.

Duncan: About "Curveball"... if the public was properly informed about this "intelligence source", it would have substantially undermined the basis for war. He was called "crazy" by the intelligence handlers and a "congenital liar" by his friends. Despite his alcoholism, his tales of "mobile weapons labs" etc. were taken as read.

"US relied on 'drunken liar' to justify war" :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/03/iraq.usa1

blah blah NuLabour blah Mossad blah blah Jews blah 9/11 blah blah Edge of Darkness blah John Le Carre blah David Shayler blah bunch of nutters...and so on.

Here's a Youtube video on the suspicions of Norman Baker MP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1EscFi_duM
Here's an article by Baker expressing suspicion of Iraqi elements:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-why-the-death-of-dr-david-kelly-simply-will-not-go-away-1636.html

I was incredibly naive with regards to my view of Blair in the run up to the Iraq War.

I actually thought he was riding the back of the American tiger, in an attempt to tame it and bring it under control and prevent war.

If that had been the case, and even if at the crucial moment of decision - he had accepted Bush's offer for the UK not to be involved, not only would he have been perceived as a true hero, but the war might actually not have happenned. I used to think that Blair underestimated the degree of influence he actually had. I think he was far more powerful than he realised.

But in that moment of decision he failed so disasterously, maybe due to a lack of courage.

Such that now, far from being perceived as a hero, he is perceived as he really is.

The Ultimate EVIL

I think Even Worse Than Richard Bruce Cheney

With Regards To David Kelly

What The Hell Are They Thinking?

Are They Completely INSANE?

You Can Hardly Get a Stronger Admission of Guilt

No You Can't See The Evidence For 70 Years - Because We Didn't Do It.

Tony

Hey, hang on. What's wrong with John Le Carre ?

"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Craig finally succumbs, and becomes as one with his readership, yet another conspiracy loon. Hurrah for the Blackshirts eh?

So they have decided to come to this thread with new names but their old slogans.
"Disagree with what the government says and we will call you a loon."

The thing about your site craig it is so easy to sign postings with any name you want. There might be just one person typing loon to every post.

That is why I made this:
unite.iwannaforum.com

Craig,
think you might be able to goad Her Majesty's government into a Libel case?

Perhaps mention something about them hiding evidence that Kelly was a state sanctioned murder?

"But what we do know is that the three 'detectives' were left alone at the site for 30 minutes before the uniformed police assigned from Abingdon arrived at around 10am. Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman say that they found Dr Kelly's body propped up against a tree. Yet the Abingdon police contingent insisted to Lord Hutton that they discovered the microbiologist lying flat on his back. All subsequent witnesses gave the same story.

Not only did the body appear to have been moved, but crucially the pruning knife, water bottle and watch were suddenly being mentioned by witnesses at the scene."

w+w+w.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1597

My son Kieron (18yrs)has always believed David Kelly was murdered, propped up against a tree and a short time later moved so he was laying flat. Louise, Paul and the paramedics still maintain their was very little blood (some say it had soaked into the ground).

Interestingly there was no fingerprints on the knife or water-bottle that were found (I am sure that Louise said she didn't recall a water-bottle or knife when Brock alerted her to the body)

h+t+t+p://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/2006/07/thursday-13th-july-2006-why-was-there.html

w+w+w.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7134

The thing about Craig's website which is so wonderful is that you can post under any name you want to.

But everyone writes in a different way, such that they leave their unique signature, and almost everyone is completely traceable, because the kind of people who contribute to a website such as this can't be bothered to anonymise their real identity, and even if they did try to, by for example posting from an internet cafe in deepest Thailand, the real security services would be on to them like a shot, if they thought they were a real terrorist. Whilst some of the people doing such jobs maybe real terrorists, they want to know about any amateur who might be trying to encroach on their profession.

Tony

" The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig.. but already it was impossible to say which was which."

This reminds me of a conversation I had in 1997 with a fellow branch member of the Labour party, soon after Tony Blair's coming to power. I remarked that things were beginning to look like the last chapter of Animal Farm!

I initially supported the British government over Iraq in 2003 because of the fear of atom bombs beneath the desert. I remember George Bush saying that he had learned from British Intelligence that Saddam Hussein had been trying to import Uranium from Africa.

Six months after the allies entered Baghdad during which the Americans had been able to go where they liked, it was clear that there weren't any atom bombs beneath the sands. So much for the main reason for starting a war.

Wahey, Eddie's back...and he's baaaaaad! Go on, Edster, give us more - I'm collecting 'em!

eddie, forgive me for dragging you back to the point, but why do you think key evidence has been has beem put under wraps for seventy years?

Yes! Everyone go to www.thetruthseeker.co.uk!

You can buy Alex Jones' The Obama Deception! UFOs and crop circles are prominently featured!

And the archives are just excellent for fucking nutters like you!

• "The War on Terror"
• Behind The "News"
• Bilderberg
• Commentary
• Crop circles
• Earth changes and the "End Times"
• Economics
• Freemasonry
• Fringe Science and new Technical Developments
• Health
• Hidden and Revisionist History
• Mind Control
• Miscellaneous
• Political Intrigue
• Predictions: from the past or for the future
• Princess Diana. What Really Happened?
• Race
• September 11
• The Ancient Past
• The Anti-Christ
• The Media
• The New World Order
• The Rothschilds
• The Unexplained: esoteric and hidden knowledge
• Waco
• Zionism, 'Anti-Semitism', Israel and its US Lobby

Thanks Larry but we're reading the Daily Mail right now. Why do you think key evidence has been put under wraps for seventy years? Any views?

From what I read today, this 70 year order, removing the evidence produced at his enquiry, also covers information, photos from the scene, and witness statements, that were not produced at the time, as well. And the full autopsy report. Secondly there appears to be a second, 30 years ban on releasing, the full, uncensored, testimony of the first eye-witnesses on the spot, too.

It's important that there was no inquest into Kelly's death, only the Hutton enquiry, that functioned, by a dispensation from... wait for it Lord Goldsmith, remember him? Who stated that Hutton would function as a substitute for an official inquest. This "detail" is, in itself rather interesting, no?

It's also interesting that this information about action taken by Hutton several years ago, comes to light now. When Chilcot is about to interview, Tony Blair, and on Thursday, Lord Goldsmith!Is that merely a coincidence, or is someone trying to tell us something?

I'm very impressed by Larry's post. He showed conclusively how Dr Kelly's death was a suicide. Absolutely. No question with that kind of evidence.

Why any speculation on whether Kelly's blood might have drained into the ground (someone even suggested an animal might have had it!)? Surely the autopsy would have been completely clear on whether or not his body retained the expected quantity of blood?

*

And as for Larry above including 'economics' , 'race', 'the media' and so on in his silly little list... is he really calling anyone who thinks such things exist to be a 'loon'? (Personally, I think Larry's totally obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy stuff and should get his head examined. Possibly his 11-year old schoolchums studied psychology extensively when they weren't designing atom bombs, and so could help out here.)

Larry,

Alex Jones has got such an incredibly annoyingly aweful voice and is so much up his own areshole that maybe he doesn't realise what a tool he is...

Alex is like a soft leak of shit

Sure some of the stuff he does is really good

But not everything is as it seems

But if you are bored watch

Fall of The Repubic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

My mate who is a musician - no he has not yet achieved much fame - reads the Independent

And whilst I have seen a few episodes, he came round my hous ( cos whilst he has the most amazing sound recording equipment he hasn't got a computer that can connect to the internet )

But he does know about such stuff

And so instead of buying the Alex Jones DVD

He bought the Entire Series of Ideal

I said you do realise The BBC did that.

He said yes, but Johnny Vegas has discovered the cure for Gout

Tony

I'm not sure Kelly's death paved the way for war in Iraq or that he was the first man killed in the Iraq war.

Kelly died in July 2003 and the war had started three months earlier.

What I do know is that being a biological weapons expert meant Kelly had a very short life expectancy.Such experts are clearly deemed expendable assets by those for whom they work.The fact that so many have died before their time is hardly a coincidence.

I also know that Kelly was certainly the only person to die as a result of a cut to the ulnar artery in 2003.It is impossible to die in the open air from such a wound because the blood congeals and clots very quickly.Haemorrhage-the official cause of death-is therefore most unlikely.A doctor would know far more efficient means of killing himself;if indeed that was what he wanted to do.

It is also a fact that there were no fingerprints on the knife Kelly supposedly used to inflict the "fatal" wound.

Compounding the infinite number of oddities re-the Kelly case is the fact that the Lord Chancellor ruled that the Hutton Inquiry would serve as the inquest.Therefore no proper inquest wherein witnesses could be subpoenaed and questioned on oath was permitted to take place.

Rowena Thursby has done some great investigative journalism on this dead-in-the-wood psy-ops.In particular she has shown with the help of Kelly's daughter,Rachel who had access to her father's diaries,that diplomat,David Broucher's evidence before Hutton claiming he had had a conversation with Kelly in which the he said if Iraq was invaded he would be found dead in the woods is unlikely in reality to have taken place at all.

So cowed was the BBC by the rolling of heads in the aftermath of the Gilligan affair they gave free rein to intelligence operatives thereafter whenever the Kelly case was discussed.

One,Tom Mangold a veteran reporter from Vietnam days,was dredged up to rubbish Norman Baker's book on Kelly on the Andrew Marr show in November 2007.He overplayed his hand somewhat since by showing his head above the parapet gave anyone the opportunity to do a small amount of research and discover that Mangold was directly connected to the US Office of Special Plans by his previous work on germ warfare with the infamous war propagandist,Jeffrey Goldberg with whom he had co-written a book on the same subject.Both had got most of their information from-you guessed it-David Kelly.

Mangold claimed that Baker was in error to claim that he had not been invited to Kelly's funeral.That they had been friends and Mangold had called him repeatedly when the story had broken.

Mangold held up his invitation card for all the breakfast TV audience to see.What was not vouchsafed in this revealing interview was that Kelly had obviously never returned any of Mangold's calls!

We don't need to wonder why.

Mangold has also written a book on the CIA of which the Agency thoroughly approved.

Bit of a give away that!

http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com

I think the Bush gang in the White House would have invaded Iraq anyway, but support from the UK made things easier in relation to US public opinion. Remember Blair functioned like a smooth and very articulate salesman for the war. Without Britain the United States would have seemed rather isolated. Blair was used to sell the war to the American people, and he did his job superbly, and he's been rewarded handsomely in return. The American ruling class can be very generous to loyal vassals.

Without Blair's backing it's doubtful that Spain and Italy would have supported the war so vigerously. Europe, if Britain hadn't gone along with the American plans, would have stood, more or less, united in opposition, so Blair also served as an American wedge splitting Europe in two effectively, something it still hasn't recovered from.

Perhaps Blair and his Downing Street gang, really believed that they had some influence in Washington, something successive governments have deluded themselves into thinking for decades. Maybe Blair believed he could stop Bush really going over the top in Iraq and blasting it with nuclear weapons, if Saddam was foolish and desparate enough to use his weapons of mass destruction in a vain attempt to salvage his regime?

It's important to remember that in both wars against Iraq, top American and British officials theatened and hinted that they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons, as last resort, if Iraq deployed WMDs on the battlefield and endangered our forces.

2007, Professor Robert Forrest President of the Forensic Science Society. Quote: "I've no doubt that the cause of Dr Kelly's death was a combination of blood loss, heart disease and overdose of co-proxamol. Not necessarily in that order. If I was going to put it in order I'd put the the overdose of co-proxamal first."

So who do you believe, him or a nutty Lib MP who has no medical qualifications? Like all conspiracies, where are the conspirators? Why has none come forward? The moon landings, 911, JFK - they are all in the same boat. Waste of time.

tony_o - "I used to think that Blair underestimated the degree of influence he actually had. I think he was far more powerful than he realised."

I've wondered if maybe some people flattered his vanity, persuaded him he could make that difference.

But then, when the noise started in 2002, I wondered for a while if it was all a reponse to focus groups complaining about government by focus group.

Eddie, you're such a cock.

"Craig finally succumbs, and becomes as one with his readership"

That would include you.

On the other hand, I doubt very much that Blair and Bush really believed their own propaganda about Saddam and Iraq's military capabilities. They knew Iraq was defenceless, and on it's knees. That's why the Americans wanted to invade it. A weak country, with perhaps gigantic, untapped, oil reserves, was a prize simply too tempting to pass over.

I have a theory that American politicians only play at being stupid and ignorant. It's a ruse, or a kind of camoflage, that they conveniently hide behind. Maybe their not "mad", but "mad" like Hamlet?

They prefer to be seen as incompetent and foolish, because their real reasons for doing what they do are so outrageous that they simply don't bare thinking about and would cause howls of protest where they made public for all to see.

Before anyone shouts "conspiracey theory" as quick look at Bush's career seems to illustrate my theory perfectly. Here was a man who was a close to American royalty as they come. A product of the east coast aristocracy. Yet he is magically transformed into a cowboy with his own pretend cattle ranch, and goes from sailing his yacht around Martha's Vineyard, to mending fences and punching cows with the good ol' boys down in Texas. What a change, like a movie script, from dude to cowboy in few short years.

Tony,

Absolutely true about identity, in fact, I'm rather proud to put my name and image when commenting esp. on WashingPost where I splatter quite heavily. In fact(not trying to flatter myself) I have received WaPo commendations for doing that (a system I think somebody recommended here). And of course there is Facebook and the Care2 organisation which both my son and I play/support/. I am a great fan of David Swanson - an American who really, really wants to 'change' America.

Pretty amazing stuff happening over at Tom Harris's blog in connection with this.

I think his blog was right to the extent that you got the chronology wrong.

But posts being deleted on the advice of the security services is a tad worrying to say the least.

Kelly had been ostracised and therefore would have become isolated and dangerous. He may have published his book without getting it OKd by the government. Being a a biological weapons expert he would have known exactly who behind the front companies supplied Saddam with such weapons. I suspect it was the UK.

writerman,

laughed " ..and punching cows with the good ol' boys"
..and digging out armadillos!

Don't know who Mark Golding is but that last post came from me.

I am definitely not Mark Golding.

Oh well.

Mark,

I salute Everyone who gets past the barbed wires of censorship, and not only does Very Good Real Acts of Discovery and Charity and Turns Horror Into Sustainable Peace and Happinness, even if its just a tiny little village more than half away around the World.

And Proudly Proclaim Their Real Name.

There is No Way, I can Ever Achieve Some Of The Most Wonderful Things Some Of My Friends Have Done.

People Never Cease To Amaze Me

And whilst on the Internet, or in The Newspapers or on TV, most of what you read is not very nice

But you have to be a little bit more objective

In most countries in the World, such aweful wars are not going on

And the people who travel and do good things most of the time, they do not take a camera and a microphone, and they don't even write about it

They just do it

Tony

I'm having difficulty in finding the original media reports of the 'suicide' of Dr Kelly.

I'm pretty sure that I remember them saying he had taken 4 tablets.

Now reports suggest he had taken 19 out of a 20 packet.

Why the change in story ?

Why take all but the last in a packet anyway ?

Why can't the police return his book for publication ?

I think the security service business on Tom's site was some kind of joke by him. Fascinating thoough that he says that he will refuse to publish stuff which argues that Kelly was murdered. Most people think Kelly was murdered - which must mean that our New Labour trolls think most people are nutters.

Edo, I use "readership" in a generic sense. As in the "readership' of the Daily Mail - i.e. people who take the paper regularly and have views broadly in line with its general line. My views are clearly not in line with the majority readership of this site. I hope that makes sense to you?

There was a time when Kings wanted to get rid of someone they'd lop his head off and blame it on the vikings.

I wonder what Larry would have said if he lived in that time period?

He took "up to 29" co-proxamol. The blister packets were found in the pocket of his jacket, a fact that Norman Lamb seems to find highly suspicious.

Yes, it makes sense Eddie. AND YOU'RE STILL A COCK. make sense?

"He took "up to 29" co-proxamol"

"Up to" in this instance meaning about three.

In other words, a blister-pack holding 30 had one left in it. What genius decided this packet was definitely full when Kelly left the house?

He took "up to 29" co-proxamol.

This is a non-sensical statement.

He took "up to 1.3million co-proxamol" would be just as accurate.

That gives a wide brush to paint many pictures.

Is there a toxicologist's report which gives a more precise dosage level.

i.e. a lethal or non-lethal dosage ?

or will we have to wait 70 years ?

"So who do you believe, him or a nutty Lib MP who has no medical qualifications?"

You believe the prominent doctors who have said that it couldn't have been suicide.

Even Professor Robert Forrest has his complaints about the post mortem.

The only real question is why eddie is so unconcerned about all anomalies in this case.

He quite simply can't be genuine, but then of course nothing about nulab ever was. It was a total fraud from start to finish, so much so indeed that they've overreached themselves to a point where I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them getting banged up for their crimes, in the not too distant future.

All it takes is a change in the political atmosphere vis a vis the Arab world and future politicians wishing to distance themselves from the ancien regime.

No wonder Blair looks so haunted of late. Wouldn't surprise me to see him seek sanctuary in the US or Israel, much as other notorious dictators have done.

Thanks Craig. It is clear Norman has established that there has been a single or serial procedural deficiencies or both.

In English law (not a lawyer) his evidence and other medical evidence by six doctors may be a prima facie reason for reopening the case/ Inquest?

I'm glad someone finally mentioned the co-proxamol (TM Distalgesic) found in the toxicology analyses. If combined with alcohol, it's extremely hazardous even in low doses, (just a few times the recommended dose). The brother of a nurse I knew, died accidentally, having exceeding the recommended dose, after being invited out for drinks with his friends. Because of this, it is no longer prescribed on the NHS. The question remains though - why is the autopsy report being kept secret until the usual suspects are no longer accountable? The discrepancies surrounding the position of Mr Kelly's body and other details mentioned above, including Operation Mason, make me think that there must be more to it than an overdose. If there's nothing to hide, why hide it? People ridicule the wilder conspiracy theories sometimes put forward here, but we regularly find out what extraordinary things previous governments have been up to whenever statutes of limitation expire, so are we supposed to think that governments acted according to a different moral code just a few decades ago? We are each left trying to draw our own line somewhere between the extremes of gullibile acceptance and paranoia, based on just how far we think our government is prepared to go. Fifty years ago, how many people would have believed that the US government used the Mafia to further it's ends. A lot of people are still unaware of the full extent of this, despite much of it being publicly available knowledge now, thanks to the greater freedom of information in the US. A much lesser, but still despicable crime, was flying a group of British passengers into Kuwait after the invasion had begun, knowing what would likely befall them, because among the passengers was an undercover SAS team. They got the BA crew out later, but left the ordinary citizens to their fate. Not as bad as using right-wing terrorists to bomb your own citizens, as happened at Bologna, but look up Gladio and you'll find hints to where some of their training was carried out. So although I don't believe the common 7/11 conspiracies, I understand why people end up believing such things when the truth is often stranger than fiction.

Sorry six doctors are already taking legal action according to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8397625.stm

Seeing that may me realise why the government made this latest statement.

The BMA are of course bullet-proof!??

Regarding the BBC 'punishment' as a result of their indiscretion: You omitted to mention that the BBC were awarded a 'jewish' office so that the news would always be fair and balanced. We are now bombarded on a daily basis with Jewish 'vignettes' on BBC world service to ensure that we understand.

I'd feel happier if at least one of those doctors in that list was a toxicologist/clinical pharmacologist. From personal experience I can tell you that even some clinical pharmacologists I've spoken to can be quite ignorant on specific areas of drug interactions. There's just too much for them to be expected to know it all.

"13 doctors"...

http://tinyurl.com/krmlmy

"Although the doctors do not believe the painkillers taken by Dr Kelly contributed to his death in any way – as argued by Lord Hutton – they have restricted the scope of their dossier to refute the reasoning he used on the question of haemorrhage."

I agree with them totally regarding the question of haemorrahage. The question of the co-proxamol isn't being raised though. They may not believe it, but as I can't find the list of all 13 I'm not sure on what authority.

Forgot my attribution for the above.

Oh dear you have unleashed some crackpot nut jobs. Time shown by a computer is based on the time set by that computer (even if the flight of fancy story is true).

Kellys treatment was shameful as is the BBCs craven attitude to the govt.
But Kelly believed in WMD.

Thanks George,

Owen,

Kelly had no alcohol in his blood (PM)and was not, I believe, suicidal, his family were in fact trying to come to terms with this conclusion according to this report:

"EVEN for gaffe-prone Geoff Hoon it was crass insensitivity.

As Dr David Kelly's family struggled to come to terms with his suicide, his former boss the Defence Secretary went to the British Grand Prix.

Neither the BBC's confirmation that Dr Kelly had been a crucial source for its journalists, nor the growing evidence that the Government deliberately thrust the shy civil servant into a harsh public spotlight, could keep Mr Hoon from the VIP hospitality at Silverstone.

His office offered the bizarre explanation that he was investigating plans to adapt motor racing's quick-fuelling systems for use with military helicopters."

Thanks George,

Owen,

Kelly had no alcohol in his blood (PM)and was not, I believe, suicidal, his family were in fact trying to come to terms with this conclusion according to this report:

"EVEN for gaffe-prone Geoff Hoon it was crass insensitivity.

As Dr David Kelly's family struggled to come to terms with his suicide, his former boss the Defence Secretary went to the British Grand Prix.

Neither the BBC's confirmation that Dr Kelly had been a crucial source for its journalists, nor the growing evidence that the Government deliberately thrust the shy civil servant into a harsh public spotlight, could keep Mr Hoon from the VIP hospitality at Silverstone.

His office offered the bizarre explanation that he was investigating plans to adapt motor racing's quick-fuelling systems for use with military helicopters."

If you are sure that he had no alcohol in his blood then the (reported) level of dextropopxyphene in his blood wouldn't have been sufficient to kill him on its own. I thought I remembered that he had drunk a modest amount, but may well be wrong. I'll have to look back through some of the news reports at the time, unless you can help out by pointing me directly to an authoritative source.

The sad thing is that we are heading as a country to an abyss.

But we do have a chance to put these people in jail. In the election we should be putting Labour in the dock - not just for the killing of David Kelly, but blood that Iraq and other wars have put on their hands. they are war criminals as bad as the stasi/nazis because they Have also stolen money from this country,perhaps not into Swiss bank accounts - just wasted (or worst into friends accounts).

Brown needs to go to jail for a very long time for his failures and Blair just needs to be sent away for a very long time.

"authoritative source"

That would be the post mortem report.

"Kelly's death was extremely convenient for Blair, Cheney and a myriad of other ultra ruthless people. It paved the way for war. We should not forget how very crucial the WMD issue was in convincing enough reluctant New Labour MPs to go along. Without the UK there would have been no coalition - most of the other Europeans would have quickly dropped out too. It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney's bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone.

So Kelly was the first man killed in the Iraq war."

What is this nonsense?

Can't you get your timeline right?

David Kelly committed suicide in July 2003. If I remember correctly the invasion of Iraq occurred in March 2003. How on Earth do you work out from that that David Kelly's death paved the way for war? Are you saying that no one died in that war from March 2003 until David Kelly's suicide in July 2003?

A reminder that there has never been an inquest. That due process of OUR law is what the group of doctors are requesting of the Attorney General.

"Kelly's death was extremely convenient for Blair, Cheney and a myriad of other ultra ruthless people. It paved the way for war. We should not forget how very crucial the WMD issue was in convincing enough reluctant New Labour MPs to go along. Without the UK there would have been no coalition - most of the other Europeans would have quickly dropped out too. It is by no means clear that, despite Cheney's bluster, the Americans would have invaded Iraq alone.

So Kelly was the first man killed in the Iraq war."

What is this nonsense?

Can't you get your timeline right?

David Kelly committed suicide in July 2003. If I remember correctly the invasion of Iraq occurred in March 2003. How on Earth do you work out from that that David Kelly's death paved the way for war? Are you saying that no one died in that war from March 2003 until David Kelly's suicide in July 2003?

"That would be the post mortem report." Precisely. As New Labour decided to change the law to turn what used to be the right to remain silent into something akin to self-incrimination, I feel equally justified in finding their silence in this matter tantamount to an admission of guilt. I've read that one of the tenets of the Baha faith is abstention from alcohol, which makes it further unlikely, though not impossible. Also, interactions between dextropropxyphene and other CNS depressants, (anti-depressants for example), might have the same toxic effect. So you'd think that if there were nothing to hide, the government would be falling over itself to release the full details in a proper inquest to make all the "conspiraloons" look ridiculous. "See, you were wrong about Kelly, so you must be wrong about all the other stuff we did too!"

I agree with Steelback. In all sincerity, Craig, I suggest that you correct the account you have given above.

I believed every word of "Murder in Samarkind", but if you can't get details such as the timing of Kelly's murder remotely correct, then you reduce your own credibility. Maybe you were involved in matters of diplomacy in Uzbekistan when Kelly was found "dead in the woods", but I doubt if many Brits who lived through it all here - arguably as big a story as the death of Diana - would have made that mistake.

Maybe you should read Norman Baker's book. Kelly was talking to Gilligan and the lady from horizon well after the invasion had occurred.

However, I agree that the timing is of secondary consequence to the event. Blair may have done much to support "regime change", but from his gaunt face in Japan it was clear that he didn't expect to hear that Kelly would be found "dead in the woods".

I want to clear up this pushed stigma of conspiracy theorists or conspiracy loons that is promulgated by weak minded barr stewards trying to undermine comments here and elsewhere to the point where even our host gets attacked.

The word 'conspiracy' holds up on its own as 'acting together as if by sinister design i.e. The Iraq war conspiracy in which our Prime-minister and others conspired to lied to Parliament. - sinister!

A conspiracy theory means exactly that, a theory yet to be proven from the evidence.

So conspiracy theorists are usually (but not always) bold, brave, enlightening, visionary, inquiring, objective, rarely subjective, honest in what they believe and sensitive. All great human qualities; but the bottom line is without these people we would still be living as serfs or slaves to the powerful who think by waving a magic wand they can dictate the course of history.

So really you baabaa stewards I am quite proud to be a 'loony conspirator.

"The sad thing is that we are heading as a country to an abyss."

That's more true than you know if the crowd of foaming swivel-eyed conspiraloons is in any way representative of Britain these days.

Instead of Dr Kelly's death being "convenient" it was almost certainly inconvenient and for this story to break now, a few days before Tony Blair takes the stand at the Chilcott inquiry it would surely be more likely to increase the level of scrutiny on Blair would it not?

It is interesting to see that those who usually consider the mainstream media to be slaves of a warmongering cabal are now saying that the only chinks in the armour of the impenetrable "propaganda matrix" are in fact...er...the BBC (i.e the state broadcaster) and the Daily Wail...er...Mail (the paper with one of the highest circulations in Britain and, coincidentally or not, the paper which serialized Norman Baker's detective novel).

Legal staff ruled Blair's war illegal

Two former Whitehall lawyers to tell Chilcot of reservations on invasion

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

Tony Blair is to be presented with claims that his decision to topple Saddam Hussein by force was illegal before his appearance at the Iraq inquiry this week. Two senior Whitehall lawyers are expected to claim that the former prime minister's decision to send British troops to aid the US-led invasion was illegal as it did not have the clear backing of the United Nations.

Sir Michael Wood, the most senior lawyer at the Foreign Office before the war, will give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow. His deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned in 2003 in protest over military action, will also appear. It is thought they will suggest they believed military force was illegal without an explicit UN resolution giving approval for the invasion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/legal-staff-ruled-blairs-war-illegal-1877854.html

Edo (et al) - the "need" for the invasion of Iraq has been attributed to Saddam's conversion to Euro for both reserve currency and energy sales. As a result of trading in Euro, Saddam was making a tidy profit on top of not contributing to the unlimited loan facility the US had gotten so used to. He had to be stopped and made an example of before the rest of the Gulf States decided they wanted a piece of that action too - hence the war. The rest (WMD et al) was decoration and camouflage - if the US (and UK) were really so worried about removing dictators they have been skipping a few countries over the years..

Incidentally, it didn't work. The Gulf states have now met in secret about using a new trading currency, and post crisis, China has asked the world bank for a new currency for reserves.

"March 2003 until David Kelly's *suicide* in July 2003?"

says Angrysoba.
Because he was THERE. And he SAW Kelly taking 29.27 tablets and cutting his wrist - slightly. And then wiping the knife clean of fingerprints. It was Angry who called 999 and asked them to 'send more paramedics!'

Angrysoba - fucking hilarious on the timeline. You really gotta check these people on the mere facts, don't you?

And dreoilin's response above this one is fairly classic - at least classic for this blog. It's funny to watch them squirm when you have them on the ropes with facts and logic.

Thank God for people like Angry/Larry, who are kind enough to give their time to settle us back down, and assure as that the government told us the Absolute Truth. Just trust the government, have another drink, and watch some "reality-TV".

You want proof that the government always tells us the truth? Sigh... ok. People such as Angrysoba/Larry etc. calls anyone who doesn't believe the government a "loon". Now how much more convincing do you people need than that?

"I do know that a chemical weapons expert like Dr Kelly would know better ways to kill himself."

Well, except that this way did actually work, didn't it? (Yes, I know you believe the Secret Agent Men did it, but that's still a silly argument).

Speaking of logic, I have still to see you Larry, eddie or angrysoba come up with a good reason for the evidence being kept under wraps for seventy years. Too busy name-calling, nitpicking and general dissembling as usual but please, concentrate now; why the hiding of the evidence?

And, if that argument is to be considered, the following should be considered: wouldn't the Secret Agent Men know better ways to stage a suicide?

Observer,

Tom Harris is pretending that comments are being screening and blocked by security forces. It's his idea of a joke. Presumably, it helps him live with the crimes of his Party.

I didn't bother commenting on his post as I would just be adding to his warped sense of pleasure.

Actually, Tom Harris ought to be afraid, because when the crimes of his leaders are finally dealt with, he could find himself in big trouble for going along with it.

"The Gulf states have now met in secret about using a new trading currency, and post crisis, China has asked the world bank for a new currency for reserves."

And a major reason why the USA is putting the boot in on Iran. Iran has already announced that it's moving away from trading in dollars. The US economy is in the shits, and if the dollar loses its reserve currency status, it'll be ten times worse.

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

Angry and Larry,

If you can't see the difference between when Kelly died (which is one matter) and HOW he died, which is entirely another, I can't help you. You didn't get my drift at all, Larry. You have no "facts and logic" to indicate that Kelly committed suicide. None. Zip. Zero.

"wouldn't the Secret Agent Men know better ways to stage a suicide?"

So you agree it was a pretty crap-looking "suicide"?

glow- in-the-dark,

True - the hegemony of the dollar and it's demise together with, the IMF and the World Bank - you hit it right on the nail. Euros for foreign currency reserves - and that my friends is the impetus, the insidious inextricable push to throttle Iran and suffocate Pakistan, while building massive bases in Iraq and Afghanistan - that's my take, that's what I believe - failure not an option - else we muscle in big time.

"So you agree it was a pretty crap-looking "suicide"?"

Good try. I was accepting a premise and arguing against the conclusion. You'd pick up on that if you could read better.

G'night all

Night night dreoilin.

Still waiting Larry. Why 70 years of secrecy?

dreoilin,

Man of the moment - I didn't read your post but yes the big picture has been grasped.

Observer,

Tom Harris is pretending that comments are being screening and blocked by security forces. It's his idea of a joke. Presumably, it helps him live with the crimes of his Party.

I didn't bother commenting on his post as I would just be adding to his warped sense of pleasure.

Actually, Tom Harris ought to be afraid, because when the crimes of his leaders are finally dealt with, he could find himself in big trouble for going along with it.

"Still waiting Larry. Why 70 years of secrecy?"

Honestly, I'll have to look and ponder.

One thought that comes to mind is that there are very few people who would ever change their mind on such a subject. The various Diana investigations didn't really alter the public opinion polls. My own experience with the 911 conspiracy theory is that NIST finally issued its final report on the complicated issue of the collapse of Building 7, and apparently there was not ONE truther who wanted to listen. In other words, releasing all of that information would convince no one of a suicide, but only provide more red meat out of which the crazies could find even more anomalies.

I'm done night night all

"releasing all of that information would convince no one of a suicide"

If it really was suicide then releasing all the evidence would only strengthen the proof, surely? It would put an end to all the speculation. 70 years of secrecy is only going to heighten people's mistrust of the official line.

Showing the absolute political, economic, social, environmental and ethnical/moral bankruptcy of the New Labour Government...

http://tinyurl.com/yboz5xn

Larry - why are you so obsessed with 9/11 and publishing about that "debate" here all the time?

That's what I was thinking glenn. A simple question about Kelly brought a response about WTC7!

"It would put an end to all the speculation."

I'm not saying that this is the reason for the sequestration, but it's clear that the release of the information will NOT put an end to the speculation.

For instance, all of the information released on 911 has not led anyone to accept the evidence.

All JFK disclosures and Princess Diana inquiries have had the same effect.

I've only known one 911 truther to realize that he was wrong. Just one.

Hi Larry. If that were the government's reasoning it would be strange. Their actions have been unusual in denying a proper inquest and concealing the autopsy report. This inevitably gives rise to suspicions that could have been avoided, and hence the feeling that releasing the details or holding an inquest would be more damaging than not. Some people will choose to believe the worst possible and others accept anything the government says without question, but between the two extremes there are those who try to make up their minds based on the evidence, yet the evidence is being withheld.

Conspiraloons:

http://911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html

Multiplying+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The only logical conclusion is that Hutton is part of the conspiracy to hide the murder of Dr Kelly by the intelligence services. Dr Gerald Bull, who was behind the Supergun and other secret projects, was murdered in similar circumstances just before he was about to spill the beans.

CIA - forget about 911. You should see that this thread is about David Kelly and not 911 (which by the way was not an inside job and was done by 19 Arab Muslim terrorists).

Oh dear, Larry needs his "they're all talking about 9/11" fix for the day. Very well, just to keep him happy, here's a question which didn't get answered the other day:

*

Anyone got a proper picture of a jumbo jet hitting the Pentagon? The whole area was festooned with cameras, so surely there's a decent still somewhere? Anyone? Better still, a reasonable quality moving picture.

ok, if that's a bit too hard, how about a picture of the crashed plane - we all know what these terrible scenes look like, lots of bits of planes, seats, luggage all over the place. Would someone be so kind as to reference one? From the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania crash sites, please.

Ruth - and just like the death of Hilda Murrell:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article2719239.ece

If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what happened to it and the people on board?

Look, this is weird. In all this time, no-one has asked "The war had already started anyway, so what would have been the point of killing Kelly?". I can understand the murder theorists ignoring that, but why didn't any suicide supporters ask it? Has everyone been mad for 6 years?

glenn, THANK YOU for proving my point. There's plenty of evidence that satisfies that demand. I could show you some, but you'll ignore it. For years to come you'll be resurrecting the thoroughly debunked conspiracy claims of 2003.

The same can be said for the evidence on David Kelly.

(Again, I'm not sure what the reason is for the sequestration).

Owen: I'm not interested in questions like that - they don't matter here. Larry says only one person (out of his mates, anyway!) changed their minds about doubting the government position. Fine - reference some pictures that clearly show a jumbo hitting the Pentagon, and you've got me convinced that's what happened. How about that for a deal?

And how about going the other way - people that believed the government's story, the Official Truth, but then stopped believing it - how many did that? So why should it be significant that not many people have suddenly started to trust the government's word again? I think old Larry's shock that - say it breathlessly now - "just one" person started to become a True Believer again is rather overplayed.

There's a big difference between the two cases and the way they've been handled. Can you imagine the result if the 70 year rule had been applied to 9/11?

Larry - not from St Louis,

Kelly was murdered by Saddam's 'hit men'

Flight 77 passengers were transferred to Flight 93 and blown out da sky - anyone knows that dork - are you from the bronx?

Jeez Larry the Lamb - go home with your poisonous cool-aid

Guide to how to properly receive an Official Truth (originally by "Ralph"). Say -

Nothing suspicious here. All above board. We believe the government no matter what - - and how does that go? Right arm raised at a 45 degree angle, palm down, and simultaneously with a sharp snapping click of the heels, while yelling loudly, Sieg Heil!

Larry,

you powder puff - I know u you da guy in the base-ball hat - yeh da one wiv the da cool actors voice on fOX news dat dribbled ball-shit fa a bunch
of green-baks.

wwwhaaa busted - go bak to 5th grade wako

"Speaking of logic, I have still to see you Larry, eddie or angrysoba come up with a good reason for the evidence being kept under wraps for seventy years."

Jeez Louise. Some of you are more demanding than my Mossad paymasters.

I don't actually, really, genuinely work for the NWO so I don't actually, genuinely, really have access to all the information.

It has been speculated that the family didn't want to be badgered by conspiracy theorists for the rest of their lives and wanted to get on with their own.

But with conspiracy theorists on most theories they demand that their quirky ideas are constantly and interminably indulged by every professional member of any field.

It's ironic that dreolin says, again, in her customary sarcastic way that I of course KNOW he committed suicide. She's disingenuously pretending that she's just asking questions, which is a typical tactical retreat from those who declare that they KNOW David Kelly was murdered.

---"Look, this is weird. In all this time, no-one has asked "The war had already started anyway, so what would have been the point of killing Kelly?". I can understand the murder theorists ignoring that, but why didn't any suicide supporters ask it? Has everyone been mad for 6 years?"---

I believe I did do that, didn't I? I have no idea why it still seems to be a common belief that David Kelly was murdered IN ORDER to go to Iraq. If anything I would have imagined the reverse would have been true. If the Gubmint had murdered David Kelly or he he committed suicide in the woods prior to the war it would have almost certainly damaged Tony Blair's push for war, would it not?

Hey "Larry & Soba" - here's another question for you, while you're getting those pictures.

Question: What's the most significant lie do you believe the government has ever told you, as a citizen?

That's assuming you (as a couple) think that any Official Truth could be questioned, of course. I'm interested in knowing what you consider the most damaging item to be. That will give a good baseline for your level(s) of credulity.

Thanks in advance.

"Question: What's the most significant lie do you believe the government has ever told you, as a citizen?"

I would say there a number of lies that the government made in the run-up to the Iraq War. The 45-minute claim was absurd, and I thought so at the time.

If it makes you feel any better, I didn't believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

My guess was that if they had had them they would have used them in the 1991 Gulf War. A lot of people thought that they would (and this was one of the arguments made by anti-war groups at the time that liberating Kuwait was a bad idea).

I'm sure there have been other massive porkies but I don't keep up with them so much given that I live in Japan and don't always keep in touch.

How about you?

I'm not going to go dig up pictures for you to ignore them. If you have questions on 911 - that is, if you have genuine concerns, or if at least you're genuinely curious, you can go to the Jref forums.

It's a bit deranged for you to suggest that if I don't believe in your silly 911 conspiracy theory, then I "believe the government no matter what." For instance, I don't think Craig Murray believes in your nonsense, and we can all agree that he doesn't believe the government no matter what.

In fact, consider the anti-war movement. At least in the U.S. and Canada, they want nothing to do with your dumb Sept. 11 conspiracies. They literally chase you away in Toronto. I'm fairly certain the U.K. anti-war folks do that as well. If you don't believe me, please please test this out.

"Question: What's the most significant lie do you believe the government has ever told you, as a citizen?"

Colin Powell and the mobile bio-weapons labs. I laughed at the TV.

Larry: Couldn't be bothered to find any pictures eh? I'm shocked beyond belief. Particularly because you could doubled your claimed success in reforming a "truther" had you been arsed to do so.

Glenn, you and I both know that you won't stop believing in your iteration of the 911 conspiracy. I mean, you'll pulling out crap from 2003 that's been debunked from years. During all that time, if you were seriously curious, you would have gone to the Jref, or to other sources, and found the correct information.

Angrysoba & Larry - that's good. Very good indeed, you both can accept that the government can and does indeed lie shamelessly to us. So not all Official Truths are based in fact.

Then why should you pair not also be called "loons", by your own hitherto de facto definition of same?

Glenn: "Fine - reference some pictures that clearly show a jumbo hitting the Pentagon"

This is, I believe, the second time you have talked about jumbo jets. The first time was when you said the hijackers couldn't fly and questioned whether the pilots even had licenses. When I showed you they did, you never responded (just as you never responded to another post of mine which debunked your nonsense about John Farmer and several other "points" you made there).

I don't believe 757's are commonly referred to as jumbo jets.

"was done by 19 Arab Muslim terrorists"

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me! :-D

Larry said: "Glenn, you and I both know that you won't stop believing in your iteration of the 911 conspiracy."

Nope. Just give me some proper pictures (preferably moving) that I've asked you for, and I'll entirely shut up on the subject.

How hard can it be? A freaking Jumbo Jet crashed into the Pentagon - surely one could fill a skip with tape showing that happening, right?

Just "be bothered" this time - show me the references to it actually happening, and I'll say damn, you're right Larry. But if you carry on weasling around, that speaks volumes.

Glenn, I just don't understand this world you live in.

Glenn, there are a number of people who believe that there were no planes at the World Trade Center. That is, all videotapes (whether TV network, personal or otherwise) are fake. Directed energy beams from outer space felled the Towers.

Although you seem to a no-planer of sorts ...

I think we can all agree that they're a bunch of loons.

Not because they doubt the government, but because they're advancing something loony.

But you're in a similar boat, pal.

Angrysoba: I asked you for proof that planes hit the Pentagon, as in the form of photos/movies showing this, and the best you can manage is this:

"I don't believe 757's are commonly referred to as jumbo jets."

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

That's supposed to be as convincing as some photographic evidence, huh?

Glenn, can you honestly say that you've visited the debunking sites to consider the arguments against your positions?

There's plenty of evidence outside of manipulative 911 truth-oriented sites; you should educate yourself.

Larry: Still can't find any pictures, huh? Fascinating.

Glenn,

What happens when I do find pictures?

angrysoba wrote "It has been speculated that the family didn't want to be badgered by conspiracy theorists for the rest of their lives and wanted to get on with their own."

So basically you're positing a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up? Do you have one shred of evidence that the family requested the government ban release of all files on Kelly's death for 70 years?

As for there being supposedly "no point" in shutting Kelly up after the war had already begun that's nonsense given that Blair didn't resign for two years after Kelly's death and Bush had another Presidential election coming up in 2004 - and still hoped to go on to invade Iran. Either government had plenty to lose from continuing statements by an internationally recognised expert on their WMD claims having been known to be false at the time they made them - lots of votes to lose, lots of damage possible to their 'legacies' and reputations too.

On top of that it may well have been a warning to others not to break ranks.

Just to remind Larry & Soba about the original question, in case they got confused:

----

Anyone got a proper picture of a jumbo jet hitting the Pentagon? The whole area was festooned with cameras, so surely there's a decent still somewhere? Anyone? Better still, a reasonable quality moving picture.

ok, if that's a bit too hard, how about a picture of the crashed plane - we all know what these terrible scenes look like, lots of bits of planes, seats, luggage all over the place. Would someone be so kind as to reference one? From the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania crash sites, please.

----

So far, we've had plenty of bluster from Larry & Soba, but not a single reference.

Glenn: "Angrysoba & Larry - that's good. Very good indeed, you both can accept that the government can and does indeed lie shamelessly to us. So not all Official Truths are based in fact.

Then why should you pair not also be called "loons", by your own hitherto de facto definition of same?"

Glenn, I don't even know how to begin to approach this latest brain fart.

We don't define "loon" as not believing the government. But not believing the government doesn't mean believing every world government and all media outlets are controlled by the many arms of Vishnu and pumping ZEE OFFICIAL STORY straight into the cerebral cotexes of the sheeple.

I did point out that it is ironic, is it not, that on the David Kelly issue, the BBC and the Daily Mail have been critical of the government. The Guardian published letters from the doctors who don't believe it was suicide and the Daily Telegraph asked Blair if he had blood on his hands. Is this the supine state-controlled matrix that only you and a few others here are capable of seeing through?

Glenn, could you define "Official Truths" for me and "Official Story".

Duncan, I find it funny that you demand evidence of angrysoba but in the next breath state that Bush was just about to invade Iran.

Bush was never going to invade Iran, silly. It would cause too much death, and it probably wouldn't have worked.

Angry: How about putting all us "9/11" conspiracy theorists out of our misery, and reference some proper images of a jumbo hitting the Pentagon, as I've asked you for repeatedly? Or how about even acknowledging that you've understood what I've just said?

"So basically you're positing a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up? Do you have one shred of evidence that the family requested the government ban release of all files on Kelly's death for 70 years?"

It was in the Mail article that is the source for this post.

"Nicholas Gardiner, the Chief Coroner for Oxfordshire, confirmed that he had seen the letter.

Speaking to The Mail on Sunday today, he said: ‘I know that Lord Hutton made that recommendation. Someone told me at the time. Anybody concerned will be dead by then, and that is quite clearly Lord Hutton’s intention.’

Asked what was in the records that made it necessary for them to be embargoed, Mr Gardiner said: ‘They’re Lord Hutton’s records not mine. You’d have to ask him.’
He added that in his opinion Lord Hutton had embargoed the records to protect Dr Kelly’s children."

Glenn, and what will happen when you have those pictures?

Angry wrote: "We don't define "loon" as not believing the government. But not believing the government doesn't mean believing every world government and all media outlets are controlled by the many arms of Vishnu and pumping ZEE OFFICIAL STORY straight into the cerebral cotexes of the sheeple."

That's fine. Nor do I, nor - I hazzard - does anyone here. So what do you think gives you the right to start calling people "loons" around here? What's the definition for that? Your strawman above does not - of course - count.

larry asks: "Glenn, and what will happen when you have those pictures?"

Please refer to my previous replies to you on the same question.

"On top of that it may well have been a warning to others not to break ranks."

When you think about it, Norman Baker, Rowena Thursby, Glenn, Duncan McFarlane, the Daily Mail, the BBC, dreoilin, MJ et al. are very brave.

I don't see your reply on that one.

"So what do you think gives you the right to start calling people "loons" around here?"

Okay, I admit it isn't very nice. It comes from frustration.

Have you ever read Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World?

Ruth: "The only logical conclusion is that Hutton is part of the conspiracy to hide the murder of Dr Kelly by the intelligence services."

Ruth, it really isn't "the only logical conclusion".

For many, it clearly is the only acceptable conclusion, but that is not the same thing.

Wouldn't the next government have the power to overturn this decision to keep the medical records secret?

Why have the Conservatives not pledged to do this, should they come to power?

"Wouldn't the next government have the power to overturn this decision to keep the medical records secret?"

I would have thought so but where's the conspiracy and vicarious self-pity in that?

for those wanting an excuse to wear a tin foil hat re: the pentagon cruise missile

google Pentalawn 2000

Was Dr. kelly in any way pressured by the work he was undertaking outside the Iraq chemical weapons debate? Something nobody wants to get into, although his lack of Iraqi evidence did seem to be the important factor in his untimely, as unexplained demise.

Jose Buscani was eeked out of his very successsfull job, he was also undermining the Bush/Blair drive to tarnish Saddam. His dismissal by US armtwisting in the UN, as head of the bioweapons convention which was already signed by many countries, I believe 138, more importantly his success in 'just about' signing up Saddam to the treaty, was equally in the way of the warmongers drive to war.
Both of them, together with Hans Blix perplexed search for ever more obscure and impossible location for WMD's, moving trucks etc., was just too much opposition to their plans and the pressure from the likes of Cheney and his ilk must have been enormous.

I wonder whether Blix ever feared for his life.

Larry asks: "Glenn, and what will happen when you have those pictures?"

Please refer to my previous replies to you on the same question.

Posted by: glenn

I don't see your reply on that one.

Posted by: Larry

And not a single picture of a huge plane hitting the Pentagon. He's desperately trying to deflect the issue, but can't. (Poor Larry. He knows only too well that there are no pictures he can provide, but he refuses to admit it.) So tell us Larry, where are the pictures? And why don't you provide a link?

Are you expecting to see something like this?

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/oddities/medusa.touch.cover.lg.jpg

Because you won't find one as there aren't any in circulation.

There are plenty of witnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, however.

By the way, what do you think hit the Pentagon if it wasn't a plane and where did the plane go?

Observer
Sunday 24 January 2010 at 8:44 pm
–THE CONTENTS OF THIS EMAIL HAVE BEEN DELETED ON THE ADVICE OF THE SECURITY SERVICES
...from Tom Harris MP blog
Welcome to China - your future awaits

http://www.slideshare.net/neil2445/presentations

Massive list of comments riding off in all directions at once. Gather, people. Focus. This ruling of Hutton is totally unacceptable to anyone with an interest in truth. Tell your MP you find it unacceptable, and demand that the Ministry of Justice overthrows his ruling.

And Craig, your line length is too long. We have to mess with the slider as we read the sentences.

"Because you won't find one as there aren't any in circulation."--angrysoba

I know. That's the whole point. :)

"I know. That's the whole point. :)"

And it means...?

"And Craig, your line length is too long. We have to mess with the slider as we read the sentences."
---Richard Lawson

Apparently it's caused on this page by the long string of "+++++"
posted by 'CIA' January 25 at 1:32 AM

Southpark, on 9/11. Just for fun :)

Mr. Hardly: Those clues pointed out that all the 9/11 conspiracy theories could be disproven scientifically. And that's when Frank got his biggest clue.
Frank: It was huuuge.
Mr. Hardly: That all the 9/11 conspiracy Web sites are run by the government. The 9/11 conspiracy... is a government conspiracy.
Stan: Aw Jesus...
Kyle: Why would the government want people to believe they caused 9/11?
Mr. Hardly: For a government to have power, they must appear to have complete control. What better way to make people fear them than to convince them they are capable of the most elaborate plan on earth?
Bush: [off-screen] That's quite enough, Hardly! [the camera shows him entering with his staff] Don't believe what he says, boys; we caused 9/11. [brings forth a manila folder] It's all right here in these secret documents, [hugs the folder tight] but you'll never get them. [turns around as he yawns, dropping the folder to the floor behind him. No one picks them up]
Kyle: I knew it! You didn't plan 9/11 and you really didn't shoot that guy!
Bush: Boys, you don't understand. People need to think we are all-powerful. That we control the world. If they know we weren't in charge of 9/11 then... we appear to control nothing.

What was especially funny about the South Park episode was that the 911 truthtards actually thought that the South Park writers were supporting them. When you're dealing with truthers, you're not dealing with the smartest people.

Larry, hon, when I read words like 'truthtards' written without humour (or humor) I kind of want to support them too.

Shame because there is a seriously good, or awful point you make consistently, except rudely: that the mistrust, fear & paranoia engendered by crazy government activities feeds straight into the even crazier and even more unpleasant extreme right wing, which in turn feeds it back to the public disguised as 'information'.

Except that the vast majority of people with such sensitivities don't end up believing in lizard people and no planes on 911 and Roswell.

If seeking truth is retarded, then nature has played a cruel trick endowing our species with consciousness.

The lizard people are something else. (don't think I've heard anyone on these boards believe in them).

"All tickets were gone six months in advance for David Icke's all-day event at the O2 Brixton Academy in May this year and another event has been arranged to meet the demand to see David's most advanced presentation yet."

Returning to David Kelly, I had not previously seen this article by Kelly, published in The Guardian days before the Iraq war.

His final sentence: "The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert."

So if Kelly believed in WMD, and believed that regime change was the only way to avert their development a) how was his death/murder convenient to Blair? (Kelly's evidence at subsequent enquiries would have been very convenient) and b) how, if one of his chief weapons' inspectors believed in WMD, does this prove Blair is a liar?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/huttonreport.iraq

Still waiting, Larry - where are those pictures?

But because you don't have them, of course, just carry on blowing smoke as per usual.

soba wrote: "By the way, what do you think hit the Pentagon if it wasn't a plane and where did the plane go?"

I'm not even going to speculate - what would be the point? I'd just like to see some photographic evidence that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. Where did the plane go that hit that? There usual crash scene for a jumbo hitting it is missing. Every camera that would have captured it has the pictures missing. Where do you suppose all those pictures are, and why haven't they been released - assuming they exist?

I note Eddie got the Guardian piece from Harry's Place. Credit where due, Eddie. Don't ya think?

I still think Kelly expired of 'natural causes', having been the terrified subject of a nationwide man hunt and a public trial, and the security services set it up to look like murder.

The key points about the Kelly fiasco is that the government adjourned a coroner's court unconstitutionally and that they used the Hutton Inquiry as an excuse to witch hunt the anti-war media (See Chilcot, Hutton and the death of Dr David Kelly Sam should read this.). This witch hunt was also outside the bounds of the amendment to the coroner's act under which the Hutton Inquiry was instituted.

What do we do when the government deliberately abandons the rule of law?
Parliament is the guardian of the British constitution but the MPs seem to be corrupt. They allowed "Lord" Falconer to become a political head of the justice system and just lay supine when the government co-opted a law about train crash inquiries to be used to whitewash the Kelly affair.

The free British press is also supposed to guard our democratic liberties but they are mute. Why?

Sam - correct, Harry's Place has been discussing this today. But no one seems to be able to answer the simple question: why was Kelly's death useful to the security services or to the government when in fact the exact opposite is the case? He stated that Iraq had WMD and confirmed that regime change was the only way to deal with the problem. Blair's position too.

Eddie: No he didn't. Kelly told Gilligan that the government claims did not stand up. What you are claiming is the opposite of the truth. But surely you'd know that?

You seem to have edited or mixed up my comment.

It contained a link:

http://pol-check.blogspot.com/2010/01/strange-case-of-death-of-david-kelly.html

I don't accept that the key point is whether or not Kelly was murdered. The key points are that the government drove a coach and horses through the law, even allowing Hutton to embargo key information for 70 years!

Incidently, the government was worried about an "open verdict" (common in coroners courts - even when someone falls (jumps) under a train if no-one saw them do it). This is why they bent the law.

David Aaronovitch previously issued this challenge, but no one took him up on it. So I'll issue it again, but make it much simpler.

Forget about cutting your ulnar artery.

Just take 29 co-proxamol tablets and take a long walk in a forest.

Come on folks - have the courage of your convictions!

Angrysoba:
'"I know. That's the whole point. :)"

And it means...?'

Well, it means you are still on vacation obviously. When is your holiday due to end by the way? ;-)

Lamby:
'David Aaronovitch previously issued this challenge, but no one took him up on it. So I'll issue it again, but make it much simpler.

Forget about cutting your ulnar artery.

Just take 29 co-proxamol tablets and take a long walk in a forest.

Come on folks - have the courage of your convictions!'

You are not in Kansas any more Lamby.. ;-)

Glenn
I suggest you read David Kelly's article or was that a conspiracy too? The english is pretty clear.

"Just take 29 co-proxamol tablets and take a long walk in a forest."

...and then try and cut your wrists without leaving any fingerprints on the knife.

From Global Research:
'Most intriguingly, at 8am, half an hour before Dr Kelly's body was discovered under the tree, three officers in dark suits from MI5's Technical Assessment Unit were at his house.

The computers and the hard-disk containing the 40,000 words of the explosive book were carried away. They have never been seen since.'

Hutton must be charged with perverting the course of justice and concealing a murder.

Ruth, did globalresearch.ca identify one of the Men in Black as Tommy Lee Jones?

"Hutton must be charged with perverting the course of justice and concealing a murder."

Well, it would be Falconer rather than Hutton who is responsible for perverting the course of justice, murder or not.

The real problem here is that the British Constitution depends upon some degree of separation between the judiciary and the executive and requires the vigilance of Parliament.

That Lord Falconer could be appointed as a nakedly political Lord Chancellor without any demur from Parliament shows that MPs do not care about the Constitution.

That Falconer could then use legislation to deal with rail crashes to set up the Hutton Inquiry because Blair etc. were scared of an "open verdict" also shows that MPs did not care or were unaware of the liberty being taken.

That Hutton could, without the necessary powers, embargo evidence for 70 years also shows a total disregard by Parliament of the Constitution.

Put all these components together and you have a Parliament that just does not care about arbitrary rule. (Notice the recent willingness to abandon Habeas Corpus). If the party in power has a big enough majority MPs will just let them do what they like.

I really wonder whether the supremacy of Parliament and its role as guardian of the Constitution is acceptable. Our constitution depends on strong MPs and the current lot are corrupt, ignorant and weak. Perhaps the UK must have a written constitution and a constitutional court to stop these excesses from happening again.

Larry the Lamb,angri,technicolor and all the other gamers on this site-take a walk in the woods,swallow the tabs and take your friend Aaronovitch with you.

Aaronovitch deserves a long slow agonizing death and so do you for mentioning his unholy name in polite conversation.

John:
'Our constitution depends on strong MPs and the current lot are corrupt, ignorant and weak.'

That's the whole problem with the party political system we currently suffer under! It needs to be scrapped. We all need to vote in independent M.P.'s with proven track records in society!

If I have a 30 blister pack of tablets... why bother to leave 1 in the pack ?

Is there proof that the absence of 29 of the tablets from the blister pack means that David Kelly consumed them all prior to his death.

Can we see the toxicologist's report to confirm the dosage level was lethal.

Why did early media reports say that only 4 tablets were consumed ?

Where did they get that information from ?

What purpose does it serve to withhold the information for 70 years ?

Why do the police hold onto David Kelly's work and not return it to his family so they may publish it ? (as I guess would be David Kelly's wish)

"The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert." Dr David Kelly The Guardian

So if Kelly believed that Iraq had WMD, and believed that regime change was the only way to avert their development a) how was his death/murder convenient to Blair? (Kelly's evidence at subsequent enquiries would have been very convenient) and b) how, if one of his chief weapons' inspectors believed in WMD, does this prove Blair is a liar?

Anyone care to respond to this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/huttonreport.iraq

Not jumped ship yet you disgusting little weasel? Won't be long now, won't be long... You will undoubtedly be one of the first turncoats once the leaks become unpluggable. You aren't worthy of licking turd from my boots. Go and crawl back in your dirty little hole you foul specimen. The forum air has a rank odour to it!

Well said, Jaded.

I did hear that Eddie's IP address is located in the House of Commons - interesting, eh?

It seems more than likely that Kelly was murdered for what he was about to expose.

Sam:
'Well said, Jaded.

I did hear that Eddie's IP address is located in the House of Commons - interesting, eh?'

More like right up Tony Blair's arse. I really, really wonder about these people. Do you think he has a family and goes home at night preteding not to be subhuman? Seriously, he comes on here to defend the indefensible! How does he do it? I pity him. Wake up for your own good eddie. I'm not religious with a capital 'R', but i'm sure none of us are spiritually beyond redemption. I will hold back some hope for you.

Jaded, your vile anti-Semitism is well recorded on these boards, but your language really is foul.

So no answers then, just abuse. Sad people. I asked a simple question. Why would Blair want Kelly dead when his evidence would be useful to him? Kelly's views are a matter of public record. Is anyone here able to respond sensibly or do you just prefer to resort to silly abuse? Cat got your tongues yet again? What was he about to expose Ruth?

Care to provide a quote of mine to support that BNP eddie? No, thought not. ;-) What exactly do you tell your family that you get up to? Would you like them to find out???

Belsen Eddie?

I think he has gone home for the 'pretend i'm human' part of his life...

Eddie,

Maybe after David Kelly's article, someone tipped him off that the intelligence he had been building his reports from was a crock of bullshit. Built on hearsay from taxi-drivers, paid informants, torture victims and just general made up garbage.

Maybe he looked into the background of the intelligence and then came to different conclusion.

Maybe the book he was writing contained his different conclusion.

Maybe that is why he was 'neutralised'.

I remember myself that UNSCOM stated that all weapons were accounted for EXCEPT for 3 rusty shells from the Iran/Iraq war (which were probably buried under tons of sand and not even worth digging out).

No doubt Saddam would have tried again to rebuild a WMD program (the biological agents being sold by america for unknown reasons). But if the UN kept pressure on and continued weapons inspections, it could have been contained. But then we would not have the access to Iraq's oil, would we ?

Chris
Or maybe he did none of those things. Maybe he was desperately worried about the disciplinary action that was hanging over him. Maybe he saw his career ending in ignominy. Maybe he was haunted by the suicide of his own mother. Maybe the words of his wife, "I just thought he had a broken heart", were true. Maybe all the conspiracy theories are a load of tosh. Maybe Blair had nothing to gain from his death and everything to lose.

Lots of maybes. I know which ones I believe.

You bunch of maybes is just as valid as mine. But why would the establishment want to hold back the information which would clear it up for 70 years ?

Maybe they have something to hide , or maybe they like the speculation and fear the alternative spreads.

Eddie Blair? lol

As the Establishment is so fond of telling us:

'Nothing to fear, nothing to hide...'

;-0

You want me to tell you something eddie?

'I asked a simple question. Why would Blair want Kelly dead when his evidence would be useful to him? '

So David Kelly's death is a case of 'cui bono' then, eh, Eddie ?

But surely, only 'conspiraloons' use that type of reasoning ?

Q. What do you call Tony's stools?

A. Eddie

Crude, but effective Sam.

Thx Jaded gave me the idea though ;)

Apostate: "Larry the Lamb,angri,technicolor and all the other gamers on this site-take a walk in the woods,swallow the tabs and take your friend Aaronovitch with you."

So you admit it would actually be an effective way to commit suicide then?

Ah, the jolly vacationer returns. No angrysoba, we all just admit you are a complete stinky, little, deceptive stoat.

I see jaded, whose anti-semitism does indeed appear periodically on this board like a small rash (anyone who cares to look, please do) has another friend. Welcome, sam!

Eddie, I can't even answer my own questions on this, never mind anyone else's. This is rubbish. Poor Kelly aside for a second, what are the government up to?

"Ja Mein Fuhrer" wrote: "Well, it means you are still on vacation obviously. When is your holiday due to end by the way? ;-)"

Actually I'm back at work now but can't resist coming in to see you, Apostate and Steelback doing the jackboot stomp with your dozy tinfoily friends.

Speaking of which,

Ruth: "It seems more than likely that Kelly was murdered for what he was about to expose."

Brilliant! And you are brave aren't you Ruth. Remember when you saw that guy in your next-door neighbour's garden and you got a mysterious wrong number call. Someone living on the edge like that has to be pretty courageous to directly finger Lord Hutton in David Kelly's murder. I mean, think of the power he must weild!!!1!

Angrysoba: I reckon you should really start to distinguish between the people who are actively unpleasant and threatening, and the people, like Ruth, whose views you disagree with.

Did you really establish that the Chavez/earthquake story was an invention? Or was that a joke? Sometimes hard to tell, these days.

Yes, good to see you backing up your accusations with quotes you Nazi BNP scrotes. ;-) Back at work eh? Is that back at work shilling blogs under multiple user id.'s such as technicolour? LMFAO. Everyone knows! Get a life you sad moron! ;-0

"Did you really establish that the Chavez/earthquake story was an invention? Or was that a joke? Sometimes hard to tell, these days.2

It appears there was no way to establish Chavez had said what Russia Today, Press TV and Venezualan state TV Vive reported Chavez as saying so I gave Chavez the benefit of the doubt and retracted it.

As you seem to be saying, it is possible that he did say it but in the absence of evidence I don't think I should make the allegation. I hope this shows I am consistent.

Ruth's "opinions" are not just those I disagree with but ones which I think are baseless and I did distinguish her from the jackboot brigade by saying she's a tinfoiler. I think she's just a bit naiive like many tinfoilers, which is ironic really when you think about it.

Angry,

for us naive people, could you please explain the thinking behind locking away evidence for 70 years, when it would be just as easy as to show it and remove doubt.

I have no evidence that Ruth's a 'tinfoiler'. She always responds to genuine responses.

Re Chavez: I wouldn't run with it on that, either.

Angrysoba, I think you owe Ruth an apology.

"for us naive people, could you please explain the thinking behind locking away evidence for 70 years, when it would be just as easy as to show it and remove doubt."

Yes, it appeared in the very same Mail on Sunday article that served as the basis for this post. I have already quoted it. It was because the family may well have wanted this to be away from the public gaze.

Two more things:

a) The world does not revolve around you and your tinfoil universe. If I decided to pry into your personal life and start "investigating" how members of your family died do you think you would like it? Would the state have any obligation to indulge and satisfy each and every one of my "enquiries"? Would you appreciate it if I started making veiled allegations that you acceded to the death of some of your relatives? Do you not think it might be upsetting for you?

b) Don't ever underestimate the power of conspiracy theorizing. People will always doubt no matter what happens. No matter what is produced it will be argued that it was forged or altered if it doesn't fit the conclusion that the conspiracy theorists want. There really is no pleasing some people so there really is no point in trying.

"I have no evidence that Ruth's a 'tinfoiler'."

Ruth said, "Kelly had been ostracised and therefore would have become isolated and dangerous. He may have published his book without getting it OKd by the government. Being a a biological weapons expert he would have known exactly who behind the front companies supplied Saddam with such weapons. I suspect it was the UK."

And...

"The only logical conclusion is that Hutton is part of the conspiracy to hide the murder of Dr Kelly by the intelligence services."

And...

"Dr Gerald Bull, who was behind the Supergun and other secret projects, was murdered in similar circumstances just before he was about to spill the beans."

If that's not tinfoil then I'm a member of the Illuminati.

"Angrysoba, I think you owe Ruth an apology."

I beg to differ.

soba: So everyone who disagrees with you is either a Nazi or a "tinfoiler"? Fascinating.

Jaded quoted that the establishment likes to tell us 'Nothing to fear, nothing to hide...'

Indeed they do. As the late great senator Kennedy said, in answer to the same point, "Then why do they hide _everything_ ?"

"soba: So everyone who disagrees with you is either a Nazi or a "tinfoiler"?"

Not at all. Those who posit who say the Holocaust never happened or put inverted commas around it TEND to be Nazis. Those who imagine that there is a vast Jewish conspiracy to take over the world are anti-semites. Anyway, I don't think I need to trawl back through the archives to find comments from Apostate and Steelback who have made the most outrageous claims about "World Jewry" and other terms.

I also have no problem disagreeing with someone having a serious argument. I won't call them tinfoilers just because I disagree but because they make baseless outlandish claims from invented narratives.

Just so that we can be clear, do you think there is such thing as a crank or a conspiracy theorist? Or do you think that every view ever made by anyone has just as much right to respect and to not be ridiculed?

Do you think that David Icke's belief that those who rule the world are actually reptiles is an "opinion" worthy of as much respect as my belief that they're not reptiles?

Do you think that those who believe corn circles were made by aliens have beliefs that are just as respectable as those who believe corn circles were not made by aliens?

By the way, have you read that Carl Sagan book I mentioned before because he describes an excellent method of how you can distinguish between genuinely interesting disagreements of opinion and those which are just "baloney".

"Jaded quoted that the establishment likes to tell us 'Nothing to fear, nothing to hide...'"

Again, this is silly because conspiracy theorists usually beat the drum that the establishment are always telling us, "Everything to fear! Only we can protect you!"

Angry,

from the same article ...

'The normal rules on post-mortems allow close relatives and ‘properly interested persons’ to apply to see a copy of the report and to ‘inspect’ other documents.

Lord Hutton’s measure has overridden these rules, so the files will not be opened until all such people are likely to be dead.'

What is different from this death and post mortem which makes it impossible for the relatives or interested persons to see the evidence IF they wish.

I could understand not wanting the photographs circulating around the media, but the medical reports and other documents ?

What harm would the toxicologist report into the dosage levels found be to the family ?

Would it dispel alot of rumor ?, yes.

Chris Dooley, I am sure the family of David Kelly will have plenty of media outlets available in order to express their disatisfaction at Lord Hutton's decision. Until they do, on whose behalf are you actually campaigning?

Hello Soba... you said:

"Just so that we can be clear, do you think there is such thing as a crank or a conspiracy theorist? Or do you think that every view ever made by anyone has just as much right to respect and to not be ridiculed?"

I agree, absolutely. There are a number of remarks on your posts lately which I agree on, such as those concerning people who automatically reject any government statement (which would be unwise).

Likewise, Ice's arguments are just silly when it comes to the snake-people, perhaps they have a sort-of logic about them which is fun to tangle and argue the toss with, but we all ought to know it's just crazy stuff at the end of the day. And no, agreed again, one "opinion" is not as valid as another. Personally, I don't want to believe anything which is factually incorrect. Who would want to believe anything which wasn't true? Give me the facts, and I'll try my best to determine the truth - or likelihood thereof - and work off those conclusions.

Does calling someone a "loon" do anything but put the back up of that person, and go for a cheap appeal to an apparently witless crowd?

The corn circles are fascinating. A professor at cambridge (I don't recall who, heard it on Radio-4) was lecturing on how these circles demonstrate aspects of Euclidian geometry, but a 6th feature was lacking out of the five which most people know about - the 6th being a deduction, and not really a new law in itself. Lo and Behold, the sixth feature was demonstrated before the academic term had ended. Maybe we should pride ourselves, in Britain, at being blessed with particularly fancy crop circles, especially those within reach of Cambridge's maths society.

I have not read that particular book by Sagan. Since I am a great admirer of Sagan, I shall put it on the shortlist. Thank you for the suggestion.

The "Nothing to fear, nothing to hide" was more a question about the establishment - why do they want to put a 70-year hide on evidence in the Kelly case?

I look forward to keeping our discussions civil - we learn more from those with whom we disagree sometimes. On the other hand, if we try to settle our differences with fists and boots, we only learn how to hate that much more effectively.

Angrysoba:

'Again, this is silly because conspiracy theorists usually beat the drum that the establishment are always telling us, "Everything to fear! Only we can protect you!"'

It's certainly silly that you are unable to discern the difference between the said maxim applying to an individual; as opposed to an individual's perception of others you humongous, Holocaust Denying berk. Don't fret though. It's all ok. ;-)

soba: Reading my reply, I should clarify my first comment - yes, there is such a thing as a crank/conspiracy theorist. But every last crank/CT shouldn't be confused with someone who disagrees on a particular point... it is intellectually dishonest to try to lump them all together in some underhand manner (as per Larry's tedious M.O.)

Glenn,

Thanks for the generous reply and I will try to keep it civil.

The reason why I suggested Carl Sagan's book is that, as well as many, many other things, it illustrates quite well the differences in METHODOLOGY between two groups of people who are trying to discover the "truth" about the same issue. In this case, extra-terrestrial life. Carl Sagan points out that while SETI (Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) attempts to discover evidence of ET's they are very vigourous in challenging any of their observations. No "interglactic transmission" will be assumed to be from aliens and, in fact, SETI won't assume aliens even exist but each set of data will be pored over and every possible explanation for a particularly interesting "transmission" will be explored. Secondly, SETI has had positive results. I'm not sure if pulsars and quasars were discovered through the project but scientists' understanding of them seem to have been enhanced through it.

In contrast Sagan points to UFOlogy which is interested in fiding aliens too but whose methodology is completely the reverse of SETI. For UFologists, the discovery of aliens tends to be the first conclusion that its practioners leap to instead of it being a last resort after all other possibilities are eliminated.

In this sense, this is one of the reasons why I use the word "Truther" in contrast to "skeptic" when talking about 9/11.

Another way in which Sagan bemoans the methodology of UFologists is that they use the strangest evidence and the strangest interpretations of that "evidence" in order to force their conclusions. For example, many of them that see strange lights or unusual objects while camped outside of a military base in the desert will write to the authorities requesting information about certain unusual activities. They can cite the Freedom of Information Act and will receive reams of documents on the subject of UFOs. To their amazement they'll get many reports of the US military observing UFOs and recorded there in black and white. They cite that as evidence that the government knows of aliens. They'll also find massive amounts of redacted lines which presumably describe the way that the aliens look (what colour they are, how many arms and legs, whatever). They don't seek to question their own conclusions such as whether or not their are other national security issues involved or the fact that "UFOs" only literally means a flying object that wasn't identified or, for that matter, why they would go to all the trouble of redacting so much information but leaving the words "UFO" remaining on the document.

Now, I'd apply that to the David Kelly case. Why would the government murder him and fabricate a story that so many people so evidently find implausible? Why would they say that David Kelly severed his ulnar artery and swallowed an apparently low dose of co-proxamol? It seems odd that they would dangle such obvious "clues" as saying there were no fingerprints on the knife or referring to the investigation as Operation Mason. Besides, what purpose would it really have served the government? There's been some specualation but not much else.

(Sagan also says, although this is more of a rhetorical point, that if the US government really knew of aliens and were keeping them hidden somewhere why wouldn't they have used the same kind of iron-fenced security to keep nuclear secrets out of the hands of the Soviet Union?)

Sagan would also receive a lot of letters from people who said they were in contact with aliens and would tell him what the aliens' advice was about how humans should behave on the planet. Aliens would apparently moralize at length about nuclear weapons, or AIDS or whatever political issues were in vogue at the time. He'd sometimes write back to them and ask if the aliens could assist him in discovering Fermat's last theorem. The correspondence would stop. Apparently aliens with advanced knowledge of intergalactic space travel aren't that smart at maths or other subjects Sagan was interested in such as physics or cosmology. But they were extremely happy to respond to questions about the latest social and moral concerns often expatiating on the subject of how to be good with conventional advice. They didn't tend to give the heads up on possible future problems such as CFC use when the advice could have been useful but certainly did once everyone on Earth knew about their effects...etc...

I can't help thinking of Norman Baker's "contacts" here and that maybe Baker should have applied a little more skepticism to some of their claims. We know that there are UFOlogists out there who are more than happy to say they have met little green men.

In other words UFOlogy not only uses highly questionable methodology, it doesn't even seem to be of any use. It's also something that people clearly become heavily invested in, either by being deluded or purposely deluding others. One story is about a psychiatrist called Robert Lindner and his patient Kirk Allen, which is too long to go into here.

There's a chapter in the book called "The Dragon in My Garage" which for me sums up how infuriating it is to debate with Truthers when they speak of the New World Order or the secret state or in fact many conspiracy theories in general. The "hypotheses" and "theories" such as they are are almost completely unprovable or unfalsifiable. This also applies, I think, to the controlled demolition theory. Nothing seems to be accepted as evidence against the theory as it is always tweaked and retweaked. First it is a classic demolition. Then it is one with thermite. Then with thermate, then nanothermite and then something so devilishly unusual that no one has ever seen it. If you Google it you should find the chapter online. It might give you an idea of what I mean and may help you understand why I finally get fed up and start hurling abuse.

Finally, there is a section towards the end titled, "Real Patriots Ask Questions". In this he does say that people must press the government with questions and must hold them accountable for things. In this sense he would seem to agree with many people here. In fact, I have said that Craig Murray has done some great things and praised his exposing of torture in Uzbekistan. This, I think, is exactly the kind of thing the government should be questioned hard on. I would say that goes too for the Chilcot Inquiry. That Tony Blair absolutely should be grilled on what he knew. To what extent did he believe what he was saying and to what extent was he consciously being deceptive.

Sagan would agree with that approach, I am pretty sure. He does lament the state of science teaching in schools however, and finds that it is the lack of teaching of the scientific method and genuinely fascinating things about human perception of the world which is deplorable and, sadly which leads people to conjure up all kinds of weird explanations for things.

I can't know this but I think Carl Sagan would be shocked at:

a) the Bush administration.
b) the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Also, while Larry can be caustic at times he did give some good advice. Sign up on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forums and test some of the theories there. While there are a number of people who may be openly hostile and abusive to 9/11 Truth, especially this far down the line, there are a lot of people who are very knowledgable on the subject and would be helpful if you are open about the fact that you have some genuine questions. (The one thing not to try is, "I'm not a Truther but a friend of mine is and he asked me a question that I can't answer and I need to find out what it is...").

Anyway, that's really my summary of Sagan's book and I do recommend it.

One more thing, thanks for the story about when you went to NASA and saw a landing craft. I once went to Shenzhen in China where there is a decommissioned Soviet aircraft carrier which is now a museum adn tourist attraction. One of the exhibits is a stuffed dog called Belka. This dog was one of the first animals in space, not long after Laika. I remember thinking, "Wow! They shot this dog into space in a tin can and it came back to Earth alive and gave birth to a litter of puppies?" Surely not!

It IS all but incredible that a man was landed on the Moon. It's all but incredible that people and animals have even been into space. But they have.

Sagan's book seems to be a good guide to how to apply skepticism usefully.

Anyway, I've waffled on a lot here, I hope to read your reply.

A few clarifications:

1) "In this sense, this is one of the reasons why I use the word "Truther" in contrast to "skeptic" when talking about 9/11. "

What I mean by this is that Truthers have already reached their conclusion: "9/11 was an Inside Job" and then find their evidence. This is NOT skepticism.

2)"Finally, there is a section towards the end titled, "Real Patriots Ask Questions". In this he does say that people must press the government with questions and must hold them accountable for things. In this sense he would seem to agree with many people here."

What I mean by this is not that he'd agree with conspiracy theories but he'd agree with challenging the government on questions about what they did/didn't know about WMD, etc...

@soba: Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is currently out of print. Ironic reflection of our times?

"@soba: Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is currently out of print. Ironic reflection of our times?"

That's a shame. It could well be.

Here's a part of "Dragon in my Garage".

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

There are people who are 'tinfoilers'; they wear tin foil on their heads to keep out radiation. They exist. Ruth, on the other hand, seems terrified of the security services. I guess laughing at fear is one way of dispersing it; jeering, I think, isn't.

Glenn "
soba wrote: "By the way, what do you think hit the Pentagon if it wasn't a plane and where did the plane go?"

I'm not even going to speculate - what would be the point? I'd just like to see some photographic evidence that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. Where did the plane go that hit that? There usual crash scene for a jumbo hitting it is missing. Every camera that would have captured it has the pictures missing. Where do you suppose all those pictures are, and why haven't they been released - assuming they exist?"

Here are pictures:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77

"There are people who are 'tinfoilers'; they wear tin foil on their heads to keep out radiation. They exist. Ruth, on the other hand, seems terrified of the security services."

Well, if that's true who do you think is stoking it?

Do you think her fear is a reasonable one or do you think she's been pulled further and further into these paranoid fantasies by a number of commenters here?

Someone on this thread asked the question "why when the security services whack a dissident don't they do a better job of making it look like suicide or an accident?"

Usually the killing an individual dissident has several aims.

1/ To shut that dissident up;
2/ To punish that dissident;
3/ To discourage other potential dissidents.

Number 3 if often the most important purpose and for it there needs to be a significant level of public doubt in the suicide or accident cover story, not strong enough doubt to make the public force a proper inquiry. The level of ambivalence about Dr Kelly's "suicide" is about right to achieve purpose number 3, lots of people including me, suspect that Kelly was murdered but the Hutton inquiry has forestalled a decent investigation and sealed the evidence for 70 years, but there will be plenty of civil servants privy to discreditable secrets that the UK Government would want to maintain that will look at Dr Kelly's death and feel a chill down their spines and decide against whistle blowing.

The thing is that we in the anglosphere have an unrealistic belief that our governments and their agents are basically law abiding and lack the ruthlessness necessary for assassinating potential witnesses. I think we are naive, we should be no more surprised to find that our governments have people whacked than we are when the Russian or Chechynian States kill journalists and lawyers. Power attracts ruthless people and any state no matter how democratic it appears will have a proportion of psychopaths and believers in the end justifying the means at the upper levels. It is not necessary that Tony Blair actually ordered a hit, just someone at a lower level showing initiative.

Larissa Alexandrovna has a post relavannt to this topic at this url:-

http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2010/01/70year-gag-on-kelly-death-evidence-dr-david-kelly.html.

This daily mail article rightly castigates the Hutton Inquiry:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1245626/NORMAN-BAKER-Hutton-farcical-feeble-amateurish--MUST-told-truth-week.html.

hemical ali is hanged when will war criminal tony blair will be put to gallows? include among those to eb doomed-after goign through abu gharibi style treatment-those companison of crime like BBC journalists, sky journalists and rupert murdocjh and ofocurse this criminal jack ripper straw. and let thse be judged not by kangaroo british court but by the iraqis and afgans who suffrerd fromt these animals.

some one wrote this about americans-this applies more to the british because atleast americans did nto really vote for fraudulent bush but the british did vote thrice for the war criminal tony blair harami-knwing fully well his crimes.

"And Americans are definitely at fault. Who do you think elects these people, the French?? Just how many French voted for Bush in 2000?? How about 2004??? Did the Swiss vote put Bush over the top then??? You guys are blind if you can't see how the American people have gleefully baaaed their way into this morass happy to drive their wasteful Hummers and remain completely ignorant about the rest of the world.

When the world was saying that Saddam might not have WMDs, it was the US AND ONLY THE US (well, with the UK, Spain and Israel) that insisted on starting an illegal war. Americans were all for it. They were screaming in the streets for it. The rest of the world protested louder than ever before in 2003 AGAINST THE WAR and the US decided to go in anyway. If Americans weren't behind Bush, there's no way he would have been able to go against the entire world.

Americans are some of the most ignorant, stupid people on the planet. They have one of the most corrupt medias anyway, know very little about what really goes on in the world, love to flaunt their ignorance as some sort of richer-than-thou trophy that they don't need to know what's going on, and then spout idiotic crackpot theories as if they were facts even in the face of reality.

"The Jews are the only ones to blame" is pure racism. It would be a lot closer to the truth to say that "Americans are the only ones to blame," but even that is far from the truth. Morons vote for morons and then, morons become elected. The easier to control the herd with."

About 9/11 truth.

In my opinion there is one and only one reason for suspecting that 9/11 was an inside job and that is the extent to which it helped advance an agenda of the neocons and the Bush administration that was already in existence.

However it is clear that the attack was actually carried out by 19 Saudi Arabians working for Osama Bin Laden, to doubt this is insane.

One can point out that Osama Bin Laden and his organization were fostered by the Americans to plague the soviets in Afghanistan, might not the US still had some control over this organization or at least some spies in it?

I can conceive of 9/11 having happened with no elements in the US government having prior knowledge but I can also conceive that some elements might have had knowledge and have welcomed it.

The thing is that 9/11 supported the agendas of both George Bush and Osama Bin Laden. Bush wanted a war in the middle east Bin Laden wanted to draw the USA into a warfare quagmire in the middle east. You can imagine the two of them getting together and plotting it, but you can also imagine that Bin Laden did it and knew that George W would take the bait.

The other reasons that 9/11 truthers give for their beliefs are in my view fallacies.

They are:-

1/ That the twin towers collapsed neatly in their own footprints as if in a perfectly done controlled demolition;

2/ That building 7 which was not hit also collapsed;

3/ That there was nothing left of the large aeroplane that hit the Pentagon and that the debris resembled that of a smaller plane.

4/ That it was physically impossible to fly an aeroplane into the Pentagon after clearing some obstacles that were in the way and were not damaged;

5/ That burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel and cause a steel building to collapse.

The truth is the only way to prove or disprove these ideas is to rebuild the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon as they were and use remote piloted air liners to repeat the experiment.

On #1. The main objection I have to truther argument #1 is why bother? If you are going to carry out a false flag attack on your own buildings why arrange for such a neat implosion. Why care if lots of the building fall in the streets or on other buildings, why care if the building remains standing. An aeroplaning which did not actually bring down the towers would still be pretty spectacular.

On #2.
Tower 7 was close enough to be set on fire by the already burning towers. As I understand it water supply had been cut off due to the catastrophe and sprinklers in Building 7 could not have any effect.

On #3. When a big aeroplane hits a bigger building there is not going to be much left of the plane. Planes are rather fragile things really compared to buildings.

On #4. It might not be easy to do while respecting the control limits of the plane, but these guys did not need the plane afterwards and would not care if the overstrained it by suddenly initiating a steep dive after clearing the obstacle.

On #5,

There are steels that maintain their strength at high temperatures (used for making tools for machining) but they are not used in building construction. As steel is heated it loses strength and the stress under which it becomes ductile is lowered. One does not need to melt the steel in a buildings girders to weaken the girders enough for them to fail. In addition girders are normally protected by a heat resistant coating that should protect them long enough to get the fire under control, but the impact of 200 odd tonnes of aeroplane at more than 200 knots would be more than enough to shake it off. The WTC girders at the level of impact would have lost their thermal protection. In addition their would have been no water to fight the fire.

Truthers also overlook the extent to which the fire was fed by the aircraft fuel. these planes had taken off shortly beforehand and still had most of their fuel.

In my view before 9/11, anyone designing a building capable of withstanding the impact of a jet liner would have been crazy, I think the expectation that the WTC towers should have remained standing is crazy.

Hello Soba: Your reply in turn is appreciated.

I take your point about the term "Truther" compared with "sceptic". When it comes to 9/11, people doubting the official story use "truther" because they wish to indicate their desire to get at the truth - this would apply to me, anyway, as one who wants to know the truth instead of believing myself to already be in full possession of it.

The point of Sagan's that you illustrated can be found in all manner of things, particularly with religion and astrology, and Sagan did not have much respect for those either. Almost anything can be seen as a sign from God if one puts their religious goggles on... the phrase "I'd never have seen it if I hadn't believed it" springs to mind. Astrology is so utterly ridiculous I'm amazed anyone could give it any time at all.

The whole UFO business is itself wrapped in some overblown hyperbole on both sides. "I saw a UFO" on the face of it isn't much of a surprise - it's simply something not identified. It doesn't mean one is claiming "I saw the spacecraft of an alien race". But to some individuals, of course, that is precisely what it is taken to mean. So I think we agree on all of that.

Heh - I didn't know that about Sagan's correspondence with people that hob-nob with aliens, that is most amusing. The trouble with people like that is that they seem to have a rather tenuous grip on reality. Why should aliens make the huge effort of visiting Earth, just to tell someone - unwitnessed - an insubstantial item before clearing off again? Rather like the faithful viewers of soap operas who have a hard time distinguishing between the story and real life, a substantial proportion of people simply accept things to be true without question. Denial is a survival mechanism, because without it we would find it hard to function, but it can and often is taken way too far.

But "truther" - in the terms we both agree is unhelpful - is not really what we are talking about when it comes to those who question the government side of an Official Truth. There are the most ridiculous claims around (they were laser projections, not real planes, hitting the twin towers etc.) which might well have been put about just to discredit the sceptics. I'm also shocked at some of the things the "9/11 truth movement" comes out with, and find it annoying to have to dismiss arguments people assume are my own.

There are, however, way too many oddities in the Official Story for me to be able to accept it. Although, initially, I didn't think there was anything more to the whole thing that we'd been told. When the Truthers or Sceptics if you prefer started giving alternative explanations, my thought was - don't be daft, that's just so unlikely. For a start, the government would never do that to its own people. There'd have to be a vast number of people in on it, somebody would have talked by now. How could anyone commit murder on such a scale, commit treason, and consider it a job well done. The government (Bush, particularly) lacks the competence to eat a pretzel without beating himself up in the process, let alone pull off a job like that. And much the same process can be applied to the moon-landings - a cover-up involving so many would be impossible, somebody would have rumbled it, and so on.

It was painful for me to realise that the government is easily capable of massive deception, that it - or at least, elements within it - are capable of causing deliberate harm to its own citizens, often for very little gain. That they could be wantonly murderous if it suited them, that not many people really needed to be involved - just those sufficiently well placed. That any whistleblowers can be ridiculed, silenced, ignored with such ease. Or killed, bribed or threatened. Or that groups of people can be told they can only leave after signing an Official Secrets Act form obliging them never to reveal what they know.

(I've had to sign an Official Secrets Act form myself, a bit like the US's NDA, as part of my job - the penalties for infringement are severe.)

There are so many flaws in the Official Story that if a "truther" had come up with it, he would have been laughed out of court. So I don't believe it, but also don't find myself obligated to come up with a watertight alternative theory. A parcel fails to arrive at my house, and I call the supplier. Suppose they said, "Well, you tell us exactly what happened to the parcel, provide proof of that, and then we'll accept that it didn't arrive." It's not up to me to say exactly what did happen, it's sufficient to say I know what didn't happen in that case. Likewise, I feel it's safe to say what didn't happen on 9/11 - that a rag-tag bunch of incompetent non-practicing Muslims managed to defeat the tightest airspace security in the world, that the government was unconcerned despite 53 separate specific warnings, that aerobatics requiring the abilities of stunt-pilots were performed, and so on.

I recall watching news reporters running around on the ground outside the twin towers stating they were being shaken by "bombs in the basement", the concussions of which were on-going and obvious to the viewer, people contemporaneously saying the buildings had clearly been rigged with explosives, all of which were dropped in subsequent reports. Demolition experts saying immediately afterwards that this was clearly a controlled implosion. Despite attempts at labeling all truthers or sceptics as "loons" in some quarters, I find myself in good company. I was surprised to find it pretty much assumed to be an inside job among the Dutch when I was over there a couple of months back.

Anyway.

Finally, I have no doubt that people have been orbiting the Earth since the mid-1960's, in case you wondered :)

On UFO's.

I used to be under the impression that people who took UFOs seriously were fruit cakes until I bought a book by J Allen Hynek. I no longer have the book but it is probably this one or an earlier version of it:-

http://www.amazon.com/UFO-Experience-Scientific-Inquiry/dp/156924782X.

Hynek was an astronomer at North Western University in Illinois who was hired by the US Air Force Project Blue Book as a professional debunker of UFO sightings. He is famous for explaining one sighting as "swamp gas". Hynek had access to all the Blue Book files and most, 95% of the reports in them he could explain as sightings of aircraft satellites, planets low on the horizon or meteorological effects. However the remaining 5% intrigued him as having no current scientific explanation. He selected a subclass of the blue book to study in detail where the phenomena had been seen multiple credible observers who were unknown to each other. Many UFO observers are credible, military pilots, civilian pilots, police, radar operators etc.

Hynek concluded that there is a real phenomena behind these sightings but avoids coming to the conclusion that they are spacecraft from somewhere. No one can actually study a UFO because no one has managed to obtain one, what Hynek studied are UFO reports.

There are other credible authors such as Jacques Vallee. He has come around to the view that UFOs can not be studied scientifically because what people see is a show that someone or something has put on for them. If we see spacecraft that is because someone has put on a show of a spacecraft. Vallee considers the UFO phenomenon and visions of fairies or the Virgin Mary to likely have the same cause. One of his books, Messengers Of Deception states this thesis.

http://www.amazon.com/Messengers-Deception-Ufo-Contacts-Cults/dp/0915904381.

Glenn writes:

"There are so many flaws in the Official Story that if a "truther" had come up with it, he would have been laughed out of court. So I don't believe it, but also don't find myself obligated to come up with a watertight alternative theory. A parcel fails to arrive at my house, and I call the supplier. Suppose they said, "Well, you tell us exactly what happened to the parcel, provide proof of that, and then we'll accept that it didn't arrive." It's not up to me to say exactly what did happen, it's sufficient to say I know what didn't happen in that case. Likewise, I feel it's safe to say what didn't happen on 9/11 - that a rag-tag bunch of incompetent non-practicing Muslims managed to defeat the tightest airspace security in the world, that the government was unconcerned despite 53 separate specific warnings, that aerobatics requiring the abilities of stunt-pilots were performed, and so on.

I recall watching news reporters running around on the ground outside the twin towers stating they were being shaken by "bombs in the basement", the concussions of which were on-going and obvious to the viewer, people contemporaneously saying the buildings had clearly been rigged with explosives, all of which were dropped in subsequent reports. Demolition experts saying immediately afterwards that this was clearly a controlled implosion. Despite attempts at labeling all truthers or sceptics as "loons" in some quarters, I find myself in good company. I was surprised to find it pretty much assumed to be an inside job among the Dutch when I was over there a couple of months back."

Two brief points:

1) An "official story" exists only in the minds of truthers (quite telling that you feel the need to capitalize) and

2) EVERY SINGLE CLAIM that you bring up has been answered. But the moment there is an answer, you'll move on to one of the many other unsupported claims that your fellow conspiracy theorists have dreamed up.

Also, Glenn, what happens when you are presented with pictures "...From the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania crash sites..." Will you change your mind and acknowledge that planes actually did crash at both sites?

"a rag tag bunch". Glenn, I think they were a very well-funded bunch, weren't they?

Carlyle, great posts, thanks.

Tim B: Thanks for that reference, but frankly that looks like a very weak attempt at scattering around a few bits and pieces. It looks nothing like a genuine crash site.

"It looks nothing like a genuine crash site"

What WOULD a genuine crash site look like? What would it take to convince you?

Charles Manson swooned over Time Enough for Love, Tim McVeigh hugged tightly on the Turner Diaries, and now Angrysoba is entertaining us by waxing poetic about the Demon Haunted World as if Carl's advice to us supported his pathetic pseudo-religion of anti-trutherism and supreme government truth cultism, which I would contend it does not.

Carl Sagan wouldn't be shocked at Angrysoba's attempt to gain credibility through association, but he probably wouldn't be very unamused. After all, Carl was a Truther as well as a Sciencer in the same sense that the Pope is a Christer, Hugh Hefner is a Sexer, Steve Jobs is a Gadgeter and Jane Fonda is a Healther. That's right, he was an evangelist for his subject.

In DHW, he writes about his scepticism about life after death: "Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy."

In Cosmos, he says: "We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."

Again, in DHW, he warns us about the perils of sheepledom: "If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness."

Angrysoba, as I've learned from witnessing his attempts to debate, didn't learn much about the scientific method as a child, nor did he develop the sort of decency, humility or community spirit Carl was advocating. What he has learned is to cloak his most cherished beliefs in a dense thick of plausibility and to employ a Swiss Army knife of logical fallacies whenever somebody comes close to cutting through the thicket and showing him the awful T word. That's where his obnoxiousness and his intense need to ridicule people whose opinions challenge his world view come from. He's afraid that if he follows Carl's advice and follows the scientific method to try to establish facts and rule out fictions that he will be faced with irrefutable evidence that his worldview is an untennable fantasy. And that, for Angrysoba, is a terrifying prospect.

Ann Druyan is said to have said of Carl Sagan that "He didn't want to believe. He wanted to know." She also said that on his deathtbed he didn't convert to a religious view. "For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better."

If you care about whether your views on what is probable or certain regarding a given subject are being influenced by an emotional bias, a good way of checking might be to try to determin what would make you feel better. Carl would have been happier if there were life after death and aliens were communicating with humanity, but he found no convincing evidence that either was the case.

Ask yourself whether you would be happier to discover that David Kelly was murdered or that he committed suicide, and take account of any bias you discover. Personally, I'd be much happier to discover he had been murdered, and rather disappointed to find it was suicide, just as I suspect Angrysoba was a bit out of sorts to have learned that Hugo Chavez didn't say on TV what he was reported to have said about the US causing the Haiti quake.

"Ask yourself whether you would be happier to discover that David Kelly was murdered or that he committed suicide, and take account of any bias you discover. Personally, I'd be much happier to discover he had been murdered, and rather disappointed to find it was suicide"

Happier? Happier? Are you mad?

Tim, take a look at those who now carry the legacy of Carl Sagan. They laugh at your conspiracies. Visit the JREF sometime.

And you trying to turn Sagan into a truther is like the religious trying to turn Einstein and Darwin into believers. But you're much worse, actually.

Sorry, Tim, perhaps you were just being extremely honest, in which case, thank you. Still, I do not see this situation as a cause of 'happiness', relative or otherwise, in any event.

Glenn, thanks for your post. I'll need a little bit of time to write up a reply, but please bear with me.

Carlyle Moulton, thanks. I'll get round to responding to yours as well.

technciolour: They were a rag-tag bunch if you want to consider the mission they were apparently on. Muslims who ate pork, drank whiskey and attended lap-dance bars. Terrorists who were really bad about keeping a low profile. Pilots were were worryingly incompetent. Well funded - very possibly, and that money came from Germany. So why didn't the US start bombing Hamburg, where the plan had apparently all started, and Pakistan, from whence the money had come?

At least one senior member of the intelligence community is prepared to go public on the issue.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022504shrimptontranscript.html

Carlyle Moulton: Nice list, but are you confident you have not just set up 5 straw men for yourself? I'll list the 5, with your answers paraphrased and a reply :

1/ That the twin towers collapsed neatly in their own footprints as if in a perfectly done controlled demolition;

Your answer: Why bother / spectacular enough as it was.

My answer: Limit the damage, given how much it would be already. Only the Twin Towers were the real white elephants after all, sparsely occupied and a very positive advantage gained in losing them. Silverstein was a very lucky guy, insuring them only weeks before they came down.

*
2/ That building 7 which was not hit also collapsed;

Your answer: It was close enough to be set on fire.

My answer: Lots of steel-framed buildings have caught on fire. Yet this one came down in near freefall speed, in a perfect demolition. Never happened before or after that day. You could also have added the random damage from the twin towers, but building 3 was far more badly damaged but didn't spontaneously collapse.

*
3/ That there was nothing left of the large aeroplane that hit the Pentagon and that the debris resembled that of a smaller plane.

Your answer: When a big aeroplane hits a bigger building there is not going to be much left of the plane. Planes are rather fragile things really compared to buildings.

My answer: You should always expect to see lots of wreckage (it would not vapourise), seats, luggage, and dead passengers. We saw a few randomly strewn little bits of metal. Same with the Pennsylvania crash. Strange too that the fragile plane - your term - punched such a hole through reinforced concrete like that. Was the nosecone solid iron, maybe?

*
4/ That it was physically impossible to fly an aeroplane into the Pentagon after clearing some obstacles that were in the way and were not damaged;

Your answer: It might not be easy to do while respecting the control limits of the plane, but these guys did not need the plane afterwards and would not care if the overstrained it by suddenly initiating a steep dive after clearing the obstacle.

My answer: "It might not be easy" - you don't say! Ask any real pilot just how probable it is a guy barely competent to fly a 1-engined Cessna pulled that stunt off. Try this: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

I find it hard to take your answer seriously, in all fairness. I can just imagine the planning:

Ahmed: It'll never take that kind of maneuver, even if we have a skilled enough pilot! In the name of the Prophet, please - just crash the thing into the centre of the Pentagon, that will do surely!

B. Laden: No. It must hit that precise point, and the plane might be all knackered the moment after it's finished performing that tremendous stunt, but we don't care about that! Ha ha ha ha ha!

*
5/ That burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel and cause a steel building to collapse.

Your answer: Untreated steel might not melt, but it would lose the necessary strength (paraphrasing quite a bit).

My answer: Many thousands of tons of interconnected steel acts as an enormous heatsink. Most of the fuel burned off in the first few seconds (in the case of the second crash, outside of the building in a huge fireball). A dirty flame will not produce enough heat to appreciably weaken even a small amount of detached steel, let alone bring a vast structure up to the temperatures required to initiate a collapse.

Planes are not fueled to capacity when taking domestic flights, that would be a huge weight burden. They take not much more than they need, plus a reasonable safety margin.

*
You conclude: "In my view before 9/11, anyone designing a building capable of withstanding the impact of a jet liner would have been crazy, I think the expectation that the WTC towers should have remained standing is crazy."

As it happens, the designers allowed for _multiple crashes_ of the heaviest airliners at that time. Don't forget the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber and is still standing.

Like it or not, the case it not cut and dried, and anyone who calls doubters/ sceptics "crazy" for not finding the Official Story obvious has clearly not looked into it that hard.

Adrian Peirson,

Michael Shrimpton appears to be a bit of a fantasist. He came up with a theory about how David Kelly was "murdered" which came from a Tom Clancy novel.

It's unclear what his intelligence credentials are but he refers to himself as an expert on these matters and he claims to get phone calls from Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney:

This is from the BBC's Conspiracy Files:

"Michael Shrimpton. He has made his own investigation at
Harrowdown Hill.
Michael Shrimpton:
Harrowdown Hill, I've visited the murder site, it's ideal.
I'm known as a national security lawyer and it's known that I have links with
the intelligence communities in the United Kingdom and in-throughout the
western world.
I was contacted within about twenty four hours by somebody working with
David Kelly in the intelligence community and he said he'd been murdered
and I wasn't particularly surprised at that and given the source I had no
doubts whatsoever that he'd been murdered from that time.
Michael Shrimpton believes he has found clues on Harrowdown Hill
that others have missed.
Michael Shrimpton:
You could a hide a platoon or a company of men over the brow of that hill
and you wouldn稚 know if they kept quiet until you were right on top of them.
As a place for an ambush it痴 just frankly ideal. He was clearly assassinated
to keep him quiet there was no other motive.
Michael Shrimpton believes that the co-proxamol pain-killers found
near the body were simply a cover used by assassins
Michael Shrimpton:
The plan is to leave coproxamol by the side of the body. So they池e trying to
get co-proxamol into the stomach and they池e trying to shove co-proxamol
down into poor David Kelly he dies on them too quickly. As they池e shoving
the tablet down him, probably the first tablet, there痴 vomit, and that痴 the
end then he dies. And that痴 the end of tablets.
Michael Shrimpton also believes that the cut wrist was really to hide
the injection marks created by a different method of death, an
injection of a fatal substance
Michael Shrimpton:
Succynol choline is still very much the favoured means of killing him
because it is so easily disguised. The wrist slash is clearly in my view
designed not just to create the impression of suicide but it痴 a perfect
means of disguising the puncture wounds.
Michael Shrimpton says he knows that Dr Kelly was assassinated
because of his extensive intelligence contacts.
Michael Shrimpton:
That is the red phone if that phone goes it could be anyone from the White
House to President痴 administration in Russia to the CIA to whoever. It痴 not
usual for me to pick up the phone and have Henry Kissinger on the other
end but that has happened. He actually has that number but he doesn稚
have that number. That gives me a direct line through to Vice President
Dick Cheney痴 Office.
Michael Shrimpton is also a fan of espionage fiction from Frederick
Forsyth to Tom Clancy
Michael Shrimpton:
He痴 one of my favourite authors
One of Tom Clancy痴 books, The Teeth of the Tiger concerns an 登ff
the books・team of US Government assassins who avoid detection by
killing their victims with succynol choline
Michael Shrimpton:
Now yes there is a reference to Succynol Choline in this book and I think
that follows the assassination of David Kelly. Tom Clancy has very good
contacts in the intelligence community.
It may be that Tom Clancy picked up a loopback from the Kelly
assassination. But if the suggestion is that I got succynol choline from a
Tom Clancy novel then sorry that won稚 wash. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/if/transcripts/david_kelly.txt

Glenn, why do you continue to write such crap? Once again you're recycling crackpot right-wing conspiracy theories from 2004 or so. These silly claims have been thoroughly debunked; see the JREF forums if you have any questions.

Craig has already told you what he thinks of such blather; please stop posting this.

Larry - for once, and probably the last time, I'll reply:

...sorry son - you're finished here.

Glenn, with all respect, I think you also set up a strawman with your "rag-tag" Muslims. I would avoid that description too, it seems too reminiscent of the things I read on isolationist/survivalist US conspiracy sites. They seem to be of the opinion that the hijackers are purported to be primitive troglodytes. They were not. We have already discussed this that the four pilots had pilots licenses and all had trained in simulators. There is a MONEY TRAIL of documents paid to various flight schools etc...

Also, you have talked about tightest air security before and I asked what you meant. I don't believe I received a reply.

Also, the warnings were NOT specific. "Al-Qaeda plans to attack" tells them nothing. But for our purposes, it DOES undermine MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) theories while possibly lending credence to LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) theories.

On Carlyle Moulton's points, I generally agree but there is an important thing about planes flying into buildings. Les Robertson DID say that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 impact. But the 767's which hit were larger and probably heavier and flying faster than in the scenario Les Robertson gives. In 9/11 Mysteries, a Truther movie, Robertson is quoted saying that a 707 flying into JFK, short of fuel may crash into the Towers in fog. The Towers were designed to withstand that, but not the 9/11 scenario in which heavily-fueled (yes, they were flying domestically but were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel apparently).

The man Glenn references saying the Towers were designed to withstand multiple airline strikes was not the internal construction site manager but not one of those involved in the design of the building or its construction.

I can dig up a reference if you want, but short of time right now.

"Lots of steel-framed buildings have caught on fire. Yet this one came down in near freefall speed, in a perfect demolition. Never happened before or after that day. You could also have added the random damage from the twin towers, but building 3 was far more badly damaged but didn't spontaneously collapse."

WTC7 was big and heavy. It was damaged at its base by a 110 story burning skyscraper. The fire department predicted it would fall. It had lost its fireproofing.

I can show you a video of a collapsing building that collapsed from fire.

I can also show you buildigs that were demolished without explosives.

No time right now to dig them up.

"I can show you a video of a collapsing building that collapsed from fire."

A steel-framed one that is.

As Carl Moulton points out, the sprinkler system in the WTC7 also malfunctioned.

Oops, I forgot to include the link to the ADS page referred to in my above post.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49588

This is a steel-framed building collapsing. The fires don't appear to be raging but it still collapses crushing the lower floors.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

Here are some buildings collapsing. Visible "squibs", and complete collapses with "pyroclastic clouds".

Yet there are no explosives used in this demolition technique. Only gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

"The man Glenn references saying the Towers were designed to withstand multiple airline strikes was not the internal construction site manager but not one of those involved in the design of the building or its construction."

I don't know how I made that mistake in that first sentence. It should have read he WAS the onsite construction manager. But the job description is not quite what it may sound like. It doesn't mean he was responsible for the construction of the World Trade Center but it means he was in charge of plumbing, interior modification and possibly installing phone lines etc...

Frank De Martini is the only person I know of who made the claim that the Towers could withstand multiple airliner strikes.

He was killed in the attacks and their is a memoriam page dedicated to him here:

http://inmemoriamonline.net/Profiles/Folders/D_Folder/DeMartini_Frank.html

With all respect to Mr Martini, I don't think his assessment can be considered definitive.

I will agree that there is dispute among structural engineers about how the Towers (and building 7) actually collapsed but very, very few structural engineers or controlled demolition experts find the controlled demolition theory plausible.

On David Kelly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8481791.stm

On Tuesday, Lord Hutton released a statement explaining his decision and revealing that he had written to the Ministry of Justice.

In it, he said: "At the conclusion of my inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, I requested that the post-mortem report relating to his death should not be disclosed for 70 years as I was concerned that the publication of that report in newspapers, books and magazines would cause his daughters and his wife further and unnecessary distress.

"Much of the material in the post-mortem report had been given in oral evidence in public at the inquiry and substantial parts of that evidence had been set out in my report.

"However, I consider that the disclosure of the report to doctors and their legal advisers for the purposes of legal proceedings would not undermine the protection which I wished to give to Dr Kelly's family, provided that conditions were imposed restricting the use and publication of the report to such proceedings, and I have written to the Ministry of Justice to this effect."

In the same article, Norman Baker's not giving up the ghost:

"Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own inquiries into Dr Kelly's death, said: "It's astonishing and unheard-of for material of this nature to be hidden away for any length of time, let alone 70 years.

"Coroners' inquests are held in public. Lord Hutton's inquiry was unique in its format and unique in requesting restrictions of this nature.

"His statement today undermines the validity of his own inquiry and gives further justification to the case being made by many for a proper inquest to be held into this most public of deaths."

Baker appears to be wrong.

While 30 years is the standard amount of time, there can be exceptions.

http://www.30yearrulereview.org.uk/background.htm

"Is everything released to the public at 30 years?

Not everything does get released when transferred to The National Archives. The Freedom of Information Act has reduced the number of records that can stay closed, but a very small proportion of material remains closed for a defined period. Examples include murder files, which remain closed until the children of the victim are 100 years old, in order to protect them from exposure to distressing personal information. Other records which remain closed relate to current defence or security, foreign relations etc.."

Of course, I expect some "skeptics" to read the article as:

"blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, Examples include murder files, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah"

"Hey, it says "murders". He was murdered!"

"Happier? Happier? Are you mad?"

Happier! Being murdered would make him a sort of hero. Being a suicide would bring shame on himself and his name and guilt on his family.

Are you a moron?

"Tim, take a look at those who now carry the legacy of Carl Sagan. They laugh at your conspiracies."

You make Saganism sound like a religion. Who's the current high priest? And what conspiracies are you talking about? I haven't posited any on this thread or this site at any time.

"Visit the JREF sometime."

Thanks for the invite. But there are far too many "educators" who only want to give lectures but not listen to them taking up precious server space over there already.

"Have you no shame, sir?"

Decent gives etiquette lessons.

My interjection was not directed towards Angrysoba as I don't think him capable of understanding it, and I'm not interested in spending any more time talking past him and trying to correct his serial misunderstandings. Life's too short. Experience teaches that when people just don't get it when it's explained to them clearly the first time, they are unlikely ever to do so.

My intention was to rescue Carl Sagan's good name from association with the enemies of truth. It is one thing to quote a wise thinker in support of one's own opinion or, indeed, agenda, but it's quite another to ventriloquize the dead. And Carl, more than most dead folk, can speak for himself.

If you want to speculate about what Carl might have thought about 9/11 or WMD or about 9/11 "truthers" or Kelly "suiciders", fine. But you can be sure he advised against the sort of personal snide attacks on adversaries that are the meat and potatoes of the Angrysoba/JREF crowd. In his younger days Sagan was scathing of Velikovsky's work and he ridiculed the scholar in public, but later he publicly regretted having done so. Not because he had subsequently warmed to the man's theories, but because he recognized that there are valid ways and invalid ways of doing science.

The DemonHaunted World is a book primarily about the perils of pseudoscience and superstition. I don't recall that he addressed the subject of conspiracy theories or that he ever equated them with pseudoscience or superstition.

He did say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that we should always maintain our scepticism. He called pseudoscience the opposite of science: "Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principal they cannot be invalidated. Practicioners are defensive and wary. Sceptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced."

He also warned us against thinking ourselves immune to error, saying that "if we resolutely refuse to acknowledge where we are liable to fall into error, hten e can confidently expect that error — even serious error, profound mistakes — will be our compainon forever."

One more quote, because Carl is so often so wonderfully to the point and on the money, and because I can't say this sort of thing a tenth as well as he can:

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous."

Tim Groves writes: "The DemonHaunted World is a book primarily about the perils of pseudoscience and superstition. I don't recall that he addressed the subject of conspiracy theories or that he ever equated them with pseudoscience or superstition."

And then quotes Carl Sagan on pseudoscience: "Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principal they cannot be invalidated. Practicioners are defensive and wary. Sceptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced."

Sounds to me like the "controlled demolition hypothesis".

Tim Groves: "The only suggestion of any of the above having anything in common was that you Charles and Tim share(d) a penchant for going on and on about one bloody book!"

Oh I see! So, it would be like me saying that as with Adolf Hitler and Mussolini you have a fondness for the Internet equivalent of chestpuffing, gurning and emitting great bursts of windy, flatulent rhetoric?

[Strange... I could have sworn I'd posted this message earlier...]

Comrades,

I accordance with the expressed desire of this blog's host, I shall be making no more contributions to the debates on the events of 11/sept/2001.

No problem, Glenn.

If you want to email me, you can at angrysoba@yahoo.com

"nausiating", "gut-wrenching", "sickening", "stomach-churning"

I think you vomitted up these yourself. I don't remember using those adjectives. Such imagery makes me throw up.

"Another commentor has only got to say the magic words "nano-thermite" and you literally fume with disgust."

Actually, it just makes me laugh.

"I accordance with the expressed desire of this blog's host, I shall be making no more contributions to the debates on the events of 11/sept/2001."

Glen, there's a time, place and occasion for everything and I think Craig has a moral right to set the tone. That's one reason why I don't weigh in on "the events" here. But I also think you make a very good case against kneejerk acceptance of "the official story" and I love reading your comments. But let's leave it at that. Let's be like the French after the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871.

"I think you vomitted up these yourself." "throw up."

Not to mention digestive-tract verbs. Proves my point.

"I don't remember using those adjectives."

The stomach is a poor organ of memory. And in any case I did say "such as", which is less absolutely all-encompassing than "including".

""I think you vomitted up these yourself." "throw up."

Not to mention digestive-tract verbs. Proves my point."

Well, I was being faecesious, I mean facetious. I thought it was obvious.

Alimentary my dear Grovesy.

I mean elementary, naturally.

"The stomach is a poor organ of memory. And in any case I did say "such as", which is less absolutely all-encompassing than "including"."

So either way you're getting out of that misrepresentation, right?

Thank you Tim, and I agree that this on-going discussion is dragging down the intent of Craig's blog. There has been blatant trolling on this subject. (That should have read "In accordance" too...)

Glen.

I will reply to your reply to my 9/11 post on the specific 9/11 thread that Craig has started.

"Let's be like the French after the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871."

What's that ? You'll still be wanting to slug it out again in forty years' time ?

Dr David Kelly.

Who were likely candidates.

Try looking at the 4 VIP Directors of
ARLINGTON ASSOCIATES and their DIRECT association with SIMON MANN, TIM SPICER, TONY BUCKINGHAM,RUPERT BOWEN.
The Home address of LONRHO Group and over 300 other FRAUD FRONT, CASH SHELLS.

22 ARLINGTON STREET. LONDON SWIA1RD

Attached to the RITZ and DIRECTLY associated to MOHAMED AL FAYED and MOHAMED ADNAN KHASHOGGI and BIN LADEN

They are:
ORYX NATURAL RESOURCES
PLAZA 107 Ltd
EXECUTIVE OUTCOMES. SANDLINE INTERNATIONAL.

Then Read the 21 pages of:
"SECRET SOUTH AFRICAN DISRUPTION"

Including HERITAGE OIL,BRANCH ENERGY, and SIERRA RUTILE Ltd its 100% Subsidiary is TITANIUM RESOURCES GROUP and BARONESS VALERIE AMOS, WALTER KANSTEINER 111 and SIR SAMUEL ESSON JONAH, and CIA Muppet, JEAN RAYMOND BOULLE. Money Launderer, Drug Dealer, Blood Diamond Smuggler.

Yes what an Honest group of Members of the House of Lords we have.

All grabbing the "SPOILS" after the Conflict.
ADDAX & ORYX=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD and
MOHAMED ADNAN KHASHOGGI
ENI = NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
OCCIDENTAL= NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
AREVA =NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
BP=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
SHELL=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
MOL =NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
DE BEERS=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
MACQUARIE BANK =NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
MORGAN STANLEY=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD
JP MORGAN CAZENOVE=NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD

These and 3000 others.
Along with GEORGE H W BUSH in the front of BARRICK GOLD CORP and ZAPATA OIL.
Which if you look at HERITAGE OIL's AIM Admission Document is listed as a Subsidiary along with TOWER RESOURCES.

now, Here's a Bummer.
So much for the Brave "HE WHO DARES" Bunch
At
22 ARLINGTON STREET. LONDON SW1A1RD

The Home of LONRHO Group
Psssst ORYX NATURAL RESOURCES

The Web site of:
ARLINGTON ASSOCIATES LTD
Has been "REMOVED"

It's called "DAMAGE CONTROL"
or "RUN and HIDE"

Yes, Good for "DOOR SLAMMING" but then if it was made PUBLIC that OUR DECORATED HERO's including ex SAS Commander MARK BLAGBROUGH is also a Director for LLOYD'S of LONDON in their
CULVER IRAQ.

So, how nice.

LLOYD's of LONDON.

Directly associated to the MERCENARY outfit of EXECUTIVE OUTCOMES and SANDLINE INTERNATIONAL and the COVERT Smuggling of "BLOOD DIAMONDS" DRUGS, MINERAL THEFT RINGS, CRIMINAL WEAPONS SMUGGLING,ROBERT MUGABE's ZDF, DRC WAR LORDS.

He took "up to 29" co-proxamol. The blister packets were found in the pocket of his jacket, a fact that Norman Lamb seems to find highly suspicious.

Has anybody paused to wonder WHY the blister packs were in his pocket? Would you not simply throw them away once empty? As for the unfinished pack....he was saving that one for later in case he had a sore head from all the other pills he did?

А я вот сессию сдала наконец-то!!! И кто придумал летом учиться, из года вгод, убеждаюсь, что это полный бред. Крыша едет, как у нас студентов, так и у преподов! Ну невозможно в такую жару сидеть в душных аудиториях.
Кстати, те кто скажет, что кондиционер - это спасение в жару, глубоко ошибаются. У нас в группе 2 человек с бронхитом слегли!!!
В общем, всем студентам - сил и упорства в сдаче экзаменов, а тем кто сдал - поздравляю с началом лета для нас!!! УРА!!!!

2bmy

http://002evolves.blogspot.com

Willie MacRae, died 1985

This case does not 'rest in peace'. Nor does that of David Kelly.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/special-reports/crimes-that-rocked-scotland/2007/10/19/the-mcrae-mystery-86908-19978476/

And this, about Hilda Murrell. her nephew, Robert Green, her nephew (the retired naval officer) claims that the murder conviction is unsafe:

"There is evidence that Andrew George was in Hilda's house; however, he could not drive and did not match the description of the driver of her car. Since the trial, which I sat through, I have found evidence that would have acquitted him, and that others were involved. Meanwhile, break-ins to my home in New Zealand and continuing interference with my phone and mail suggest that the British state security authorities fear what I might reveal about the case." Commander Robert Green Royal Navy (Retd).

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

Christian Audigier

www.craigmurray.org.uk is great! Paperless Payday Loans Can Be Really Handy Most Published in the FinancePayDayLoans Category days Minute Pay Day Loans How Can You Qualify For Government Free Money During the Recession

Thanks for making such a killer blog. I come on here all the time and am floored with the fresh information here.

DfVQJNy