The 9/11 Post 11807

Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).

11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 119 120 121 122 123 134
  • Macky

    “citing national security reasons” = protecting the profits of the UK Arms Industry, and all those politicians & ex-MPs who sit on these companies boards raking in the blood-money;

    “putting the cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia before the safety of its owns citizens,”; but of course, follow the money, UK lives, not just foreign lives, will always come second.

    • Clark

      “…national security reasons = protecting the profits of the UK Arms Industry”

      That’s much too narrow; it’s far worse than that. “National security” also includes protecting the US -> UK -> the Gulf monarchies -> “Islamic” extremism influence chain.

      But you don’t like to admit to the existence of this relationship, do you? You pretend it doesn’t exist, even more than the corporate media do. Now I could start acting like a conspiracy theorist and make insinuations that you must therefore be on someone’s payroll, but that would be an unwarranted assumption and contrary to moderation rules.

  • fwl

    On the matter of how to procure consensual silence simply by being powerful are not the Harvey Weinstein reports informative.

    • Dave

      And encouraging.

      Due to reports of a lone and multiple shooters, I do wonder if there were two competing Las Vegas plots, with the lone gunman one to discredit and trump the other, because the plot, like Parsons Green, is so obviously fake, there could be some infighting in the agencies involved.

      • glenn_uk

        Wait a minute, Exexpat – this was supposed to be a FAKE EVENT, remember? No real bodies, just actors, crisis actors, fake blood – dammit, they can’t even get that looking real – and so on. What happened to all that?

        So why don’t you really tell us what really happened and why, since you apparently know everything? There’s probably a Pulitzer in it for you. Papers aren’t _all_ “in on it”, you know. Bust open the real story and glory and fame awaits!

        • Dave

          False flag, as I’m sure you must know, doesn’t mean nothings happened, only that the culprits are not those being named. But there is moving coverage to the story so don’t be surprised if there’s more to it than you think advisable to mention.

          • glenn_uk

            Gosh it must be an exciting existence for you, Dave (or were you Exexpat, or don’t you want to say?).

            You know the Real Truth, I’m sure, but there were plenty of people claiming the carnage at Nice didn’t really happen at all. False Flag – fake blood, crisis actors. Nobody really died there. Is that what you think – no soldier was murdered in London, no lorry attack in Nice, no child was murdered in the Newtown massacre? Please inform me, I need a trusted source of truth.

            So I get a bit mixed up sometimes – maybe it never happened at all, or maybe the government did it? Maybe these people are “crisis actors” or maybe they don’t realise they are helping the murderers of their loved ones by participating in mass grief – only smart people like you know. But the stories of the Real Truth are still a bit contradictory at times.

            Whatever the stupid think because they just believe the news – smart, connected people like you know the real truth behind it all. No wonder you feel entitled to mock and condescend to the rest of us.

    • John Goss

      Sorry Macky but I don’t buy this. The poor woman who wrote the article is Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow and activist. Obviously I am sorry for her loss but she has bought ‘lock, stock and barrel’ the Middle Eastern hijackers were responsible for hijackings story which probably never took place. For a long time I have realised that the Huff Post is a mouthpiece for the CIA purporting to be liberal, a bit like The Guardian. Anything that diverts attention from the real perpetrators is a fair story.

      Many of the alleged ‘hijackers’ are alive today. If they passed through Dubai they may well have been doing so on the instructions of their controllers in the USA. It’s a red herring. Cue Clark.

      • Macky

        No need to apologise John, just because I link to articles of interest iro 911, it doesn’t mean that I fully or even partially endorsement anything in them; I remain open-minded on many aspects of 911, and hopefully the more info/detail I get exposed to, helps me try to separate the unlikely from the plausible.

        While I’m here, this is an article about the toxic legacy of 911;

        • glenn_uk

          …just because I link to articles of interest iro 911, it doesn’t mean that I fully or even partially endorsement anything in them…”

          Oh seriously? And you think it’s just fine to ridicule anyone as an Enemy of the People if they happen to question anyone who comes out with any BS regarding same.

          That’s what absolutely convinced me you’re thoroughly dishonest, Macky, and a mischievous influence at best. Your eagerness to jump onto any bandwagon that “truthers” put out, and attack anyone who questions such transparent nonsense, because it suits some agenda of yours to roll out this disinformation yet without any personal investment.

          I understand you much better now.

          • Macky

            Err, rather not surprisingly I don’t recognise myself from your description, are you sure you’re not addressing yet another fantasy straw-man that you seem to love having arguments with ?!!

            Do you really seriously believe that when people link to articles that may be of interest to the topic of the debate, actually means that they endorse/believe everything contained in those articles ?!

          • Clark

            Macky, you accuse me of “supporting the official narrative” because I reject Twin Tower demolition theory, so don’t pretend that you’re not invested in specific theories about 9/11.

      • Maxter

        Yes those towers were planned to come down, therefore it stands to reason that human fallibility would not be a factor in the planned attacks. There is just no way those patsies could have carried out the mission with 100% success.

          • Clark

            You can argue absolutely anything by using that technique. The whole plot could have been stopped and you could argue that it was a plot to show how good the US defences were.

            You need to learn the basics of logical reasoning and critical thinking. Look up the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          • Dave

            Not without evidence. The alleged plane involved vanished into a small hole in the countryside and gave rise to dramatic commentary involving impossible cell phone calls promoted in the fictional film “lets roll” in which passengers, unlike air defence, took on the ‘hijackers’.

          • Clark

            Dave, the trouble I have with your comment is that is consists of several Truther memes or sound-bites, and I know from arguments about Twin Tower demolition theory that such factoids take on a life of their own completely independent of evidence and reasoning. I’ll list them:

            “alleged plane”
            “vanished into a small hole”
            “impossible cell phone calls”
            “unlike air defence”

            I don’t know what an aircraft crash site would be expected to look like, but I know that other no-plane arguments say that an aircraft can’t even make a hole in a building that’s over 90% hollow, let alone solid ground. Truthers can’t have it both ways.

            I don’t know how far cellphone communication might reach, but I know from experience that radio communication in general is very variable depending upon conditions. Maybe some calls got through because those particular aircraft occupants happened to have particularly suitable ‘phones, or happened to be in places where the aircraft structure focused the signal. Maybe many occupants tried to make calls and just a few got through. Maybe some calls were faked from ground stations, but others were genuine. It’s a set of complex technical questions. All I know for sure is that it’s beyond my technical expertise without extensive study, yet that Truthers are keen to seize upon such claims and declare them incontrovertible facts whether the evidence is good or not.

            The amount I don’t know about why air defences didn’t work is truly immense, and as much of the evidence has been lost, distorted, classified or deliberately destroyed, I’m unlikely to find out with any degree of accuracy.
            – – – – –

            We each have about a kilo of grey mush, a small proportion of which we use to try and make sense of an infinitely complex and rapidly evolving world, including the actions of billions of others, each of them as illogical and impulsive as ourselves. The amount each of us doesn’t know simply dwarfs what we do know; it’s amazing that we get as much right as we do. Additionally, the larger proportion of our grey mush is subconsciously projecting our ego-image in pursuit of making us look better to observers than we actually are, because this helps us accumulate power and wealth and thereby produce more offspring. This is why we each strive to propagate our own opinions, regardless of their accuracy or lack of it.

            But the progress of human knowledge has a valuable lesson for us; collective application of logical criticism can winnow out the inaccuracies introduced by our limited intellect and our competition for personal advantage. But the 9/11 Truth movement is sadly lacking in this respect. Indeed, the behaviour of most Truthers militates against it, immediately dismissing critical analysis and common-sense explanations of anomalies as “supporting the official story”, along with impulsive suspicion that any challenger must be working with the perpetrators.

            This has escalated beyond all reason, and amounts to a movement to drive logical critics out of the Truth Movement altogether. And it is effective; conspiracy theorists on this thread greatly outnumber logical critics, and urban myths have become elevated literally to the status of gospel, unquestionable without being charged with Truther heresy. People like me look at the field and see an insoluble mess; so many amplified distortions, each with their enthusiastic supporters, that a clear understanding seems forever unreachable. Most flee the field, further enabling the myth propagation.

            None of the above is “support for the official narrative” (whatever the “official narrative” may be). It is a call for internal rigour and scepticism among those who doubt government pronouncements and reject mainstream indoctrination. I want the independent media to do a better job than the established status-quo. So far, most of the 9/11 “Truth” movement has dismally failed to clear even that low bar.

          • Dave

            So you’ve had a long think about it, ignored what we do know, and concluded you don’t know! Yes I think you’ve finally nailed it!

          • Clark

            I’m sure you think you know things, but I expect you’ve just been poking around websites that confirm your prejudices.

            The reason I suspect this is because I’ve encountered whole swathes of people who believe, for instance, that the collapses of the Twin Towers defied physics unless explosives or something were used. But I DO know some physics, and I KNOW that their arguments are invalid. Knowing that opened my eyes to conspirology as a phenomenon, so now I’m wary, I look for the signs, and there’s a lot of it about, especially on this thread.

        • Clark

          And here we see the problem. Once seized by conspirology with its “infallible, all-powerful puppet-masters” principle, even simple, glaringly obvious facts cease to count; they are simply forgotten, overwhelmed.

          • Clark

            Then, newcomers to the discussion question the conspirology, but this results in snide remarks from multiple conspirologists insinuating that they are either stupid or evil. Suspecting they’re surrounded by loonies the newcomers fuck off and give up. The conspirologists dismiss them as sheeple or agents and feel very superior about their “victory”, and the whole thing carries on. Great.

          • Dave

            9/11 was an act of treason by some and enemy action by others and not those blamed, but at the end of the day it was government policy to wage war on humanity on behalf of the Israel coalition, so its just sort of accepted by the public as the way it is, with a sigh that there’ll crooks at the top, unless of course you have an interest in exposing the crooks and warmongers in the public and national interest, unlike some!

          • Clark

            “it was government policy to wage war on humanity on behalf of the Israel coalition”

            And why would Israel “wage war on humanity”? Are Israelis not human?

          • Clark

            Then it needs a different name, doesn’t it?

            There is a coalition of countries that includes Israel; it also includes Saudi Arabia. But the US is clearly its most powerful member, so I am suspicious of your naming it “the Israeli coalition”. Personally I call it the Neocon alliance, though when writing comments I usually spell out the major members.

          • Dave

            Who or what are the neo-cons, can you name a few and what is their agenda and on whose behalf and why alliance rather than coalition?

  • Paul Barbara

    There are lots of anomalies re the ‘Official Narrative’ on Las Vegas. The following video seems to be proof, but it’s a bit too technical for me.
    An important correction, though, which ‘HighImpactFlix’ makes himself in the comments:
    ‘…Important Correction: This is from: Karen Omodt”Aaron C Rouse FBI is not son in law to Podesta. But he has family connections through his daughter…..’
    ‘Iron-Clad Proof of Vegas Crime Scene Cover-up They WON’T Want You to See!’

    This ‘more than one shooter’ is also the opinion of shooting victim Rocky Palermo, (who also said he believed that whoever shot him was at ground level – this would account for the very strong smell of gunpowder at ground level)) and every other wounded victim that he spoke to, believed there was more than one shooter:
    ‘Las Vegas Shooting Victim: “There Was 100% More Than One Shooter,” Gates To Concert Were Locked Shortly Before Attack’: -shooter-gates-concert-locked-shortly-attack.html?

    All exit gates except one LOCKED minutes before shooting started; TEN windows on different floors of the Mandalay Bay were broken out; reports of at least two other hotels having their lobbies shot up; changing stories of when the Mandalay Security guy was shot, then his refusing to answer questions and perhaps gagging by police; just a handful of spent bullet casings, when the floor should have been littered with them; police took over an hour to get on the 32nd floor, and break down the door; and police were not called when Security guy was shot (incomprehensible, that one).

    The singer also put up a very poor show; instead of announcing that a shooting was going on, he just ran to hide. This was the first thing that alerted some people anything was amiss.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      ‘The following video seems to be proof, but it’s a bit too technical for me.’

      In essence he is saying bullets travel faster than sound. By analysing the sound track from videos of the shooting you can discern the high frequency sounds of bullets striking the pavement and the low frequency reports of the distant gun fire. From the lag between the two you can work out the range. From doing this they figure there were two shooters. One in or near the Mandalay Bay hotel and one closer to the action.

      • glenn_nl

        Unless you’re a real expert, you’ll have a heck of a job analysing anything and getting reliable results. Bullets from rifles travel faster than sound. There’ll be the sound of a bullet impacting, plus the report of the rifle itself, plus echoes which take place from buildings and everything else sound can bounce off.

        Running and hiding when some nut starts blasting away with a fully automatic gun is doubtless instinctive, and probably the wisest thing to do. I’m sure anyone here wouldn’t want to stand at the front of an illuminated stage and call for order, even with the best heart in the world. People got the message that they should run for it soon enough in any case.

        As to the question of the sheer number of guns that didn’t attract attention – Las Vegas has a major gun show just about every week of the year. Someone walking around with a number of long rifles simply would not attract attention. I know this is hard to believe, but we don’t live in a country where “freedom protectors” are such a regular way of life, that there are more gun-shops than petrol stations in much of the country, and the large gun shows allow the purchase of huge amounts of weaponry and ammunition, no questions asked (and no ID asked for either). In America this is exactly the case, and most particularly in places like Las Vegas.

        • Dave

          So you think the sound of firing heard in the videos purporting to show the ‘Las Vegas shooting’ were from a nearby gun show?

  • Macky

    Proven evidence of foreknowledge would be most damning, and while there is a whole list of alleged indications of such foreknowledge; after checking the 911 debunking sites, the two that fail to convince me the most, are the Insider Trading, and the Dancing Israelis;

    For the Insider trading situation, you really have to read Wiki to realise there is really something to this ;

    “The papers of several finance researchers also suggest that some profited from foreknowledge of 9/11. In 2006, Allen Poteshman, a professor of Finance from the University of Illinois, published an analysis of the airline stock option trades preceding the attacks. This peer-reviewed study, published by the University of Chicago Press, came to the conclusion that an indicator of long put volume was “unusually high which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks”.[25] In January 2010, a team of Swiss financial experts published evidence for at least thirteen informed trades in which the investors had apparent foreknowledge of the attacks.[26] Finally, in April 2010, an international team of experts showed that there was a significant abnormal increase in trading volume in the option market just before the 9/11 attacks in contrast to the absence of abnormal trading volume over periods long before the attacks, concluding that their findings were “consistent with insiders anticipating the 9-11 attacks”.[27]” Wiki

    For the Dancing Israelis, there seems to be just too many strange facets to be simply explained away as innocent co-incidences, from having the camera equipment set-up suspiciously so quickly, from stating that their “purpose was to document the event”, from their demeanour of being happy & high-slapping, whereas as you would expect, other eye-witnesses were in states of shock & the very extreme opposite of happy, from their associates who were arrested in a white van with explosives heading for the George Washington Bridge, to their quite & relatively quick release to return to Israel.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Macky October 16, 2017 at 01:37
      ‘….For the Dancing ***aelis, there seems to be just too many strange facets to be simply explained away as innocent co-incidences, from having the camera equipment set-up suspiciously so quickly….’
      The cameras were set up BEFORE the alleged !st plane hit WTC 1: search “9-11 Cop Breaks Silence’ (that’s not the full title, but it will get the article; go for the ‘ ‘ one (probably 2nd down in the list).
      That’s something I didn’t know, before reading the article. So foreknowledge is obvious.

      • Macky

        Thanks Paul, I tried a few of the links resulting from your search suggestion, and although very interesting, they did not seem to actually confirm that cameras were indeed set-up before; do we know what sort of cameras, and if were tripods used ? I suspect they were unable to account why they had camera equipment so conveniently at hand at a location that had such a clear view of the Twin Towers, as that would then explain as to why this information remain unknown/ unreleased.

        BTW I may have got it wrong by stating it was the associates of the Dancing Israelis who were arrested in the white van, as it seems it was probably them themselves; also this report about explosives being found in the van doesn’t seem to be consistently reported every time.

        Is there a general consensus of opinion out there that there is indeed enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to “prove” foreknowledge ? This I think should be the first step.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Macky October 16, 2017 at 10:08
          In the link I put in the comment, it is here:
          ‘On Friday, September 14, 2001 , Fox News reported, “The New York Times reported Thursday that a
          group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday,
          and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.” – FOX.”
          Although that link doesn’t work, I found the Fox article here:

          ‘One Arrested, Others Detained at NY Airports’:

          ‘….The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.’
          Though the whole article is interesting, that sentence is the last in the long article.

          BUT, I have found the NY Times article which Fox presumably refers to, and it doesn’t actually say they set the cameras up ‘prior to’ the attack (perhaps they changed the online version – a search of the physical paper carried by a library could confirm one way or another):

          ‘….Officials said that a breakthrough came when a witness alerted the authorities to a rental car parked at Logan International Airport in Boston. The vehicle yielded an Arabic-language flight manual and other documents that contained a name on the passenger list of one of the flights. Also from the car search, officials said, investigators found names of other suspects.

          Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said….’

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Macky October 16, 2017 at 10:08
          I don’t believe the ‘Dancers’ truck had the mural, but it supposedly tested positive for explosive traces. There were up to three trucks involved. At least one was originally said to contain explosives.

          • Macky

            Thanks again Paul, whetever original reports stated a prior set-up of cameras, and then this was omitted subsequently, or not, when tailed-up with all the other suspect “supposedly innocent” or deliberately suppressed factors, the odds that they just happened to be in a perfect spot with the right equipment to opportunistically film the attacks, does make it seem very, very unlikely to me; and together with the Insider Trading aspect, ie several academic studies, including peer-reviewed analysis, that all conclude foreknowledge, (remember the maxim of always to follow the money, or as per Chomsky’s famous advice to always read the financial newspapers, as these are the most reliable as the elites need accurate information to increase their wealth,), well just on these two examples alone of pre-knowledge, I have to admit that for me it seems more likely than not that there was advance knowledge of what was going to happen.

            Once this is accepted, then we are into the realm of Conspiracy Theory, because at the very least, people must have obviously conspired to let it happen. Once you concede this, then the moral & legal line between letting a mass murdering event take place, as opposed to arranging for it to happen, is rather mute, as complicity is complicity. I would further argue that it would have been almost impossible to allow something like 911 to happen, without helping it along.

            As to how & why the three WTC building come down, it is literally an academic question in both senses of the word, because evidence of pre-knowledge is evidence of complicity; people who should be in jail are still not, and have no intention of allowing themselves to be imprison, hence the “official narrative”, and the campaign to ridicule people seeking the truth.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Macky October 16, 2017 at 14:16
            And remember, three of them appeared later on I**ali TV, and the spokesman of the three says they ‘were there to document the event’. Then the fact some, if not all, were M*ssad, as was Suter, the guy they ‘worked’ for, who ran Urban Moving Systems and skedaddled ‘back home’ after a brief visit from the FBI; when they came back for more info he was gone. And he’d managed to ‘fiddle’ the Feds out of nearly $500,000 to set up his fake firm!

          • Clark

            Macky, “…hence the “official narrative”, and the campaign to ridicule people seeking the truth”

            These are two separate but related issues.

            There are bound to be multiple official pronouncements about any serious event. Such pronouncements sometimes contain contradictory elements, and the ones from the US government about 9/11 conflict with each other to considerable extent, so there is simply no such thing as “the official narrative”.

            Additionally, there are reports from the news media organisations. These do not precisely agree with each other either, so we can’t even speak of “the media narrative”. But furthermore, some of these reports contradict or cast doubt upon government pronouncements – this is what the news media are supposed to do, though mostly they do a rather poor job of it.

            However, there is a recognisable grouping of people who very frequently refer to the complex situation outlined above as something they call “the official narrative”, and in common parlance such people are referred to as “conspiracy theorists”. They genuinely regard themselves as “seekers of truth”, but they have not equipped themselves with the intellectual tools with which to do so. Indeed, they seem reluctant to develop these tools, preferring to dismiss any challenge to their, er, unusual ideas as “supporting the official narrative”.

            In my experience, those who don’t recognise this tendency generally suffer from it. No matter what they believe about their intentions, they do not seek the truth. What they do is amplify and propagate any claims which they think challenge “the official narrative”, making only the most derisory attempts, if any, to verify them or fit them into an overall understanding.

            Nearly the same criticism applies to those who have chosen a favourite mainstream media source, and use it as a basis for everyday gossip; the difference is mostly a matter of how popular the sources are. They think they get a paper or watch the TV news to “find out what is going on” when in fact it is mostly just another form of entertainment to them. It makes them feel good about themselves, gives them a sense of shared identity and something to talk about, just as sharing alternative narratives does for conspiracy theorists.

            Of course such shallow thinking attracts ridicule proportional to the outlandishness of the propositions advanced, and of course those with something to downplay or hide try to dismiss the minority who propagate facts which expose them as being members of the former group. That does not mean that all theorising must be accorded equal respect.

            Being a conspiracy theorist is about how someone thinks rather than what they think, and it’s quite similar to being a “supporter of the official narrative”, just with a less popular narrative.

          • George

            Re: Macky October 16, 2017 at 14:16,

            Very well put. The distinction between “let it happen” and “make it happen” is morally irrelevant. Plus I agree that such an operation could not possibly have been left to the uncertainty of purely external factors. Also – if complicity (to say the least) is assumed before hand then the question of how the buildings in New York fell is also irrelevant.

          • Macky

            @George, exactly; it seems to me that the Truth Movement ( for lack of better description ) is going about it the wrong way, by focusing on the technical aspects of how, instead of focusing on proving beyond a reasonable doubt, the damning evidence of foreknowledge. If there was a compelling case made for evidence of foreknowledge, the I’m sure pressure would grow for a proper, and criminal, investigation. The Public are not dumb, witness the ever increasing numbers who don’t believe the official narrative(s), they can sense things don’t add-up & that they are being lied to, but all these technical arguments between both sides, each with their own panels of scientific “experts”, leaves most people confused, and people can’t readily relate to such specialize technicalities, whereas plain evidence of foreknowledge, is something everybody can understand & relate to;, A proper criminal investigation into foreknowledge, will reveal who knew what, how they knew, what they did or didn’t do with that knowledge, and suddenly like a house of cards tumbling down, all the other issues will inevitably be revealed in the process.

            All this focusing on the technical how is bizarre & back to front, just like investigating how a murder was committed but ignoring people who apparently knew it going to happen, & who might have had a motive ! The Insider Trading provides a cash motive, but this may just be informed people being unable to resist making a small fortune, but it’s a starting point; how did they acquired this foreknowledge ?

          • Macky

            @Paul, re that famous clip from Israeli TV; the subtitles shows the translation as “Our purpose was to document the event”, and I’ve often wondered if “mission” instead of “purpose” would have been a more accurate translation; any Hebrew speakers here ?

            And yes, the Mossad connections are yet another co-incidence for these supposedly “innocent” joyous witnesses !

    • Clark

      Macky, I have long regarded widespread foreknowledge as well evidenced; there are multiple strands of evidence indicating it, from the warnings given to the US by multiple other countries, to the police investigators obstructed and prohibited from investigating by higher authority, to the CIA withholding information from the FBI, to the cells of Israeli spies shadowing the alleged hijackers, arrested and sent back to Israel after 9/11 (reasons classified), to Coleen Rowley’s testimony, to Susan Lindauer’s testimony; it just goes on and on and on. You might find some good stuff among the many links on the following two pages:

      Search terms that may help, “Secrecy Kills” and “Who is Richard Blee?”.

      • Clark

        There has also been a lot of contention at Wikipedia, with various references being shuffled back and forth between the following two pages:

        The two pages began as one; you can imagine the to-and-fro that has followed since the page was renamed to include the “conspiracy theories” bit! There are a huge number of links, there are the articles’ histories (it may be worth scanning History for expunged sections), and of course the articles’ Talk pages. Talk pages grow continuously and consequently are periodically archived. The archived versions can usually be recalled, but sometime I have found that it takes a long time before the page is displayed.

        Macky, great to see you doing some good work; if only others would follow your example instead of indulging their egos.

  • Dave

    9/11, a new Pearl Harbour!

    Roosevelt wanted, against an election promise, to somehow, for whatever reason, get America into the war. Illegally attacking German ships never got the desired response, so he, unbeknown to Congress and American people, tried to provoke Japan. Japan was occupying China/Manchuria but got their oil supplies from America. Roosevelt gave them an ultimatum leave Manchuria or lose your oil supplies, but he never warned the Hawaii commanders of the deteriorating political situation. If they had been warned they could have been prepared and if they were prepared there wouldn’t have been an attack, because the reckless and foolish Japanese attack needed to be a surprise attack to have any chance of success. The absence of a warning to the commanders is the reason they were never court martialled and the facts soon got left behind, like 9/11, in the rush to war.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Dave October 16, 2017 at 10:52
      There is a book by a very highly decorated retired Naval officer, Robert B. Stinnett – ‘Day of Deceit’, which shows that FDR wanted to get into the war and goaded Japan (as you stated). The plan was drawn up by FDR’s National Security Adviser, with 8 incremental escalations.
      It took a year for Japan to bite, and decide to attack Pearl, figuring war with America was inevitable so they wanted to get a devastating attack in first. Contrary to most reports, the US had all of the Japanese Naval codes broken, and tracked the Japanese Task Force across the Pacific, thus knowing exactly when they would attack Pearl Harbour, but intentionally kept the information from the Pearl Commanders.
      The US had previously taken all three aircraft carriers away from Pearl, as they would take too long to replace, whereas the battleships could be replaced rapidly. They sent one to San Francisco for ‘training purposes’, and the other two were sent out delivering aircraft to island bases.
      Like 9/11, they needed a high loss of life, in order to be sure to fire up American’s indignation and thirst for revenge; approximately 2,400 sailors died. Before the attack, only 16% of Americans wanted to enter another ‘European War’; the day after the Pearl Harbour attack took place, 1,000,000 men signed up under arms. The ‘cunning plan’ (as Baldrick would say) worked a treat (just like the ‘Gulf of Tonkin LIE’ and 9/11).
      Immediately after the Pearl attack, many people had deep suspicions, but did not push for answers due to not wanting to detract from the War Effort that was immediately in full swing.

  • Macky

    Hat-tip to the Lifeboat Site where I noticed this;

    Reading it reminded me of the MSM reports just after the shooting, that a woman had been ejected about 30 minutes before for threatening behavior, telling people that they were all going to die, foreknowledge ?! Has she been traced ?

    • Clark

      Macky, take a look around the site you linked to. It’s highly sensationalist; “Sir Isaac Newton Predicted The End Of The World, And It’s SOON” and “Doomsayer Predicts Chaos, The Antichrist’s Rising, And Planet X Collision With Earth” are a couple of my favourites. Note where it links to as well; End Times Headlines, Infowars, Jeff Rense, Prepper Website, Ammo For Sale, Armageddon Online, Arms Bearing Citizen…

      None of that means it’s false, but I think it decreases the chances of it being true.

      • glenn_nl

        It’s a “prepper” site too – a huge vested interest in making sure everyone is terrified and armed to the teeth.

        What could be more terrifying than unknown groups of gunmen shooting hundreds of people, just going about their lawful business. Gasp! – they’re probably from the government too, there’s a cover-up involved!

    • Clark

      Personally, I’d dismiss a report like the one in; I’ve followed up too many similar ones that turned out to be nonsense.

      But if you’d rather give it a chance, out of respect for other readers you should attempt some verification before propagating it. The first step would be to find the woman’s Facebook page and compare the article against it for exaggeration. If it passes that test, check other things she posted on-line to see if she tended to exaggerate, sensationalise or seemed to enjoy attracting attention. Also, she was at a concert; people tend to drink etc. or just get excited by the atmosphere.

      If you’re serious about looking into this incident, you should really find as many eye witness accounts as you can. You then have a choice. You can cross-check accounts for those things reported by many people. Or you can take the conspiracy theorist’s approach by compiling all the most sensational things, even if each was reported by just one person.

    • Clark

      This sort of stuff is the tabloid sensationalism of the Internet. Again, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily false; the Daily Mail recently published an article based on stuff Craig said. It does mean you should be on your guard, though; that Daily Mail article embellished and exaggerated what Craig told them.

      Is there really any fundamental difference between “mainstream” and “alternative” media? Both carry advertisements, so both tend to sensationalise to attract readership. The health pages seem quite similar to the Daily Mail; both concentrate on cancer and sex.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Macky October 16, 2017 at 23:21
        I’ve been chasing this case up most of the day, from many angles.
        It’s pucka, alright. Here is Rick Ardito’s Facebook page (who was with Kymberley’s little group): NMtAJz04bOX2fRtN6Cg8rYvliYm6DyHpOFkY1F28HA&fref=nf

        I won’t bore people with all the sites I checked, but can answer questions if there are doubts.
        An important thing to note is that a number of sites putting up info about the Kymberley Suchomel case are suggesting she was murdered – there is absolutely no evidence, or even cause for suspicion, of that. She had epileptic fits, and had a benign pituitary cancer, both for which she was on medication. Obviously the tremendous trauma of the attack had a tremendous effect, and could well have triggered her death
        Her Facebook report was apparently taken down by her family, who were getting too much harassment from people inquiring about her or whatever.
        Understandably, they would not want that sort of pestering after losing a family member.
        But her Facebook report (and I am convinced it was hers – it was backed up by two people who were with her) was what she observed, went through, and remembered about the event.

        ‘VEGAS CASE CLOSED: Multiple Shooters Confirmed in Intel/Defense Sector Murder Rampage’:

        ‘VEGAS CASE CLOSED (pt. 2): The Nail In The Coffin!’:

        George Soros bought ‘put’ options on 1.35 million MGM stocks 60 days before attack, and MGM CEO selling 80% of his personal stock in the company on 7th September (when he knew the company was planning an operation that would raise the stock price).
        ‘Put’ options? Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeh, 9/11!

        • Paul Barbara

          There’s another point – everyone Kymberley and her friends talked to, as well as Rocky Palermo and every one he spoke to, all agreed there were more than one shooter.

        • glenn_nl

          Depends where your prejudice lies.

          Who’s responsible for all the other mass killings in the US, which occur pretty much on a daily basis? Or isn’t anyone interested in the less spectacular (i.e. lower body-count) events?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Dave October 17, 2017 at 07:27
          Is there any difference? The important thing is, it was obviously a planned operation to murder people in cold blood for financial and political reasons (including ‘gun control’), and it was not done by a ‘lone gunman’.
          And the police and FBI are covering up the truth, as are the MSM.
          The people are being attacked on many fronts, from planned attacks like Vegas, 9/11, Chemtrails, GMO’s, dangerous medications, deliberate pollution (fracking is going to permanently poison most water aquifers), weather warfare (check out freak horrendous ‘forest fires’ in California), and so on.
          They are waking up, but far too slowly. Things are only going to get worse.

        • Dave

          I don’t doubt there are many outrageous things happening, news of which is suppressed, but when something gets extensive partisan news coverage in MSM, its reasonable to ask why and on whose behalf, particularly when elementary questions are left unanswered.

          It seems to me that a range of competing interests are now involved in the false flags, a view prompted by how ridiculously fake they have become, which indicates some infighting amongst the agencies involved, to steal or expose the narrative.

          I mean Soros is a Globalist and deemed an enemy by the Zionists and although Trump is a Zionist, he wants to be an America First President, so is also deemed an enemy by the Zionists, but not as bad as the Globalists, and it appears Trump may have gained from and exposed the Las Vegas Plot with a sub plot. That is was there only meant to be a lone gunman but not the one identified, who is not credible due to the number of guns in the room no one saw him enter.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Dave October 17, 2017 at 08:45
          NeoCons are predominantly Zionists, and strictly NWO/’One World Gulag’; if that’s not Globalist, I don’t know what is.
          Either way, both are against ‘We The People’.
          ‘Financial Foolery at MGM!’:
          ‘……SECRET SOCIETY?
          MGM Resorts (Mandalay Bay, Luxor, etc) seem to have their very own secret society called ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY FOR GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION. Here’s their trademark logo, originally registered by MANDALAY RESORT GROUP in 1995

          The pyramid


          James Murren: CEO of Mandalay Bay/MGM Resorts International is a sitting member of the Homeland Security National Infrastructure Advisory Council-he’s responsible for getting legislation and regulations passed for security & technology infrastructure in public places. Things such as x-ray backscatter machines. So the CEO of Mandalay Bay is a sitting member of the Homeland Security National Infrastructure Advisory Council? This is not normal people!!!

          Ceo Murren is on the list

          The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) shall provide the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security with advice on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems

          Mandalay Bay CEO Jim Murren funding extreme and radical groups with shareholder money. In bed with Islamic terrorist. Hillary praises Heather Mur

          Murren declared that he’d match all donations from his employees to CAIR, and radical left-wing anti -Trump groups like Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL – Anti-Defamation League. His wife, Heather Murren also worked for the Obama administration on Obama’s “Commission for Enhancing National Cybersecurity” in 2016.’

          George Soros is dealt with in the first part of the article.
          We are very clearly dealing with a very high-level arranged ‘False Flag’ here.

  • Paul Barbara
    ‘….Where oh Where Is Jose Campos? Where oh Where Could He Be?
    Campos was due to appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity a couple of nights ago, which was 1 of 5 TV interviews he was scheduled for, but then mysteriously failed to show up for with notice. Darin Damme popularized the discovery emerged shortly after it was revealed that Campos was shot before the Vegas massacre has started, and not after as the official FBI narrative had claimed.
    Darin Damme, talk show host for Arizona’s largest New/Talk station, 92.3 FM has been devoting major portions of his popular radio show to demonstrate the lies and subsequent cover-up connected to the official narrative related to the Vegas mass murder. Darin has donated significant portions of his show in exposing the cover up. As he likes to say, “This is the most important story” as he details how the official narrative is being changed to fit the emerging facts. Whether Darin Damme says it or not, his audience is being led to the inescapable conclusion that there so much more to this event than is being portrayed in the mainstream media and by the ever-changing law enforcement accounts.

    Additionally, Chad Nishimura mysteriously disappeared shortly after he gave a statement to a local news network saying that Stpehen Paddock was just a “normal guy” and that “he didn’t have many bags.”
    In another JFK type of witness disappearing act,  a key witness in Las Vegas shooting kills self and and he also murdered his daughter after an FBI raid. The man, John Beilman was wanted for questioning by federal agents in connection with a communications device discovered in suspected shooter Stephen Paddock’s hotel room. This is the one death that makes the least sense and I would bet my bottom dollar that Bellman was suicided….’

    • glenn_nl

      Why don’t you devote your services to a far-right prepper site, where they’d be on-topic and welcome?

      It’s pretty obvious what the motive is for the gun-nuts and the NRA. They want to blame anything _but_ the out of control gun culture for these mass shootings. People like yourself are incredibly helpful for such people, and serve several agendas at once –

      – Blame anything but the gun culture
      – Support vast amounts of weapons being available with virtually no limits to anyone who wants them
      – Foster suspicion on anything to do with the government, in order to diminish it as a matter of principle

      Are you pleased at your role as an unwitting foot-soldier in these causes?

      • Dave

        Except these staged events are promoting the gun culture with US gun ownership going up in the perceived interests of security against a world going mad as sensationalised in MSM and ‘anti-gun’ groups. And in UK our proud tradition of unarmed policing is being undermined with armed police patrols with machine guns due to a critical terror alert in response to a ‘bucket bomb’ that doesn’t even melt the plastic bag its carried in!!!

      • Paul Barbara

        @ glenn_nl October 17, 2017 at 08:22
        I am pleased to be exposing the truth as I see it, as best I can.
        I appreciate that those whose blinkers have become an integral part of themselves will dig their heels in, and refuse to see the truth – que sera…

        • glenn_nl

          We can only strive to your level, Paul. Of course you are exposing The Truth, whereas mere mortals like me are limited to far less grand aims. It must be very exciting being as wonderful, brave and truthful as your majestic self – how do you manage to interact with such craven individuals as me can only be a function of your infinite patience and understanding.

  • glenn_nl

    Here’s a post by Greg Palast:

    He’s an investigative journalist – a genuine one. Does the gumshoe work, tracks down sources, finds out facts and makes sure they’re verifiable. He doesn’t make stuff up or go for dubious, sensationalist sources, implying shadowy forces which are unknown to us are secretly manipulating everything.

    Strangely enough, this _genuine_ reporter doesn’t talk about any of the sinister manipulations being mooted here by the usual conspiracy buffs. So I doubt very much they’ll be interested in what he’s got to say about it. On the off-chance they are, here’s his website:

    Great guy. Been following his stuff for years, got a couple of his books. Very concerned about fraud, human rights, economic justice and the manipulation of elections, and so on. Just the regular, boring but absolutely real stuff that the genuine powers-that-be would rather you not be concerned about. Go chase that shiny object over there, instead.

    Before turning to journalism as an investigative reporter for The Guardian and BBC Television, Greg Palast was an investigator of fraud and racketeering for governments and labor unions worldwide. His investigations have appeared in Rolling Stone, Harper’s and New Statesman. Known as the reporter who exposed how Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush purged thousands of Black voters from Florida rolls to steal the 2000 election for George Bush. Palast has written four New York Times bestsellers, including Armed Madhouse, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits, and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, now out as major motion non-fiction movie: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Case of the Stolen Election (the brand new, updated, post-election edition).

    • Dave

      There are many good causes to campaign for and people will prioritise and operate self-censorship on some issues in the interests of utility. I don’t disparage this as we all do it depending on circumstances, but it doesn’t alter the truth of matter regarding the censored issues.

      • glenn_nl

        “… it doesn’t alter the truth of matter regarding the censored issues.

        Indeed, but you’ll have to understand, Dave. The rest of us out here are only searching for the truth and are not – unlike yourself of course – already in full possession of it.

        Speaking of truth, did you used to be ex-expat, or doesn’t your love for the truth stretch far enough to answer a question as straightforward as that?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_nl October 17, 2017 at 09:01
      Greg Palast does a good job, in his sphere of knowledge. I have met him a couple of times, and tried to get him interested in 9/11 Trtuth, but he didn’t want to know. Similarly John Pilger, and others.

      • glenn_nl

        You mean they didn’t just take your word on the matter as final? I’m shocked, shocked at their lack of professionalism!

        • Paul Barbara

          @ glenn_nl October 17, 2017 at 09:57
          Oddly enough, I didn’t expect or want them to ‘take my word for it’, any more than I would wan’t anyone to.
          If you re-read my comment, you will see I wrote ‘interest him’ in the subject.

          • Clark

            Dave, Craig Murray is someone I associate with personally, a couple of times a year generally, and I speak with him on the ‘phone more frequently than that. He is not “self-censoring” about 9/11. He’s a remarkably gentle and intelligent person, someone I look up to in both regards. He’s highly social, so he associates with many other highly intelligent people, people from all over the world, so he has access to expert advice in just about any field.

            I think you should learn from him rather than make assumptions about him. For instance, in the original post of this thread he mentioned that buildings might not be as strong as is made out. Respecting Craig’s opinion I went and looked and guess what? Turns out the Twin Towers were made from less material for their size and height than just about any other buildings in the world; the Empire State has nearly three times as much.

            Craig provided this thread for exactly the reason he said, because discussion about the building collapses on 9/11 tend to derail other discussions. Comments used to close automatically and when I was moderating I used to reopen comments here each time that started to happen.

            You must have noticed that Craig is a vocal critic of Israel; he’s currently being sued in the High Court by someone who criticised him for that. But he’s also a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia and the marriage of convenience between the Neocon alliance and “Islamic” extremism. You would be doing the world a favour if you looked into Saudi Arabia, the Quincy Agreement, and how the Wahabbist ideology of Saudi Arabia proved useful to the US in countering the spread of more socialist government in the Middle East, because it is a matter that the corporate media is strangely silent about. The film Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis is challenging but very informative. The situation is more complex than you think.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_nl October 17, 2017 at 09:01
      I read that before you put it up – I subscribe to his newsletter (or email chain).
      ‘…Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush purged thousands of Black voters from Florida rolls…’
      Agreed; but they did not steal the election – the election was stolen by illegal interference by the Supreme Court, who stopped the recount.

      • glenn_nl

        And why would a recount have been needed, if the voting had been straight in the first place?

        Just as a point of accuracy, the Supreme Court decides what’s legal. Anything they rule is by definition legal. It might not be right or just, of course, but it is legal.

        But you probably just wanted to put a bit of a point in, to indicate your superior knowledge on all things. I’m seeing why Clark has got thoroughly sick of all this.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ glenn_nl October 17, 2017 at 10:03
          No, it was not legal, because it was not their job to decide the issue; it was supposed to be decided by Congress – ‘seperation of powers’, and all that.
          Supreme Court Judges are political appointees, and as such are as likely to be corrupt as those that put them there. And many are.

          • glenn_nl

            It wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to “decide the issue”? Hah! They must really have wondered why the case was put in front of them, in that case! 🙂

            When you can spare some time from picking up the slack left by lazy investigative so-called journalists (Pilger, Palast etc.) , perhaps you could write up some papers – put the Supreme Court straight on their actual place in the legal system.

    • Macky

      @Glenn, thanks for the article that the banned Bevin had linked to in the Off-Guardian that I mentioned above; and if you care, I have some questions;

      1) Does it not bothered you that when a big horrific event occurs, where people had been murdered, that reports & videos appear of some of the people that were caught-up in it, but stating versions/details that are different from that being reported in the MSM ? Are you comfortable with blindly accepting the MSM given their track histories, when such anomalies surface ?

      2) Do you believe that there is reasonable evidence to suggest foreknowledge iro 911 ?

      • glenn_nl

        Macky: YW/

        1/ If you’ve found some major event, when horror and panic ensue, yet every single witness tells the same story, all the accounts are completely consistent and nothing is puzzling, do let me know. When two vehicles collide or a fight between some people breaks out, the witnesses will invariably have a hard job agreeing to what happened. Try attending any court case where the facts are in dispute (which is nearly all of them unless someone pleads out for a deal).

        2/ Of course there was. Security agencies worldwide were providing warnings, Dick Clark was running around with his hair on fire trying to get the Bush administration to pay attention. Only the most craven Bush stooges would suggest nobody was expecting anything.

        • Macky

          Thank you for responding to the questions, which I assume you attempted to answer in good faith; however I find the answers unsatisfactory for the following reasons;

          Answer 1: What you state about different accounts from different witnesses from the same incident is of course very often true, but it’s a bit of a red-herring cop-out because:

          a) We are not talking about vehicles collisions or fights, we are referring specifically to MSM saturation coverage of incidents of mass murder, which inevitably have inevitable political connotations/consequences; as we already know that MSM is pro-Government partisan & often gets it “wrong”, every message they give out needs to be scrutinised, especially when there are reported anomalies.

          b) It’s hardly irrational to have an enquiring mind & to be sceptical of information given out by Governments and the MSM, rather the opposite case in fact, to take as gospel what they put out is the very definition of irrationality; which is not to say that there are not cranks out there with absurdly unlikely theories etc, it takes all sorts of people to make the World go around, but if you come across such absurdists, either you explain rationally why you think their pov is wrong, or you paid them no attention at all, simply ignore, but what you mustn’t do, is simply heap derision & scorn, and try to get them to accept your own pov.

          Answer 2: You seem to have completely missed the point that I was getting out, as spelt out in my previous comments; I’m not referring to ignored warnings given out by various security services, I referring to people who must have known what was going to happen on the 911, either by engaging in Insider Trading just before in order to make a financial profit, or had enough detailed foreknowledge to be ready to film the attacks, like the infamous Dancing Israelis. My point is that this evidence of foreknowledge is in fact complicity to mass murder; so I ask again, do you believe that there is evidence of foreknowledge iro 911 to warrant a criminal investigation ?

          Going back to your attitude to people who question the official narratives that we are spoon-fed by the MSM, this guy makes the same points that I’ve tried to make above;

          • glenn_nl

            1a – Yes agreed. Most particularly, when they’re coming from Official Sources. Or a “Government spokesman said”, “An Official said” and so on. This is somewhat different, official announcements were more of a “meh” than anything else. No policy of significance was on the line.

            1b -I agree up to a point, but it does become boringly predictable that every time a murderous incident like this happens, the usual suspects (foilers in this case) knee-jerk to “False Flag!”.

            Either the incident never happened, the killers didn’t exist, the dead people aren’t dead, the bereaved are crisis actors, and it’s all so transparent. Hey – that’s not real blood, the lorry wasn’t damaged enough, this or that…. blah blah blah. Or it _did_ happen, in which case it was government agents murdering civilians.

            Or both! Both theories come up, we never hear argument among the foilers when their respective theories clash so entirely.

            2 – Agreed again! There did appear to be inside trading. Obviously, a conspiracy was involved since more than one criminal was at work that day. Naturally, someone might have wanted to make money if they caught wind of it. A full investigation should be an obvious element in the investigation of this crime.

          • Macky


            1a – I would reply that MSM is effectively an “Official Source”; the role it still claims to have, of being investigative & holding Government/Power to account, is now a widely acknowledged to be a hollow mockery; they have proven in the last few years to be nothing other than stenographers, literally presenting a Government Spokesperson’s briefing or Government Press Release as the Truth, and reporting it as unbiased “News”. As to your somewhat bizarre comments of the pro-Government agenda-driven MSM saturation coverage as being “meh” (!), and that “No policy of significance was on the line”, well I’m shaking my head in disbelieve that a person who comments regularly on a Political Blog, can make such statements; from Gun-Control, to increasing the Police State, etc, every major event of this nature by definition will inherently have political aspects/repercussions.

            1b – Something or somebody being “boringly predictable” is not an excuse for rudeness, scorn or ridicule, especially if you haven’t got the decency to engage in a civil engagement to debate and examine the issues, so as to explain exactly why you disagree; if you think something/somebody is being so totally bonkers about something, that’s it not worth even trying to reason with them, then simply ignore; life is too short to respond to every POV that is expressed on this Blog that you don’t agree with ! What you do instead is irrationally paint everybody with the same strawman brush, using the most absurd CTs you can think off , to then rubbish each & everybody who dares to question any parts of MSM narratives that we are bombarded with.

            2. Welcome to the 911 Truth Movement ! You are a self-declared bonafide Conspiracy Theorist, as laughingly, the 911 Commission Report concluded that all the verified abnormal patterns in trading were just “coincidental “ ! Do you wear a tin-foil hat ?! 😀

          • Clark

            “I would reply that MSM is effectively an “Official Source”; the role it still claims to have, of being investigative & holding Government/Power to account, is now a widely acknowledged to be a hollow mockery; they have proven in the last few years to be nothing other than stenographers”

            Macky, that is a gross oversimplification.

            Most importantly, the news media is a colossal power in its own right, and it frequently exerts great power upon government – but in the interests of its billionaire owners and corporate advertiser paymasters rather than on behalf of the public. When it unquestioningly echoes the government position, it is either convergence of interests, or effectively a bribe. We overlook this dynamic at our peril, for it is essential to understanding the behaviours of both government and media.

            But there is also another dynamic at play, one which occasionally works to the advantage of the public. Of necessity, the media needs to employ journalists, some of whom will insist upon pursuing motives of their choosing. An intelligent journalist who has a good reputation with the readership can play off the various media organisations against each other and thus secure publication of articles that the editors and/or owners would rather ignore. The media organisations are forced to manage these individuals as best they can, so occasionally we see informative articles buried deep in media organisations websites, any prominent front-page links disappearing after a very short time. One of the things I value about Wikipedia is that diligent editors often link and archive such articles, the following being an example at, the original having been moved:


          • Clark

            Macky, you are right that people such as you, me, Mary and Glenn can be derided as conspiracy theorists by those who would discredit the information we sometimes propagate; Craig Murray’s revelations were denigrated in just this way by the liar Jack Straw. However, this in no way places us in the same category as most of the other frequent commenters on this thread, currently indulging in “analysis” of ancient cartoons as if doing so served some serious political purpose. Such self indulgence is clearly recognisable and as such deserves a title, and for better or worse, “conspiracy theorists” has come to be the commonly accepted term. Such commenters have little of substance with which to defend their frippery, and thus resort to conflating their fantasies and compilations of anomalies with serious political messages, ie: “you call me a conspiracy theorist but that’s what they said about Craig”, and all to often appending an insinuation that merely using that description automatically proves one to be working for the CIA etc.

            Note that the above is a binary argument and as such is an oversimplification. Some commenters present highly competent arguments in certain fields, but then stray onto other subjects in which they have only conspirology to offer. Unfortunately they seem incapable of recognising the boundaries of their competence.

            Politeness has its value, of course, but when an argument is illogical or simply fake it must be called out as such, or we discredit important political arguments by associating them with bunk, thus playing directly into the hands of the propagandists.

          • glenn_nl

            Macky: Thanks for the discussion.

            1a/ “well I’m shaking my head in disbelieve that a person who comments regularly on a Political Blog, can make such statements; from Gun-Control, to increasing the Police State…”

            i was talking specifically about the Las Vegas shooting here. There was no gun-control measure in the works, and there won’t be this time either. It doesn’t matter how many people are killed by guns (which runs into 5-figures each year), nothing will be done except loosen what feeble restrictions remain.

            I’m not kidding. A major gun-related killing episode results in more guns, more ammo, and legislation passing which makes it even easier to arm up. The bleating from Republicans/ teabaggers/ gun-nuts that “Dems are coming for our guns!” is utter BS.

            Of course, if it designated “terrorism” instead and there were state actors that even a small fraction of this carnage could be blamed on, if the Las Vegas killer was a Muslim, then action would most certainly be taken.

            1b/ Rudeness is not something you’ve personally always been successful in avoiding, if memory serves (which it does). All the same, how long are you going to have a polite conversation with someone who insists you are stupid, a liar, an agent of the state, frightened of the truth, inferior in every respect when it comes to knowledge and reasoning, and that same person puts forward views that are demonstrable nonsense, while claiming deep understanding and bravery and supposed access to accurate information way beyond the likes of yourself?

            2/ By very definition 9/11 was a conspiracy, unless one believed it was a one-man operation. Heck, with those remote-controlled holograms of John’s, maybe it could have been!

            Seriously though – there is more than enough even in the contradictory Official Story to condemn the US administration for incompetence, gross negligence and perhaps willful neglect. But you are showing – with all due respect – binary thinking here. Unless one believes the Official Story in its entirety, then you must believe every last conspiracy out there regarding 9/11. And visa-versa.

            This is why some foilers want to push people like myself into one or the other camp, because it’s easier to deal with that way.

          • Macky

            @Glenn, just noticed you had responded.

            1a) Sorry but the Las Vegas Shooting, like all other incidents that are given national & international mass coverage will inevitably have political implications; that no guns controls were being considered or will be taken, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a continuous agenda to push for them, which doesn’t mean to say “they” arranged it, but the Gun Control Lobby will & have already used this shooting to continue their agenda; I noticed that you made no comment about the possibility that the Government uses such incidents to always increased the powers of the Police State, and to equip Police with even more & more powerful weapons, as a “response”.

            1b) In the earlier days of this Blog, when people got away with the most horrendous of abusive behaviour, my rule was to reply/repay like with like; now I believe that politely disagreeing, or just ignoring is a far better use of one’s time.

            2) Sorry to say that your “Unless one believes the Official Story in its entirety, then you must believe every last conspiracy out there regarding 9/11. And visa-versa.”, is just another recurrence of your habit of fighting with yourself, as it’s the strawest of strawmen, as you can’t really believe there are people who simultaneously believe all the outlandish & contradictory CT’s about 911 ?!!

          • Clark

            …”your “Unless one believes the Official Story in its entirety, then you must believe every last conspiracy out there regarding 9/11. And visa-versa.”, is just another recurrence of your habit of fighting with yourself”

            Oh come off it Macky, “you’re just a supporter of the official story” is a standard (non) argument on this thread and others like it. Even you did it to me, and got very personal when I demonstrated its logical falsity.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Very interesting series of articles on Paul Craig Roberts’ website starting with a letter, the title of which sums it up:

    Military Surgeon Says Videos of Las Vegas Gunshot Victims Are Fake

    Paul Craig Roberts printed his letter and invited comment from other trauma surgeons. This led to more equally interesting articles.

    The Mystery Deepens

    UPDATE: This from a UK trauma surgeon

    More Responses to the Military Surgeon’s Letter

    An American Trauma Surgeon Responds

    The respondents are all in agreement with the first surgeon and explain why in their expert opinion. Which leads to a mystery. Acoustic evidence seems to suggest bullets hitting the ground, in which case they must have been real, and yet a load of fake victims are being paraded before the cameras. The question is, why?

    One surgeon writing from the UK says this:

    In your October 11 article “More Responses to the Military Surgeon’s Letter”, you ask “Is the real conspiracy one of establishing official stories as fact regardless of evidence?”

    There is a strong case for that contention. I refer you to the October 2 Guardian article titled “Amber Rudd: Viewers of Online Terrorist Material Face 15 Years in Jail”. The link to this article is

    In the article, the Home Secretary is quoted thus: “I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law.”

    The inclusion of “far-right propaganda” in her statement is ominous. It appears that the stage is being set for the thwarting of all independent investigation in the aftermath of a tragedy, with severe legal penalties for those who do not comply.’

    I’m not sure if I agree with the main thrust of his point, but I do agree that the legislation being introduced by the Home Secretary is very ominous in this respect. It wouldn’t take much ‘mission creep’ to extend it to the sort of material being discussed on this thread.

    I recommend the letters, they make very interesting reading.

    • glenn_nl

      JHC – so not only was the shooter not really the shooter (because there were many of them – every brave truth-seeker knows that by now!), there weren’t even any real victims?

      When that happened a couple of weeks ago, I did wonder how long it would take for the tin-foilers to start tripping themselves up in their rush to deny _every aspect_ of the news item.

      Take a look at this:

      Aren’t there enough bodies there for you? Why not latch onto any one of the hundreds of stories reported every year. Is it only when it’s a world-wide news story that it gets exciting and glamorous enough for you and all your like-minded conspiracy buffs?

      What’s the threshold, KoWN – 10 bodies, 20, what? How many are required before your interest in engaged. The Virginia Tech massacre, the Columbine case – plenty of deaths there, right? So why not get to work?

      • Clark

        “…how long it would take for you and your ilk to start sniping”

        SO: Conspiracy theorists highlighting contradictions between MSM reports equals “truth seeking”;
        BUT: Blog commenters finding contradictions between conspiracy theorists’ theories equals “sniping”.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ KingofWelshNoir October 17, 2017 at 09:21
      I checked out all the links, and have copied your comment onto the 9/11 Forum Vegas thread.

    • glenn_nl

      I imagine they like gamblers and spenders at these places, not nut-cases asking stupid questions.

  • Clark


    …and Them.

    We are the fearless truth-seekers, They are the propagandists. We are honest, They try to deceive.

    Of course, if you’re a creationist you have no trouble believing that human communication was literally designed, and then provided as-is for the purpose of factual communication, implying that any deviation from that is wilful abuse of one of God’s gifts. But if you accept that humans are jumped-up monkeys rather than fallen angels, consideration of the situation leads to the probable conclusion that interpersonal communication was selected for in proportion to how much it helped its possessor to manipulate others’ behaviour…

    No. Media organisations and impromptu groups of conspiracy theorists couldn’t be displaying natural manipulativeness? Surely they couldn’t be fundamentally similar like that. Could they?

  • Clark

    So on the one hand the Las Vegas shooting was staged, fake. On the other, it was Mossad. The obvious conclusion is that someone is trying to frame Mossad!

    • Dave

      The event was a false flag for financial gain involving the usual suspects, which to me, appears to have been compromised, exposed, by the ridiculously obvious addition of Stephen Paddock.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Dave October 17, 2017 at 17:22
        ‘Insider Trading and Financial Anomalies Surrounding the Las Vegas Attack’:

        I believe this was a multi-faceted agenda operation, with important financial aspects, but not that the main agenda was financial.
        Notice how important the date 9/11/2017 is to all the companies’ share prices.
        The PTB always like to rub our noses in the clues, knowing that only a small minority will connect the dots, and they don’t care that we can see through what they are up to (up to a point), because they know we will be marginised by their MSM, and their disinfo merchants.

        • glenn_nl

          PB: “The PTB always like to rub our noses in the clues

          I know! Having a laugh aren’t they? The SOB’s.

        • Dave

          Yes part of the mafia’s strength is the fear engendered by letting you know they are ruthless, powerful and can get away with their crimes.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    This is how one of the surgeon describes the damage caused by modern high velocity rounds:

    ‘Most of these military style weapons now shoot high velocity bullets above 3000 f.p.s. muzzle velocity and when these bullets strike a human body they often cause the bullet to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus creating wounds way out of proportion to the calibre size. Often these wounds are so devastating many have considered the modern M16 type assault rifle rounds (and other similar type of rounds) to be inhuman. ‘

    And remembering how when J. F. Kennedy was shot in the head, the exit wound took off most of the back of his head, what do posters make of this chap claiming to have been shot with a bullet through the head?

    • Macky

      First thoughts, it’s like somebody is having a laugh & seeing what level of absurdity can be put out with a straight face, or maybe there’s a little competition as to who can put out the most outrageous absurdity !

      Yet saying that, I wouldn’t put my life on it that it’s false, as miraculous things do miraculously occur, just ask any religious person ! 😀

        • Macky

          Miracles don’t need dressing up ! In fact they don’t need dressing of any sort at all ! 😀

          Seriously no idea, and very very suspect; anybody with any medical expertise to speculate, or failing that, Glenn ? 😉

          • Clark

            It is likely that some of the wounds were caused by ricochet, which decreases the velocity of the round a great deal.

          • glenn_nl

            Many bullets had possibly already gone through somebody else.

            No disrespect, but your lack of thought, knowledge or imagination doesn’t equal proof.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ KingofWelshNoir October 17, 2017 at 20:11
          Exactly. Maybe they didn’t want to muss up his hair for the forthcoming video interview.
          And two days after the ‘shooting’ he was fit enough for a 22 hour road trip home. They sure make ’em tough over the pond!
          And the pics they showed of the ‘bullet holes’ was a dark haired guy with little hair.

        • Macky

          @Glenn; “No disrespect, but your lack of thought, knowledge or imagination doesn’t equal proof.”

          Well none taken, especially as I didn’t claim “proof” that the head-shot guy is a fraud; I actually stated that it does look at face-value a bit miraculous, but hey, guess what miracles do happen (!), and I also stated that I wouldn’t bet my life that it’s fake. Which is why I asked if anybody has medical experience, and which is why I’m sure KOWN is asking for a rational explanation as to why the wound area hadn’t been shaved. We don’t know & cannot know, but can only form most likely correct scenarios after consideration of opinions of people we personally believe are credible & neutral.

          You really must stop this constant habit of yours of presuming what somebody is stating, instead of actually taking in what they are actually stating, indeed spelling it out like I did already in this case; otherwise you’ll just keep going-on inventing straw-men arguments, which means that you are basically always fighting with yourself !

  • Clark

    The simplest “conspiracy theory” about the Las Vegas massacre is that it was simply a distraction – it flooded the news just as the Spanish government were brutally suppressing the independence referendum in Catalonia.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Macky October 17, 2017 at 22:05
      From Macky’s link:

      ‘…The real fake news is the fake narrative that flows perpetually forth from these functionaries of the MSM to dominate the discourse which the billionaire owners allow voiced via their facilities. In this manner, we are all being played, all the time, and have been since birth.

      For the record, the official narrative follows certain principles. Among them are:

      1. The U.S. is never wrong in any conflict with other nations.
      2. If the U.S. ever happens to be wrong, it was a reasonable mistake.
      3. U.S. intentions are always benign and honorable.
      4. U.S. judgment is always objective and fair.
      5. The U.S. is a democracy and always supports democracy.
      6. Americans are a peaceful people.
      7. Americans are a superior people, so American lives matter more.
      8. Americans are always on the high moral ground because God is on our side.
      9. The word of our leaders is sufficient proof of any assertion.
      10. The U.S. is the greatest nation in history.
      11. Private is always better than public.
      12. Individualism is always better than collectivism.
      One-Sided ‘News’…..’

      We tin foil hatters should write this list out 100 times, each day, till we amend our ways and learn to love the lies…

      • Clark

        Thing is Paul, I only have to invert the meaning of the first ten points to get something very close to your position on anything, which suggests that mostly you’re just reacting to propaganda rather than anything deeper.

  • Paul Barbara

    There are reports phones and laptops were confiscated by the FBI, and when returned had been wiped:
    ‘Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone footage wiped clean by FBI’:

    That would be par for the course for the FBI. They did the same with gas Station and hotel video footage of the Pentagon ‘event’.
    And the British police collected all phones from people who were on the London Eye at the Westminster Bridge/Parliament ‘event’. I don’t know if they were wiped, as there was no further mention of it.

    And when I was on Gibraltar observing the ‘Inquest’ of the three IRA murdered by the SAS, an off-duty policeman demanded my film of a ‘Fun Day’ event that took place, saying I had taken a picture of him. I said ‘no I haven’t; where where you? and he pointed up to a road overlooking where I was; the road had a wall facing where I was, and it was jammed with people overlooking the proceedings below. He was very insistant, so grudgingly I gave him the film. When I tried to get it returned the following day, I was told that unfortunately it had accidentally been exposed, but that they would gladly replace it.
    I suspect what they were after was film I had taken the day before (a Saturday) for an Irish journalist, who was covering the Inquest but didn’t have a photographer with him. He wanted pics of the bullet holes in the gas station and some other shots. Luckily I had given the film to the journalist on the Saturday, and the pics I had taken on the Sunday were on a new film and of no importance.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Macky October 18, 2017 at 00:13
      I got these links from the ‘comments’ on your link:

      ‘Wrestlers Randy Savage & Hulk Hogan predict 9/11 Attack in 1989!’:

      ‘9 11 Predictive Programming in Cartoons’:

      ‘The 911 Pyramid Mega-Ritual’:

      The one I had seen some of the cartoons, but this is an excellent compilation. The third is a bit more esoteric.

      • Macky

        @Paul, not surprised these links were posted to an article about subliminal programming; on the one hand the Twin Towers were such a iconic symbol of NYC, indeed of the US, that’s it’s hardly surprising that they feature so often in popular culture, as I’m sure similar compilations could be made for the Statue of Liberty; on the other hand subliminal techniques are not fantasy, there is a science behind it & the advertising industry uses them.

          • Macky

            @KOWN, Well I used both hands to indicate that I’m undecided, so far; is it not true that when you keep looking for “connections/symbols”, you start to see them everywhere ? For sure there must be an element of this going on in some of these accounts.

            Question is are the connections detailed in this Kennedy/Lincoln link (see below), a lucky trillion to one string of co-incidences, like somebody winning the lottery, or the result of somebody spending untold time cherry-picking co-incidences, after discarding thousands of dis-similarities ? Can a similar string of co-incidences be made for a match of two other people, if somebody have unlimited time & resources ? If the answer is “No” then what do we have here ?! It can’t be a conspiracy in the sense we would understood, so what is ? Something supernatural/mystic/divine, or highly evolved aliens toying with us for fun ?!

            Maybe we should really hope that the answer is not “No”, and statistically the weirdest coincidences can indeed occur in the infinite possibilities of rational reality.


          • glenn_nl

            Came across that series of Kennedy/ Lincoln assassination links quite a few years ago. Assuming it’s all true, of course, one has to conclude that this is a remarkable coincidence. We note these things because they are coincidences, otherwise there would be nothing to comment about.

            Our brains are extremely effective pattern recognition devices – that’s possibly its primary function. Patterns which represent danger, opportunities for food and so on. Schizophrenia has been considered as our pattern-matching skills gone into overdrive, or possibly it’s just the filters which usually eliminate patterns which are not useful are not working. So such a person will think pattern are significant when they are not. There’s often a logical error made between cause and effect, but we can go even further into unhelpful territory by seeing an effect when it is simply an irrelevant coincidence.

          • Clark

            Glenn, it’s a balance for which there is no ideal “setting”. Too lax, and eventually you’ll miss a tiger in the bushes. Too suspicious, and you’ll never go near bushes for fear of tigers. Anyone who has tried to adjust bicycle wheel bearings will have encountered the same effect; you have to put up with a bit of slack or the bearing will bind on at least part of each revolution.

            Life deals with this by generating diversity among the population and variation in individuals’ moods.

            But what seems to happen on internet forums like this is that commenters at the suspicious end of the spectrum find each other, group together and fortify each other. Hence we see people with entirely contradictory positions backing each other up against any who attempt logical challenge. In the case of 9/11, this has all but taken over.

            What is needed is an unlikely synthesis. Now would I write that if I was working for the CIA?

          • Clark

            KingofWelshNoir, you might use your time and energy more effectively by asking yourself what action might be taken if such coincidences actually reflect something real. The point of Craig’s story is that he actually did something; he took action against his own material interests to try and improve matters for a greater number of people.

            Maybe these tiny snippets of information do indicate the action of some nebulous, malign agency, and maybe that agency really does taunt people like you and Paul Barbara, simply for its own entertainment. But so what? You still need to decide the best method of countering it.

            In the case of 9/11, maybe all the leads apparently pointing to the schism in Saudi power as being the source really have been planted, and some other mechanism entirely was responsible for the attacks. But so what? Even if that is so, the explanation we’re being taunted with is still the most vulnerable point for exposing the ongoing Neocon exploitation and manipulation in the Middle East.

          • glenn_nl

            Hmm… further to this, I got a bit suspicious about the Kennedy/ Lincoln thing, so decided to look at one of the claims. Did Lincoln have a secretary called Kennedy? Couldn’t find any reference to one. But I did find a reference to this:


            Seems like the whole thing is bogus, with a smattering of coincidences that are bound to crop and stand out up if you bother looking for them, while excluding all those things which didn’t match up.

        • Paul Barbara

          Macky October 18, 2017 at 10:55
          Check out this hour-long video; there is NO WAY this doesn’t indicate foreknowledge; the question is by who?
          There have always been people who could predict the future; similarly, even if the person/s don’t consciously know what is going to happen, their subconscious can urge them to write about or make a cartoon or movie about a scenario, just as people write novels. In short, they are ‘inspired’ to write or make a movie; the inspiration comes through their subconscious.
          If you believe in God and the Devil, this is an easy concept to understand. The Devil doesn’t normally manifest himself and say hey Bill, why don’t you go and kill Joe Blogs? No, working through the subconscious, he builds up a hatred and loathing of Joe Blogs, to the extent that eventually off you toddle, buy a gun and kill poor old Joe Blogs.
          People throughout history have predicted the future, some in ways that are capable of several meanings, like Nostradamus. Witches, wizards, witch doctors, even Masons claim to have ‘second sight’.
          But take Albert Pike, head of worldwide Scottish Rite Freemasonry; in 1871 he wrote a book, ‘Morals and Dogma’, predicting three World Wars.
          So at some level, consciously or subconsciously, some people can predict the future.
          The following hour long video gives a great number of cartoons and movies on the 9/11 theme, some at least with uncanny predictive clues ‘hidden’ in plain sight.
          ‘9/11 Predicted in Media’ *Ultimate*:

          Sorry I waffled on a bit there, but there is no way many of these cartoons and movies were not made with foreknowledge, although the movie/cartoon maker may not have had a clue themselves – they just got ‘inspired’.
          The future is known, but not to most of us mere mortals, who haven’t ‘sold their souls’ to Old Nick’.

          • Clark

            “The future is known…”

            The conditions for free will are that the future be undefined and the past be unchangeable. “Selling your soul to Old Nick” consists, obviously, of abdicating your free will, in other words abandoning your conscience. This choice was made clear to me after the suicide of a girlfriend; “If I could turn back time…” But it would have been the wrong choice, it was better to live with it, and eventually die with it.

            Can God make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it? As odd as it may seem, God too must have faith in God, or he’d cease to be. God is so fair that he plays by the same rules as the rest of us; no “one rule for the rich, another for the rest” for him. That means the future is as yet undetermined.

    • glenn_nl

      Is that really the latest story? The datestamp is 12:01AM BST 23 Sep 2001. Not _that_ recent.

      I wonder how those holograms were pictured from miles away from every angle, seen against a clear blue sky, and also tracked by radar. Bit odd that. I’m also puzzled that passengers made calls from mobiles from them, considering their transport was in fact a hologram.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Wow my input must be more subversive than I thought! As soon as I announce my intention to post in answer to Macky’s question on coincidence the twin defenders of the Orthodoxy jump in to debunk my post in advance. Guys, be patient! My post on coincidence and the occult roots of 9/11 – oops! jumped the gun — is going to be the highlight of your week.

    • glenn_nl

      You actually think others are precluded from discussing a subject, if you’ve indicated that you might say something about it at some point in the future?

      I very much doubt if anything you could write would be the highlight of my week, KoWN. No offence.

    • Clark

      KoWN, you would have to have a very unorthodox view of orthodoxy to think that I defend it! More likely you’ve been merely reacting against my comments rather than reading and understanding what I’ve actually written.

    • Clark

      Ooh, I refreshed the page, twice, but the comment above didn’t appear. I had to go to the feed and open the link on it there to see the comment again. T.H.E.Y must be trying to suppress it because it’s so revealing.

      I know how it works. T.H.E.Y run down the insect numbers until they’ve killed us of, and then T.H.E.Y run them right back up again. Simple.

    • glenn_nl

      I noticed this particularly while riding the motorbike – nothing like as many insects crashing against the visor. There’s been a huge drop-off in the past few years. It’s not just insects though – the number of non-human vertibrates has crashed by 58% in the last four decades:

      But then, given this is the BBC and the World Wildlife Fund etc., it’s probably all just “fake news” and made up stuff so that so-called “green taxes” can be imposed on us. Phnauh… we’ve rumbled them, don’t worry about that.

      • Clark

        Keep your bribe of despicable Putinov from Lidl’s. You know I only touch the weed, and you’re mocking me with your new username, which is against moderation rules. MOds: Please permit his username for its illustrative value!

      • Phil the ex frog

        The first web page promoting what might be called a conspiracy theory was about the WWF. One page, bright green background, flashing text. It accused the WWF of providing cover for SAS operations. Far from unconvincing. The second was about the Gisa pyramids being built by aliens. Then Alex Jones turned up and the Internet lost its innocence.

    • Clark

      Or is it the evil globalist Guardian CIA mouthpiece reporting fake science for the elite to make us worry ourselves to death, to save the fucking insects!!!!!

      • Clark

        Human life is more important than insects, right? If it’s a choice between us and the insects going extinct, the insects will have to go, yes? We have to stop these criminal scientists with their insect-killing nets, and the supine MSM which spreads their lies!!!

    • KingofWelshNoir

      Must be the chemtrailing. The Illuminati must want to die in a non-viable ecosphere…

      Ha ha I wouldn’t put it past them! Haven’t they got a ‘Doomsday Seed Vault’ underground in Norway? Maybe they’ve got one for animals too and intend restocking the planet after we’re gone.

    • Clark

      I don’t know, but if just one ever comes up with just the right theory, the frame will turn to dust at almost free-fall all by itself.

      • Clark

        Yes I hope so. Isn’t that how I qualify to be one of your lot? Or do I have to make a selection from theories on suitable websites?

      • Clark

        It’s the window of discourse that’s considered acceptable, and PR companies are employed to move its boundary, usually to the political right.

        • Clark

          When you comment, if you click a couple of times on the Name field a list should drop down. Click on your usual name and it should go back to normal.

          • Clark

            OK, delete “OW ABOUT” from the Name field, and then type your own name back into it. Then submit another comment and that should fix it.

            The moderators, and even WordPress administrators can’t change what name gets posted; they can only alter it afterwards. Another way would be by changing the cookie, but they can’t do that either. Just put it right and I bet it will stick.

          • glenn_nl

            I love the way it’s ALWAYS someone else’s fault, and part of a grand conspiracy, even when basic user error is to blame.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford

            Now what is CIA Director Mike Pompeo up to?

            He is warning about another 9/11 style attack. You remember the original one where his predecessor George Tenet took over the coverage of its alleged hijackers because the Bureau was not reliable because of its agent Robert Hanssen’s spying for the Soviets when Olof Palme was assassinated. It turned out to be an utter fiasco because the Bureau’s suspects were suicide bombers.

            Looks like the warning is just s smokescreen for taking out North Korea’s alleged ICBM capability with another quake or bunker buster bomb on its test site. Will trigger WW!!! if done.

            And we pay money for this madhouse government.

          • Clark

            George Tenet was DCI of the CIA, right? And he effectively obstructed knowledge of the hijackers from the FBI – illegally, I believe, since the FBI should be notified of known terrorists if they enter the USA, and the CIA knew they were terrorists and knew they’d entered the USA.

            I’d say the reason given about Hanssen was just an excuse; the CIA considers “Islamic” extremists to be CIA work, and definitely not the FBI’s.

            Glad you got your username sorted; uncle Clark is here to help! And thanks for the most on-topic comment in weeks.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      ‘How many conspiracy theorists does it take to move the Overton Window?’

      Two. One to fly the plane into the window, the other to plant his passport in the rubble

    • Clark

      Nothing new from the Saker, in fact no comment at all from the Saker.

      Just a re-link of the A&E9/11″Truth” video of Peter Ketcham, who used to work for NIST. Sometimes billed as a whistle-blower, he has no whistle to blow since he was a software engineer and didn’t work on the collapse investigations.

      There are some of the best snippets of the collapses of the Twin Towers in this video. There are two very good clips showing the core remnants of the Twin Towers, proving that the cores (the true “paths of greatest resistance”) stood longest, as should be expected. And a clip near the end shows the ends of the box columns, confirming that the perimeter broke apart through failure of the bolts.

    • Clark

      The Saker is quite well placed, isn’t he? Someone should ask him why no Russian university has come forward to support demolition theories.

    • Macky

      Following on from the powerful & unbunkable testimony from NIST whistle-blower, Peter Ketcham, here’s some basic physics lessons from physicist and mathematician David Chandler and engineer Jonathan Cole, who took on NIST years ago and got them to partially admit to fraudulent calculations in their reports. Chandler and Cole’s observations completely back-up Peter Ketcham:

      • Clark

        Chandler’s maths is right but his physical interpretation is wrong. His “Downward Acceleration” paper (which is what all the fuss is about) essentially predicts that no building, or indeed any other structure, can undergo accelerating collapse. That is absurd. The following structure could support quite a heavy mass on its top shelf:

        ..but if you picked it up a little and dropped it, it could certainly accelerate downward through the shelves. Chandler’s paper predicts that can’t happen, which may be why it was never submitted for peer review.

        Cole’s models are too small; they simply don’t extend through enough of Earth’s gravitational field. The material doesn’t have a big enough fall between “floors” to pick up enough speed to smash its way through.

        Macky, this is NOT a matter of opinion; this is hard science. The ideas you are propagating are wrong. If you disbelieve me, restate the problems either in general form, or concerning structures other than the Twin Towers, and take them to an appropriate academic, or send them to some University engineering departments.

        You may have been propagating these falsities unknowingly, but I have now told you that they are false. If you continue to propagate them without checking what I have written, you will be engaging in deliberate dishonesty.

      • Clark

        Macky, please define “whistle-blower”.

        I could have accused Karimov or anyone else of torture. Would that make me a whistle-blower? Why is Craig a whistle-blower, whereas I am not?

      • Clark

        And Macky, I love your newly invented nonsense word “unbunkable”.

        “Bunk” means “nonsense”, therefore “to debunk” does not mean “to disprove”. Rather, it means “to remove the nonsense”. So I hope you’ll agree that everything should be thoroughly debunked, leaving only that which makes sense.

        Unfortunately, many Truther claims consist mostly or entirely of bunk, leaving no coherent argument after the bunk has been removed. I am trying to change that.

      • Macky

        Interest comment re the Twin Towers;

        “In reality, the lower sections were in fact thicker and stronger than the upper sections, according to the WTC Building Specs. Columns were heavier (and heavily redundant) in lower sections and tapered on the upper floors. So how did the tapered, upper-fifth section floor columns ‘crush’ the cold hard steel in the lower, more robust four-fifths of the building? Indeed, if we observe video of this event, we see the upper-fifth section exploding outwards before the tower telescopes through the path of greatest resistance. So, in fact, that top section doesn’t even form an intact ‘hammer’ with which to ‘hammer’ the lower four-fifths to pavement level in an eye-wateringly rapid 10 seconds. In the words of poet Gertrude Stein, “there is no there, there” in order to accomplish the work required to break up quarter-mile high steel structures, absent an extra source of energy.”

        • Clark

          The vertical steel columns were indeed stronger lower down, but the horizontal floor assemblies (apart from the three “mechanical floors”) were uniform throughout – visibly, the internal collapse tore through the mostly concrete floor assemblies, in the “square ring” between core and perimeter.

          But those floor assemblies were nearly all that tied the relatively very thin and flexible perimeter to the much more rigid core. Without the floor assemblies there was nothing to stop the perimeter tumbling outward – visibly, the second wave of collapse.

          It doesn’t matter that the top section was no longer intact. The rubble it was turning into weighed just as much (conservation of mass) and was just as destructive (conservation of momentum) as if it has still been in one piece.

          The criticism attacks Bazant’s “column crushing theory”, but observation of the videos doesn’t support the column crushing theory anyway, and neither does the wreckage; most of the steel frame was broken into sections, not crushed and bent. Bazant’s “column crushing theory” is effectively a straw man argument; it doesn’t represent the way the Twin Towers actually fell.

        • Clark

          I can also tell you that engineers that I’ve read are often quite dismissive of Bazant’s work, but still support damage -> fire -> structural failure. It’s the age-old rivalry between engineers and physicists, the practical versus the theoretical, those out in the weather on the site versus those at desks in warm offices. Even our visiting engineer TomK dismissed physicists with his story of “spherical cow”:

        • Clark

          The criticism repeats two other “zombie factoids” of Twin Tower demolition theorists;

          “an eye-wateringly rapid 10 seconds” – but the videos show the collapses took considerably longer than that.

          “the tower telescopes through the path of greatest resistance”

          OK, let’s consider the resistance of various paths. Down through the external air is clearly the least resistance. Second lowest is down through the stack of very wide horizontal concrete floor assemblies. Second greatest is down through the vertical perimeter columns, and greatest of all is down through the vertical core columns.

          Now compare with the collapse videos. Material that happened to fall outside the perimeter is seen to travel downwards fastest. The internal collapse through the horizontal floor assemblies is the next fastest (follow the wave of ejections). After that collapse wave had passed, the perimeter tumbles outward, breaking into sections. Finally, a remnant of the core, stripped of surrounding structure, falls last.

          Note the consistency of theory with observation.

        • Macky

          Yet another NIST refutation;

          “We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9
          stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt
          deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the
          absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion
          of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors
          of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.”

          • Clark

            Oh the boring “missing jolt”. It’s a “spherical cow” argument, based upon an idealisation that would have been unlikely in reality. There were many more, much smaller jolts, in keeping with any realistic consideration.

            The daftest thing about the “missing jolt” argument is that we’d expect much more pronounced jolts if explosives had been employed. This one shoots itself in the foot quite spectacularly.

  • Clark

    I think we should have a discussion about the relationship between the Saudi monarchy, the Wahabbist theocracy, Al Qaeda and the Neocon alliance.

    Any objectors?

    • Clark

      Daniel, thanks.

      I don’t regard the commenters I’m arguing against as twoofer nut jobs. I regard their approach as far more conventional than they seem to themselves. They’re just people who’ve accepted a consensus, but because it’s a minority and fragmented consensus they think it isn’t a consensus at all.

      Their consensus is at a higher level than the facts and factoids that get debated. To me, it seems that they all agree with something which is never mentioned, but very rarely disagree with each other about the contradictions in the various theories that they propagate.

      As best as I can make out, they all agree that there’s something objective which they call “the official narrative”, and that a majority of the general population believe this “official narrative” unthinkingly, to maintain feelings of security.

      As someone who was forced to escape heavy religious indoctrination, I have a somewhat morbid fascination with this dynamic. When I escaped the Jehovah’s Witlesses, I realised that I’d been in what might be described as a “consensus bubble”. But that raised the question of whether I’d escaped merely into a larger bubble – out of the frying pan and into the fire.

      The “9/11 Truth Bubble” very nearly subsumed me for a second time, but a commenter called Angrysoba brought an engineer called TomK to this thread. Politically, I have very little in common with TomK, but the principles of physics and engineering are independent of politics. TomK’s remarks about physical processes made sense, and he got me thinking again.

      I saw your comments while I was at the festival but I didn’t have time to read them or get involved. Since then, I have read your article on your blog. I have various points of agreement with it, and several disagreements. Notably, what Building 7 did was very weird, and from the evidence I have examined I can’t rule out that Cheney and Bush contributed to or perpetrated 9/11.

      I’ll now try a test comment at your blog, but I’ve had various technical problems leaving comments on blogs other than this one over the past year or so.

      Best wishes.

    • Node

      You’ve certainly got the hang of defending the official narrative, Daniel. When someone offers logical reasoning based on physics and engineering …

      (1) ignore the reasoning
      (2) insult them
      (3) appeal to the like-minded for re-assurance

      • glenn_nl

        Exactly those three can be described as the foilers’ attitude towards anyone who doesn’t agree with them. And the “Official Narrative” be damned. You’re an enemy, colluding with the war-mongers, if you don’t agree with _every last word every foiler says_.

        Let’s run a little test – please refer me to any criticism that any “foiler” (for immediate want of a better term) has offered a fellow “foiler”. John’s holographic ‘planes, maybe?

        It bothers me that all this has been tied up with the far-right liar and lunatic Alex Jones’ ravings, which have come to include “Illuminati” (wink, wink), Hillary Clinton’s crimes, diseases, and diabolical plans, the UN and so on and so forth. Oh yes, let’s not forget the famous gun-grab which is always just around the corner, genocidal chemtrails, HAARP and all that other happy BS. Don’t those marching Nazis look cute? What’s the matter with the intolerance of everyone these days!

        • Clark

          Glenn, it certainly worries me; this insidious drift towards authoritarianism and group-loyalty, on all sides, conventional and unconventional.

          It seems to be a classic positive feedback, each group fortifying their positions.

        • Node

          Glenn_nl : Let’s run a little test – please refer me to any criticism that any “foiler” (for immediate want of a better term) has offered a fellow “foiler”. John’s holographic ‘planes, maybe?

          I’m surprised that you are buying into the complaint that Truthers don’t criticise each other, especially after you body-swerved my request to comment on Clark’s Spontaneous Demolition Theory.

          I answered this same point recently in response to a question from Daniel.

          Daniel completely ignored my reply. Soon after he asked me a series of specific questions.

          I answered at length, specifically addressing every question in a respectful manner. Daniel ignored every point, insulted me, then finished with “Goodbye and good luck with any other fairy tales you may wish to waste peoples time with.”
          To spell that out: He asked me a question, I politely answered it, he ignored my reply and asked several more questions, I politely answered every one, and he responded “Fuck off you loser”.
          So you see I have every right to comment on Daniel’s substitution of sarcasm and mockery for argument.

          Here is an extract that relates to your question:

          “You will never properly understand the arguments against the official 911 narrative until you stop assuming that all sceptics are part of some ‘Truther’ group think belief system. Let me put it this way: Both you and Clark believe that Saudi hijackers brought down WTCs 1 & 2. Is it therefore OK with you if I start calling the pair of you “Believers” and assume that you agree with Clark that WTC7 was brought down with explosives in an impromptu plan conceived of and executed on the day? I wouldn’t be so simplistic, and neither should you be.

          The events of 911 are full of anomalies, nothing stands up to close examination, but the most glaringly improbable is the collapse of WTC7. More and more ‘Truthers’ are therefore adopting that as their touchstone for the day – if it can be established that WTC7’s collapse must have been pre-planned, the entire official narrative collapses with it! Every ‘Truther’ has their own theories about the details of the day – planes vs no planes vs missiles; nukes vs nanothermite vs secret energy weapons; insider dealing, indestructible passports, implausibly skillful rookie pilots; etc, etc. – but those can be sorted out by the historians if it can first be proved there was an insider conspiracy.”

      • Clark

        Node, you just imputed motive; you accused Daniel of “defending the official narrative”.

        It’s not a binary choice. One can criticise a conspirology without necessarily defending whatever you personally call “the official narrative”, whatever that is.

        • Clark

          Node, I’ve looked at Daniel’s latest post on his own blog, and I see that he actually claims to be defending something like “the official narrative” himself, so I apologise for accusing you of imputing motive, on the assumption that you’d read Daniel’s new post:

          Actually, I think the assumption of an “official narrative” is a fundamental cause of the crossed-purposes character of much of the arguing that goes on. No one has defined the term specifically enough, permitting accusations of “supporting” or “defending” it to become the blunt instrument of choice for a tight-knit group with a strangely loose consensus.

    • Clark

      Daniel, I’ve tried to comment at your blog but run into the same problem as I have at other WordPress blogs. It’ll have wait until I sork out my WordPress account.

    • Node

      …. and by the way, Daniel, my offer still stands : You choose the piece of evidence which you think most strongly supports the official narrative and then let’s examine it on this thread. You understand what I’m doing here, Daniel? I’m allowing you to survey the battlefield and choose the strongest position to defend. Under those conditions, surely you can defend the official narrative from a twoofer nut job?

      Any time you’re ready.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    I’ve noticed the marked decline in insect numbers too – hardly saw a fly or wasp all summer. And for once I don’t think it’s the Illuminati. But it might be Monsanto among others. Whatever the cause, it’s clearly a disaster heading towards us. It would be somehow ironic if after years eradicating them with pesticides we ended up eradicating ourselves.

    • glenn_nl

      Strikes me that we’re becoming wise way too slowly, at least too slowly for the technology we’re developing. Rather than defeating large elements of the natural environment, seeing ourselves altogether above and distinct from it, we should be working with it. Simply killing vast amounts of our fellow inhabitants of this Earth, treating it like a zero-sum game where we win if they lose, is going to destroy us. We passed the point where humans plus domestic animals for meat make up more biomass than all other animals put together some while back. I’m not terribly optimistic. Every indicator is very bad indeed, and we’re racing in the wrong direction by way of response.

    • Clark

      There were hardly any wasps at the festival this year. Previous years there have been loads; they were quite a hazard. But that could be a local matter. I’m very glad to say that I’ve had a colony of honey bees living in the roof of my house for the past few years. They seem to be doing OK; busily collecting from the ivy.

      But what are the chances that the decline in insect numbers will turn up as a conspiracy theory? If we posted that link in comments at appropriate websites, I’m willing to bet that it it would be taken up as a cause. The Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists and the chemtrailers would both claim it as proof of their pet theories.

      • Clark

        You’d best check before repeating this, but I seem to remember that ladybirds’ “bites” are actually their acidic blood; they bleed at their “knees” to release it.

        • Clark

          I’d guess that would be to someone with an allergy. I’ve sometimes seen the tiny drops of fluid from a ladybird and even felt a slight irritation from it, but I don’t seem to be strongly affected.

          A few years ago a vast number of harlequin ladybirds somehow ended up in the UK, and there must have been thousands of them that got into my house; they collected in groups of hundreds on the inside of the windows. I put a lot of them out, but ever since then they have been emerging from somewhere and collecting inside the windows, year after year. They must be already indoors because I even find them in the middle of winter, such as winter is these days. I’m glad to say that I’ve never had any ill effect from them beyond the very rare, very slight irritation I mentioned earlier.

  • Dave

    We’re told by the head of secret services about a ‘worsening terrorist situation’. These sorts of announcement are a joke and should be made by politicians who would have to field questions on the matter, which is why they don’t make the announcements, but they retain a certain official authority by being made by ‘professionals’. And a joke because we’re told the latest ‘knife and vehicle’ attacks will lead to another ‘9/11 type operation’, which is quite an incredible leap of operational ability, although admittedly organised by the usual suspects.

    • glenn_nl

      The Bush administration actually admitted ramping up and down the supposed terror threat level, according to how much political trouble they were in. Remember those traffic-light type alert levels? We actually had individuals (in the US) duct-taping their entire house to keep out the poison gas attacks they were convinced were right around the corner. It would have been quite funny if it were not so tragic.

    • Clark

      “Islamic” extremism is a far bigger problem to the Muslim world than it is to us. To deny the little bit of it that we get here is exceptionalism.

      In fact, it’s irresponsible. “Our side’s” foreign policy supports and spreads the indoctrination which drives it, and “our side’s” foreign policy creates the resentment that feeds it. “Our side” turned both Iraq and Libya into enormous gangster zones in which it thrives; “we” created the two biggest breeding grounds that have ever existed for this violent ideology. And “our” support for Israel’s illegal colonisation and apartheid is at the root of the resentment that “we” create.

      We should be using the few incidents that affect us directly to be pressuring our governments to abandon these despicable policies. It’s as if we learned nothing from 9/11 and 7/7.

  • Paul Barbara

    I have noticed the extreme decline of insects and birds for many years, getting worse all the time, just as I have noticed the Chemtrails.
    Butterflies, ladybirds, bees, wasps, spiders, even flies, and of course birds. The huge die-off of sea creatures I haven’t actually seen, apart from in photographs and articles, but it is all of a piece.
    Perhaps some folks are perfectly happy to ‘live’ in a sterile concrete car park, eating pesticide laden GMO ‘Frankenfoods’, getting their ‘infotainment’ from the MSM, and for fun (or hobby) sniping at those who at least try to understand what is going on around them; I’ll keep my tin foil hat, and my eyes and ears open, and denounce the PTB’s evil machinations and lies, thank you very much.
    Another thing that is killing off a lot of species, though little discussed, is the ever-increasing number and power of microwave communications, WiFi and ‘Smart Meters’. They also cause an increasing number of tumours in humans, and this will also increase as the numbers and powers of these devices increase.
    I must say that one of the ‘normal suspects’ has surprised me, by making light of the loss of insects. Really showing his true colours.

    • glenn_nl

      You don’t have to look for sinister plots, or some agenda to kill off wildlife. The reasons are staring us in the face – overpopulation by humans, destruction of wildlife habitat, appalling farming methods including the use of pesticides, pollution and global warming.

      Do you seriously think that TPTB are poisoning the entire planet (which they live on, btw) in order to destroy all life? WIFI is another crock, sorry. The power is far less than that picked up by your FM radio.

      Who was making light of the loss of insects, btw?

      Next time you’re in a museum, take a look at the outdoor scenes painted a couple of centuries ago. The number of birds in there really struck me. It was surely not just artistic licence – birds were vastly more common back in the day. Their decline is gradual, so millennials now don’t notice anything amiss. My grandparents would be shocked if they were still here.

      • Dave

        Although AGW is an obvious hoax that undermines the environment, there are many ways that human activity undermines the environment particularly the new housing densities/concrete jungles to facilitate mass-immigration. Instead there needs to be more greenery within the built environment and hedge rows in the country side, but sometimes our interventions to help also hinder, such as protection of birds of prey, like sparrow hawks, who then kill all the sparrows!

          • glenn_nl

            Which do you reckon is the more powerful Dave- the combined oil, coal, gas and car/lorry/road industries, or the nuclear industry?

          • Dave

            You are debunking your own argument, because if you say the (very beneficial) fossil lobby is so powerful, how has the AGW hoax been so thoroughly promoted and imposed with legally binding CO2 reduction targets that can only be met by de-industrialisation and an accompanying recession.

            The fact is the fossil industry overall doesn’t lose out because even if their share of energy production goes down there overall production goes up due to an expanding world economy and they benefit from the hoax through carbon trading.

            Whereas the nuclear industry is promoted, Hinckley Point, to provide the skills needed to promote nuclear proliferation, such as renewal of Trident, and help hide the true enormous cost within inflated fuel bills.

          • glenn_nl

            The fact that the fossil-fuel industry has retarded the implementation of CO2 limits, rather than halting it altogether doesn’t “debunk” anything, Dave.

            If you recall the champions of AGW denial, the far-right in the US – Republicans – are currently in charge. Not a single Republican member will admit that AGW is taking place. Not one. It’s tough to then say that these stooges of the fossil-fuel industry have not been influenced, rather handsomely in many cases.

            The very idea that diverse nuclear energy companies are exerting huge political influence is rather bizarre.

          • Clark

            It’s liquid fuel that’s at the heart of this. Nuclear doesn’t make liquid fuel.

            We have nothing else that will power combine harvesters, tractors, trucks, chain-saws, aircraft.

            As soon as you see a map of the Middle East, the problem comes into focus. Between them, the US and Russia have the reserves surrounded:


            Saudi Arabia have extracted most of theirs; they are on the production down-slope now. So what immediately happens? The ideological propaganda gets ramped up against Venezuela, because Venezuela is now left with the largest reserves.

          • Clark

            The incentive for countries to build nuclear power stations is something I haven’t worked out yet. Nuclear power was the carrot in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Programme (ie. non-proliferation of nuclear weapons), which took over from the Atoms for Peace programme; nuclear power was deliberately proliferated with great publicity. But the figures have been in for a long time; nuclear power is an immense waste of money, and solar and wind capacity can be developed much faster, so modern enthusiasm for nuclear power is something of a mystery.

            It isn’t to get nuclear weapons, because only nine countries have nuclear weapons but far more have nuclear power.

            But if governments want nuclear weapons, the “West” must take its responsibility. Let’s take the example of Libya. Blair persuaded Gadaffi to abandon Libya’s WMD programme. The UK government changed, and with Libya now effectively defenceless, the new coalition government promptly helped wipe out Libya, and Gadaffi was brutally murdered.

            The lesson to the rest of the world was clear; if you want security, you need WMDs. The promise of a democratic government is worthless. North Korea is proving that it isn’t stupid.

          • Dave

            Sometimes certain issues are perceived as “left” or “right” and each side takes sides rather than look at issues objectively. Once King Coal and coal miners were the hinterland of the labour movement but now labour party and leadership consider coal miners as enemies of the planet, with JCorbyn at the Durham Miners Gala denouncing Trump for opening coal mines. This is bizarre particularly when his “left” brother Piers calls AGW an obvious hoax @

          • Clark

            Piers is just wrong. You can prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas with equipment from your kitchen. It also dissolves into the oceans and causes them to become less alkaline, which is disastrous for microfauna at the bottom of the food chain.

          • Dave

            The vast majority of CO2 is in the oceans that cover over 75% of the planet. The atmospheric CO2 only makes up about 0.38% of the atmosphere and the human contribution is a fraction of this and irrelevant because there are natural variations in CO2 levels.

          • Clark

            “The vast majority of CO2 is in the oceans…”

            yes, where it destroys the bottom of the food chain by making it impossible for tiny creature to grow their exoskeletons.

            And atmospheric concentrations have passed 0.4%. You’re probably a bit out of date; it’s been rising fast.

          • Dave

            The vast majority has always been in the oceans and nothing to do with humans. I’m sure your 0.4% means 0.04% but the human bit is a tiny fraction of this and irrelevant as there are natural variations in atmospheric CO2 which is essential to life on earth and life on earth prefers a warmer climate, which is determined exclusively by fluctuations in the heat from the sun which is a million times bigger than earth and has been burning for billions of years and expected to burn for billions years more.

          • Clark

            “Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. The concentration was 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century, increasing to 407 ppm as of mid-2017. The present concentration is the highest in at least the past 800,000 years and likely the highest in the past 20 million years”

            No problem?

            Yes, 0.04%, I got the decimal point in the wrong place. As did you with 0.38%, from which I took my cue.

            So, scientists are evil, right? And the best place to get The Truth is from US Republicans. Like they were so honest about 9/11, for instance.

          • Clark

            Dave, how’s your science?

            Say we put some ice cubes at -20 centigrade into a glass of water at 10 centigrade. What will those temperatures stabilise at, and why?

          • Dave

            The increase in CO2 is a good thing as CO2 is the food plants breathe to make them grow. The more CO2 the merrier as proved by putting CO2 into greenhouses. And CO2 is the irritant that make our lungs work. If we only breathed in oxygen our lungs wouldn’t work. CO2 isn’t a pollutant. The interesting test with ice cubes above the rim of a glass is the glass doesn’t overflow when the ice melts, because ice shrinks as it melts, which shows that melting icebergs don’t increase sea levels. And hot water turns to steam.

          • Clark

            David Icke refers derisively to a certain type of people as “repeaters”, those who simply repeat stuff others are propagating without understanding it, or even trying to understand it.

            I’ve read all these invalid arguments. Climate science is complex, so I would rather take the word of the scientific community. Whenever I have checked their evidence, it has turned out to be right. Their predictions are being confirmed, year on year.

            You do realise that much of the world’s ice is supported by land, and is not floating? Sea level is rising; it has been measured; it is being measured as we witter. The Thames Barrier is almost obsolete; I have seen the record tide at the South Bank Centre, London, as it sloshed over the modern flood defences. Bangladesh is threatened with massive area loss; again, your argument is Westen-centric, and ignores poorer peoples. Reclaimed land in East Anglia is threatened, and that is some of the UK’s most productive agricultural land.

            Now, HOW’S YOUR SCIENCE? Do you understand a system as simple as ice cubes in a glass of water? Because if you can’t work with that, I’d rather not take your word about the entire fucking planet, thanks.

          • Dave

            Land is sinking, in places, rather than sea levels rising. London is a flood plain and its sinking. Actual scientists qualified to know are climatologists, like Piers. The rest are no more qualified than non-scientists to know, not that you need to be formerly qualified to know.

          • glenn_nl

            Dave: “Actual scientists qualified to know are climatologists, like Piers.

            We’ve discussed Piers before, he’s a nut case. Don’t pretend we haven’t. He had zero credibility.

            Yet you want to hang onto this, and absolutely believe in this guy, in the face of actual evidence. It’s evidence that anyone can begin to understand, if they bother to study it. Just to hold this opinion or that opinion is fine, but only if it is based on anything.

            Consider the scene.

            A crazed, bony old man with glazed eyes pointed north with his stick and said, “Go hither, boy!”

            Everyone else who had studied the scene is scurrying south, because there is problem approaching from the north.

            Why have you taken the contrary view, is it just because it’s exciting to be contrary, it’s an intellectual game? To get attention? Because I cannot think of a political party that denies AGW apart from US Republicans. Unless you’re among their number, can you?

          • Dave

            You can’t even put up a half decent defence of your position, which considering your comments and evasions on 9/11, doesn’t really surprise me.

          • Clark

            Piers Corbyn is a weather forecaster not a climatologist. His qualifications are in physics and astrophysics (astrophysics is the study of how stars burn).

            Climate is too complex to be understood by a single individual; it is like medicine in that regard. Just gathering the data is many lifetimes’ work; it has to be a collaborative effort. It is quite unlike forecasting because it involves studying the natural history of the planet, to see how it has reacted to past changes.

            Dave, we don’t have a thousand or so Earths to divide up into experimental and control groups and get statistically significant results to our great carbon dioxide experiment. We know the climate was pretty stable before we started dumping aeons-worth of carbon into the atmosphere over the course of a century. There is a possibility that Piers Corbyn is right, just as there is a possibility that we might get the car round this bend at 100mph without crashing. Feeling lucky? Would you encourage your daughter to escalate a heroin habit because it would make her feel good and it might not kill her?

            I remember back in the ’80s politicians basically ridiculed the warnings about global warming. They cared about money, and what was seen as “environmental issues” they dismissed as unimportant. When it was shown that climate change would adversely affect the economy to the tune of billions of dollars, they sat up and took notice – not before. That should tell you all you need to know.

            But if you want some science, what’s the temperature of that water in that glass by now?

          • Dave

            Well you have illustrated why its wrong to conflate issues, as there will be advocates of AGW who are 9/11 truthers too, like Griffin. Climate Jehovah’s like to have it both ways by saying stop global warming to prevent another ice age, but man made emissions of CO2 are minuscule, and easily eclipsed by natural variations due for example volcano eruptions, so even if CO2 had any bearing on climate, the man made bit is irrelevant, but all CO2 is irrelevant due the influence of the Sun. The fact is CO2 levels follow rather than cause an increase in temperature and is essential to life on earth, whatever you AGW conspiracy theorists make up.

          • Clark

            Dave, you’re obviously just repeating arguments you’ve read elsewhere. Demonstrate your ability to reason about simple physical systems; talk to me about ice cubes in a glass of water. Until you do so, I will give far more weight to the academic community of climate scientists.

          • Clark

            I can reason about physical systems, as I have demonstrated repeatedly on this thread. I’ve seen no indication that you do more than repeat things you’ve read elsewhere. There’s a lot more to thinking for oneself than choosing ones favourite sources and repeating what they claim.

          • Dave

            I agree there are pitfalls in only thinking for yourself as illustrated by your poor grasp of physics, as only you believe the towers could disintegrate into dust in seconds due to gravitational collapse. And you don’t dispute the points I made about CO2 but will put your faith in the community of climate Jehovah’s. So it would be a good idea to also read some books on the subjects discussed.

  • Macky

    Wow ! More concrete foreknowledge; I always thought the warning calls telling Israelis to avoid the WTC on 9/11 was probably an urban myth, but was always troubled by the fact that there were only four Israelis killed, (three in the towers & one on a plane), from the 4,000 that should have been at work that day; here’s Al Franken, a US Senator, (whom I got to know a bit about through the George Galloway radio show at the time GG went to confront that US Senate Committee) , actually admits that he got the “Jew Call” from former NYC Major Ed Koch, advising him not to go to his WTC office on 9/11 !

    • Node

      More concrete foreknowledge.

      Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

      Odigo is/was Israeli-owned and the recipients of the pager warnings were Israeli nationals. To the credit of Odigo, they voluntarily brought this incident to the attention of the FBI but despite irrefutable evidence of fore-knowledge, the investigation sank like a stone and there was no mention of it in the 911 commission report.

    • glenn_nl

      Macky: “Don’t go to work on the 23rd of Elul”

      You do know Al Franken is actually a stand-up comedian and comic writer, yes?

      Al Franken had a show on Air America Radio for years, which I listened to. I’ve also got a couple of his books, and this is simply his sort of humour. You can tell by the way he says it. You can surmise how dishonest that soundbite is by how very clipped it is.

      Seriously – the Major of New York called him up at his office in the WTC (which he’s never mentioned before, btw) and told him not to go to work that day – and you just took that literally?

        • Clark

          Franken delivers that remark in the context of describing lies about 9/11, and then follows it with “Actually…” to begin his story of visiting his mum. I think those are two pretty strong indications that the earlier section wasn’t actual.

          Franken seems to be based in Minneapolis, about a thousand miles from New York – a long way to commute just to write in an ugly, wobbly office block. Maybe he lived nearer New York at the time, but I’ve seen no indication of that.

          There might be a footnote in the paperback edition of the book this is an excerpt from:

          Macky, since when has playing golf required an “admission”? And accusing Glenn of denial is to play the man not the ball. And try watching the following; Franken says there should be an ongoing, continuous investigation of 9/11:

          • Clark

            I have found that Franken moved from Manhattan to Minnesota in 2006 or 2007, but in 2004 he was in New Hampshire, whether resident or visiting I do not know.

        • Macky

          Ok Glenn, on further investigation I realise that this is certainly ambiguous, so I apologise & withdraw the state of denial comment; if Franken is “joking” then it’s in very poor taste, and even more so that he didn’t/hasn’t clarified it; still I believe the two other instances that indicate foreknowledge,( insider trading & the Dancing Israelis), are valid, and Node’s “Odigo” factor certainly warrants looking into.

          What to make of this moving testimony ? (Note the “center core of building was destroyed” comment) :

          • Clark

            At 06:09, Patty Casazza says the Jersey Girls asked their political representatives for an investigation, but:

            “Nothing happened. Nothing happened until we went to the press…”

            Will any Truther yet admit that there’s more to the hated “MSM” than merely being government mouthpieces repeating “the official story”? I repeatedly accuse the media of propaganda, but will any Truther admit that the reality is somewhat more complex than the monolithic “official story” of Truther mythology?

          • Clark

            Clearly, Patty Casazza’s husband worked above the impact zone. The impact made the staircases impassable; the (inadequate) staircases were in the buildings’ cores. The sections of the cores below remained standing longest; their remnants can seen in video clips which accompany Ketcham’s testimony.

            This is one of the issues addressed by the changes in building codes recommended by NIST. The cores of the Twin Towers were steel truss-work, with only plasterboard (“Sheetrock”) cladding. If I remember rightly, NIST’s recommendations include concrete protection.

          • Clark

            At 10:30: – “The rooftop doors were not supposed to be locked, according to those buildings’ permits, but, then the building is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which is pretty much a group which can write its own laws…”

            Over and over again I have posted this information, yet repeatedly I am dismissed and ridiculed, othered, as a “supporter of the official story”, essentially a stooge of government. I can’t think of a more effective method of driving away supporters. Will you accept it from this widow, to whom Macky has linked?

          • Clark

            Patty Casazza said that she and her colleagues sneaked Sibel Edmonds into the Commission. They forced the commission to hear testimony from multiple whistle-blowers, but they were not heard in public and were not reported in the media.

            Very powerful testimony. The date, targets and method were known to US authorities in advance.

          • glenn_nl

            Macky, that’s very generous of you, and I hope we have a reasonable conversation here, because your perspective does matter. At one time, I was pretty convinced this was a controlled demolition, now – I’m not so sure about that. This does not a popularity competition winner make – because whichever side of the divide one might be on over 9/11, I’m not just nodding in agreement with either any more.

            Believe me, I thought I was convinced at one stage. It was so obvious, why couldn’t people see it? It’s almost like having been beset by religion, and then dragged oneself out of the delusion. But nothing like as obvious.

            Anyway, about Franken – he’s a Senator now of course, but used to be a quite good stand-up. Very pro-Israel. A bit “political” to say the least, but he did outright condemn the Iraq war – he’s pretty kosher on things generally, and definitely doesn’t toe the line with corporate Dems or teabaggers/Reps./fascists.

            No slight intended at all, but are you very particularly familiar with the Jewish sense of humour? It’s pretty near the knuckle at times, and often likes to mock both the personal image of being “special” and “chosen”, but also the externally viewed idea of Jews as being entirely privileged with special access and dispensation, by mere dint of being a Jew.

            This serves not only to knock the more pious among their ranks, but gives a kick in the shins to Nazis, who start foaming at the mouth saying “See? See? They admit it!”

            For instance, as a Jew, of course the Major of New York (himself a Jew) would take a minute out of his day to call him personally – one Jew to another – to warn him!

            If you want to hear plenty of good quality journalism, and gain an appreciation of Jewish humour, listen to Sam Seder on

            Great fellow, followed his podcasts for quite some time.


            Anyway, I’m afraid I’m getting more sceptical about controlled demolition. Although I’ll still wear my “Controlled Demolition” T-shirt out occasionally – particularly now I’ve lost a bit of weight, and can wear T-shirts of quite some vintage again.

          • Macky

            @Glenn, what caused you to doubt your previous controlled demolition belief, and what do you now think is the reason for the free-fall collapse of the WTC buildings ?

          • Clark

            Macky, WTC building, singular. Only WTC7 may have undergone free-fall, and only for 2.25 seconds of its 15 second or so fall. Free-fall of the Twin Towers is a false meme, the sort of thing that so irritates me about Trutherism.

            The Twin Towers came nowhere near free-fall when seen in the context of the relevant physics. I know they were fast, but there are essentially only two possibilities; acceleration or deceleration of collapse*, and if the structure was such that the collapses would accelerate, they were bound to be over in seconds.

            * I have ignored the theoretically possibility of uniform velocity because it is infinitely unlikely.

1 119 120 121 122 123 134

Comments are closed.