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

1 126 127 128 129 130 134
  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Samuel L. Jackson takes a surprising position on gun control’:

    ‘“I don’t think it’s about more gun control,” said Samuel L. Jackson, who stars as a conniving house slave in Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming revenge fantasy “Django Unchained.” “I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.”

    Parents and role models who emphasize that value, he said, will accomplish more than legislators reducing the number of firearms…’

  • Macky

    Using the “Fake News” pretext, the changes that Youtube & Google have made to their algorithms have nothing to do with an “effort to better promote reputable sources” and everything to do with a general crackdown on dissent and ultimately with creeping fascism in the US. Their search result changes have already dramatically reduced web traffic to reader-supported left wing websites.

    They pretend they want to protect us from “fake news” , but what they really want is to prevent anyone from understanding what they’re up to.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Yemen – Appeal to President Putin’:

    ‘….Dear Mr. Putin, for the sake of the Yemeni people, for the sake of humanity and for the sake of taking another crucial step towards world peace, may I appeal to you to help stop this murderous bloodbath in Yemen, help safe the population from dying from disease and famine. You may do this in ways of diplomacy in alliance with China, in a first instance through the UN Security Council – which obviously is a long shot – secondly, the Saudis want to sell their future hydrocarbons to Russia and China, a leverage for stopping the killing is not to be discarded; and finally, if nothing works, the Russian army may repeat in Yemen their miracle precedent in Syria. – Thank you.’

    • Clark

      Russia has a military base in Syria. I think Russia has no military bases in Yemen, so is unlikely to take military action.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Really sad to see some regulars on this thread defending the actions of Google in changing their algorithm to hide videos that challenged the official narrative of the Las Vegas shooting.

    All on the grounds that some of that material was disrespectful or upsetting.

    This chestnut is the oldest trick in the elite book of herd management. It is trotted out time and again. When Michael Meacher wrote his seminal piece in the Guardian expressing his doubt about 9/11, the hatred directed at him was frightening. And what was the first charge levelled at him?

    He was being disrespectful to the victims.

    ‘How would you like it if it happened to you?’

    I’ll tell you. If someone I knew was involved in a terror attack and I had grounds for believing the official account was false, I would speak up. Who wouldn’t?

    Of course it is disgusting to attack the relatives of those who died and accuse them of being fakes, but we already have mechanisms in place to deter that, it’s called civilised behaviour. The fact that some people disregard it is not new and certainly not reason to prohibit the honest expression of suspicion regarding the official account of an event. If we do allow it we are doomed because there will be nothing to stop them doing more and more.

    It may be the case that some of the material posted online about Las Vegas was nuts, but there was plenty of stuff – the sort that would never be permitted in the MSM – in which firearms experts explained why they believed there was more than one shooter. Maybe they were mistaken but their expertise seemed convincing.

    Should such scrutiny be banned because it might be upsetting to relatives of the victims?

    The answer for some round here seems to be yes. Fair enough, but let’s not kid ourselves. This is not a one-off by Google, and will almost certainly be followed by the other online digital giants.

    Next time the parameters of what constitutes ‘disrespect’ will be widened, we all know that. And then widened again. This was not about sparing anybody’s feelings, it was a cynical exercise in stifling opposition using the feelings of those involved as a pretext.

    It beggars belief that regular commenters here cannot see that this is the thin end of a very sinister wedge.

    They are like people standing on the deck of a ship watching a torpedo approach and being pleased because they hate the other passengers.

    • Clark

      I have to wonder about the honesty of commenters who (1) won’t engage and (2) repeatedly misrepresent counter-arguments. There is little point attempting communication with dishonest commenters.

      • Clark

        Yes and Google was already “not what it seemed” when it was pushing all those nonsense conspiracy pages to the top of its search results.

    • Dave

      A fair minded person may wish to respond to an irrational question with a rational reply, but if the person asking the question are themselves irrational, and purposefully so, a rational reply makes them more irrational. That is they don’t want to debate and a rational reply, the truth, offends them, and purposefully so, because they are trying to pick a fight and a rational reply just makes them try harder to be offensive to make you give an irrational reply, like FO, which they then use as a reason to punch you aka ban you from speaking. In other words some people, agents, don’t want to debate you, just shout you down and when you can spot the difference, FO, becomes the rational reply.

    • Node

      This is not a one-off by Google, and will almost certainly be followed by the other online digital giants.

      The obvious question to those regulars who are calling for Google and Facebook to be even more selective in which search results they display is “Who decides what is truth and what is ‘nonsense myth’?” Some backroom penpusher? The boss? A panel of government advisors? And how do we ensure these guardians of truth don’t abuse their power? Another panel overseeing them?

      Even supposing the motives of these internet giants are honourable (stop sniggering at the back of the class), the very existence of a mechanism for influencing the news makes it certain that powerful forces will seek to control it.

      I’m baffled how anyone claiming to be a defender of internet freedom can demand that the information on it is controlled by corporate bodies.

      • glenn_nl

        While you’re worrying about that, consider that Net Neutrality is being repealed. That man-of-the-people, Trump, is to allow corporations to decide which websites are going to be fast, or slow, or blocked altogether. They will be – of course – entirely unaccountable for their decisions.

        • KingofWelshNoir

          Yes, that’s another thing to worry about. This website would definitely be in the ‘very slow’ lane. I understand we are in a healthier position in the UK because of thriving ISP competition and EU laws. (But that could change post-Brexit.) If you are in the US and they do this, is it possible to circumvent it using, say, a satellite dish? Anyone know?

        • Clark

          That’ll be “man-of-the-people, Trump” who a load of people on this thread thought might get assassinated because he would endorse Twin Tower demolition theory. Trump who backed Alex Jone’s take on Sandy Hook.

          Yes I’m absolutely terrified that Google might stop putting Jones and his evidence-free theories in the top nine places in their YouTube searches.

    • Node

      The first time I used a search engine (Alta Vista) and realised what it did (What?!! I type in some words and it searches every page on the internet and lists several million that contain them, in less than a second!!!!) I knew it couldn’t last. It was at a friend’s house and we discussed how this enabled ordinary people for the first time in history to check what their rulers told them, and we concluded that THEY wouldn’t allow that indefinitely.

      We both believed that access to this sort of information would be shut off. My friend is very IT savvy and knew even then how easy it is to track people on the internet. We adopted different strategies. He was very careful about which sites he visited because intelligence agencies would be creating files on people with certain interests. My attitude was “Fuck that, I’m grabbing it while I still can. If the intelligence agencies are that good, they’ll know that I’m just inquisitive, not an activist, and I’ll be well down the list for the concentration camp.”

      Getting the masses to use the internet was such an important part of our leaders plans that they encouraged adoption by allowing it to be a free for all. But they began boiling the frog from the start – incremental restrictions, influences, monitorings, disguised at first, then enshrined in law under pretext, until we are where we are today. They were so skillful in turning the screw that some people on this thread believe it’s for their own good!

      • Macky

        “They were so skillful in turning the screw that some people on this thread believe it’s for their own good!”

        Especially ironic on the blog of a human rights whistleblower, but then again Craig isn’t exactly what most people would think typical of a whistleblower, operating one of the most heavily moderated(censored) political blogs, with a strong authoritarian streak, that leads to the banning of people like Bevin for example, etc, etc.

        • Node

          [Mod: Pleased to confirm again that Craig has. Bevin is welcome to return at any time, if he wishes, and has been for a couple of months.]

          If you’re suggesting Craig’s some sort of gatekeeper, I don’t agree. He’s just like the rest of us, got some things right and some things wrong. He can be autocratic but it’s his blog. I agree one of his biggest misjudgments was banning Bevin, one of the most thoughtful and reasonable posters I’ve read on this blog. I think Craig’s moods are a bit cyclic and sometimes he loses perspective. It would be nice if he recanted on that one.

          • Macky

            @Mod, I presume that you have Bevin’s email, so the least you could do is to let him know that his ban has been lifted.

            @Node, No, I was saying that it’s not surprising, that despite this being the blog of a whistle-blower, due to the intolerant attitude Craig has to dissent against his povs, as manifested in his many foul-mouth outbursts against Posters, and as illustrated by the very heavy-handed moderating here, (actually at it’s worse when Craig himself is on the moderating prowl), it’s hardly surprising that his long term groupies here, are also into policing the internet just as Craig polices this blog.

          • Node

            Thanks, MOD, I didn’t know the ban was already rescinded.

            Macky, you sometimes cross paths with Bevin on your digital travels. Will you pass the message on to be sure he knows? If he’s happily settled in some other forum, troll him till he returns here 🙂

          • Macky

            @Node, Off-Guardian seems to be Bevin’s new haunt, so feel free to try there, as I’ve tried a couple of times, with no response.

            Incidentally your inadvertent CT about Craig, got me thinking about some of inexplicable things that happen here, like for instance like the time I linked to a MSM source on the JFK claim by Mordechai Vanunu, that Israel were behind the assassination, and my post was deleted almost instantaneously ! :O

          • Node

            I hadn’t heard that accusation, at least not by Vanunu. Let’s see if this quote and link from Wikipedia survives :

            In July 2004 Vanunu claimed in the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that the State of Israel was complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He claimed there were “near-certain indications” that Kennedy was assassinated in response to “pressure he exerted on Israel’s then head of government, David Ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona’s nuclear reactor”


  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Sniper is ‘DAD’ David Wheeler’:
    This 30-minute video is enough to blow Sandy Hook out of the water.
    Can anyone honestly say that the ‘SWAT’ sniper is not the actor and supposed ‘Dad’ of victim? In itself, that shows the whole caboodle is fake.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      I presume you are being ironic?

      This is an amazing document detailed in the RT article.

      A declassified file among the JFK trove released in October reveals details of a US plan to either build replica Soviet planes, or acquire them through ‘pilot defection’, or buying from a non Warsaw Pact country, in order to fake an attack on the US and its allies. I.e. a classic false flag.

      It was discussed at a meeting that included Attorney General Robert Kennedy, CIA Director John McCone, National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ KingofWelshNoir November 23, 2017 at 09:23
        As I read your post, I was waiting for the ubiquitous and infamous ‘chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer’.
        Signed off on ‘Operation Northwoods’, involved with the attack on the USS Liberty (he was SACEUR at the time, and a message to withdraw supposedly sent via his department mysteriously didn’t get received by the ‘Liberty’), and doubtless in the Gulf of Tonkin LIE, though I haven’t been able to find a direct link.

  • Node

    Which lunatics? The nutjobs who are cynical about Larry Silverstein being paid yet more insurance money? The Crazies who find it ironic that our media is attacking Russia for supposedly doing exactly what the US admits it does? Or the fruitcakes who see significance in documentary evidence of US willingness to create false flag incidents?

  • Peter Beswick

    email received today from AE911Truth 2.13pm

    Dear Friends and Fellow Activists,

    On this Thanksgiving Day, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth pause to give thanks to the many thousands of concerned citizens who have contributed to the cause of 9/11 Truth over the past sixteen years.

    Never have the people of the world faced a more daunting and uphill challenge than uncovering the truth about what really happened on September 11, 2001. For those who commit themselves fully to this task, it is often a grueling and thankless journey. That’s why it is so important that we stop to thank each other for what we have all done to build this movement.

    Because enough of you have come together to support the efforts of AE911Truth, we have accomplished so many feats that would have seemed unthinkable before our founding eleven years ago.

    Our work this year has been highlighted by the publication of our Plasco Building report; the release of our newest documentary, Stand for the Truth; the launch of the Bobby McIlvaine Act (and the forthcoming Bobby McIlvaine Act video, pictured above); the gradual unveiling of our new website, which will soon be fully live; and the continued progress of the WTC 7 study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Along with those highlights are the dozens of presentations, interviews, articles, and numerous other means by which we disseminate the WTC evidence to millions of people each year.

    Today we reflect gratefully on the fact that all of this work would be impossible without the countless activists who have done their part for 9/11 Truth and without the thousands of you who contribute directly to AE911Truth.

    Thank you for all that you do,

    The Team at AE911Truth

    (Richard, Kelly, Ted, Andy, Jeff, and the dozens of others who keep AE911Truth going strong!)

    • Node

      Yes Peter, I second what Macky said. I don’t post as much as some, the real world allots me writing time on a spasmodic basis, but I read everything here, and I’ve appreciated your thoughtful and methodical approach to 911. I hope you stick around.

    • Peter Beswick

      Thank you John and all.

      One reason not to inquire is if you don’t want the answer.

      And that truism is at the heart of every cover up from before Watergate until now and beyond.

      If the “Authorities” don’t want the truth known they don’t investigate. It used to bee as simple as that. But then with the anvancement of technology and particularly the internet we don’t need the “Authorities” to investigate for us to learn the truth.

      Good journalism* exposed saville and his police and Mi5 protectors; dogged families unearthed and pushed the truth of Hillsborough not the police; dilligent researchers deconstructed the Dr David Kelly cover up, not the police.

      The Police (An Investigating Authority) cannot be trusted, they assist in cover ups but cannot stop them from being exposed. The MsM used to be able to prevent exposure but little by little their abilities dwindled with their integrity.

      But why individuals buy into an obviously dodgy story / cover up, with no apparent questioning is odd. I know it is a little uncomfortable to discover that Blair and Parliament took this country into needless, illegal wars and when it became obvious that, that is what they had done, they lied. They lied again and again and then employed Chilcot to do their lying for them.

      And yet there are some who accept completely (100%) the official line.

      I cannot understand that. And when I see it on here and other places, including the pub I cannot understand the over zealous, agressive, irrational stance taken by some that flies in the face of fact and reason.

      I just don’t get it but if I were that shit scared of the truth I might well behave in the same way.

      * However Saville (when dead) did deflect a great deal of attention from living paedophiles.

      • Peter Beswick

        So on this theme of not wanting to investigate the important stuff;

        The NIST investigation began 21th August 2002 and was given a pot of money to get them started in Sept 02: $16m

        Anybody who can point me to final cost and accounts? It would be much appreciated

        UAF Project Budget: $316,153

        UAF have yet to publish final stages of their report but what they have done is highlight the woeful inadequacy of the NIST report in Critical areas.

        Insufficiancy of Inquiry was not due to lack of money on the part of NIST.

        Don’t Ask The Questions That Might Return The Answers You Don’t Want!

        • Peter Beswick

          Out of several hundred critical investigation points of Dr Kelly’s death that were not investigated, these 10 (if answered) would blow the lid off the Conspiracy and who was responsible (the cover up not the death)

          1) Who were the Boat People ?

          2) Was the body moved (by whom and why)?

          3) How did the police know Kelly was dead before the body was found?

          4) How did the Director of News at the BBC know that painkillers were involved several hours before they were found on the body?

          5) How did the blood stain on the body (left knee of the jeans) grow 10 time in area and volume between morning and afternoon witnesses seeing it? And why was a similar size stain on the right leg “diluted”?

          6) A helicopter landed at the scene at approx. 11.00 am with 3 persons on board and took off with 4 persons. Who left the scene?

          7) Where did Kelly spend the night on the 9th July 2003?

          8) The police had identified 6 sites where they thought they had the best chance of finding Kelly. Harrowdown Hill was the second most likely spot. The Police had at their disposal the services of 24 Volunteer Searchers and several dogs. Why did the police only call on the services of one team (2 volunteers + 1 dog) who they sent to Harrowdown Hill. Why did the police not send search teams to all six identified locations including the most promising?

          9) What did DC Coe (allegedly first police officer on the scene but his colleagues didn’t know what he was doing there) do at the scene between 10.00am and noon? He told the inquiry he left at 10.00, a Freedom of Information request revealed he left at noon. Eye witnesses report several critical changes were made to the scene between those times!

          10) The pathologist stated that Kelly was still conscious when the blood flow from the transected ulner artery has stemmed (stopped flowing). What does this suggest to a forensic psychologist / psychiatrist? Had he given up on killing himself? Why not cut another artery, why not take another pill? In fact is there any psychological evidence of intent to commit suicide? Other than that given at the Hutton Inquiry vis (he has removed his watch and glasses) notwithstanding there was no evidence that Kelly removed these items. The Law requires not only that one was responsible for one’s own death but also for intent to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for a Suicide verdict to be lawfully proved. No standard of proof was applied to the method, intent or cause of death. Hutton had no legal power to rule on the cause of death nor experience nor qualification. What was / is the legal status of Dr David Kelly’s Death?

          When these 10 inquiries are answered there will be no mystery of how Kelly died and who and why it was covered up.

      • KingofWelshNoir

        ‘including the pub I cannot understand the over zealous, agressive, irrational stance taken by some that flies in the face of fact and reason.’

        With respect, it’s not that hard to understand, I suspect.

        When you challenge deeply held beliefs, you meet with resistance and hostility. Belief systems are the glue that binds societies (tribes) together. Whether they are rational or not, or can be reconciled with ‘evidence’, is not important. All that matters is that everybody subscribes to the belief – such as good harvests are in the hands of gods who must be propitiated. The traditional punishment for those who didn’t believe, was stoning or burning at the stake. Today it is more likely to be mockery.

        In evolutionary terms, there was great survival value in not being an outcast.

        The point is, no one acquires or changes deeply held beliefs through reason. When you present evidence that challenges a certain deeply held view the person holding it does not change his mind, but seeks other evidence to support his view.

        I take no stance here on AGW, but does anyone suppose that the majority that subscribe to it – particularly the ones who call the unbelievers ‘deniers’ – arrived at their certainty by examining the evidence? Some did, but for the majority it is not really possible because the science involved is too complicated. Instead they take it on trust and it becomes a part of their belief system. Here belief is an act of faith.

        I feely confess to sharing these human failings, and I think everyone on either side of the 9/11 Truth divide is guilty to some extent.

        I know the CNN footage of the firemen outside Building 7 is a hobbyhorse of mine, but it encapsulates for me the whole point at issue. The firemen are clearly saying they are going to blow up the building but since that contradicts the account handed down by Authority, people come up with all sorts of weird ways of trying to explain that it doesn’t mean what it says on the tin.

        What really interests me is the psychology of those who dispute the Authorised Version. Someone posted on here a few months ago a remark that research done by (I think) the Tavistock Institute showed that only 13% of the population are able to entertain a belief that contradicts the one given to them by Authority.

        I would love to read that research, if it exists. If anyone knows anything about it, please post a link.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Yes glenn_nl,

    What did you think of the declassified document? The one revealing how the US planned to trigger a war with Russia by building replica Soviet planes and using them in a fake attack on the US and its Allies. Any thoughts on that?

    • glenn_nl

      How serious was this plan, KoWN? Was it on the President’s desk, just waiting for his signature, was the paint already ordered, and the replicas nearly complete – or was this just yet another whacked-out idea that never came even close to seeing the light of day?

      There is quite a difference, you know.

      • KingofWelshNoir

        That’s a bit like saying, ‘How serious was this plan to commit rape?’

        The document records how in 1962 the CIA explored a variety of avenues for procuring MIG 17 aircraft and discussed the difficulties of each approach. It explores the cost of making replicas, and outlines the various costs involved depending on how lifelike the replicas would look.

        If for example the replicas only had to withstand scrutiny at a distance by non-technical observers it was estimated it would cost (in 1962) $3.5 million for six aircraft.

        To go to such lengths as costing the creation of fake MIG 17s suggests a high level of seriousness.

        Most folk I would imagine would be appalled to discover that the US military and Government would even entertain for one moment a false flag option like this that would almost certainly precipitate a nuclear war.

        Just as many folk dismiss the very idea that western governments perform false flag attacks. Yet here is clear documentary evidence that it is regarded as a legitimate tactic.

  • Peter Beswick

    The Happy Citizen’s Catechism

    Governments make no pretence that they see a very important part of their purpose as moulding belief systems.

    Authority, acceptance, conformity, submission, unconditional obedience …… Good!

    Dissent, inquiry, individuality, challenge, defiance ……. Bad!

    And it doesn’t matter what we all agree on, as long as we all agree on the same thing.

    There will always be detractors / anarchists; depending on degree these misfits should be; sidelined, ridiculed, silenced, destabilised, threatened, punished, incarcerated or neutralised.

    The State is benign it permits acceptable choice in religion, politics, news and information sources, diet and school uniform footwear (within strict guidelines).

    Your enemies will be decided for you, your money will be used to destroy them and their wealth taken from them for the benefit of the greater good.

    You have accepted these rules and conditions by virtue of the fact that you choose to live in this democratic society.

    Enjoy the privileges and freedoms that your government provide. Together We are strong, divided You are weak.

    • Peter Beswick

      The UK Column Piece linked above has a nice history atatched.

      I have some strong links with Plymouth and would not have put it high on the Re-Awakening Scale

      This is proof that not only has the tide turned but it is now looking like the old tide mark will never be equalled again

      And this is what happens when Control loses sight of Reason

      “About The UK Column

      The UK Column story began with local residents in Devonport, the historic Royal Navy dockyard area of the city of Plymouth in South West England.

      Fighting against corruption within Plymouth City Council, and motivated by the increasing interference in their community by government backed ’Quangos’, as well as the political charity Common Purpose, local people were unable to get their concerns published by the local press.

      Research suggested a collaboration between Plymouth City Council, South West of England Regional Development Agency, the Government Office of the South West, Common Purpose and local newspapers. The simple objective appeared to be to hide the truth.

      In response a small Devonport group decided to print the truth themselves.

      The first edition of the Devonport Column was published in January 2006. A4 sheet size and with an initial distribution of just 500, the effect of the Column on the streets was amazing. Whilst residents, and the Plymouth public demanded more, local Councillors were bullied to try and shut the paper down, and even the Chief Executive of Plymouth Council used his public office to try and prevent future editions from being printed. Individual members of our team were threatened and some local advertisers intimidated.

      We knew we were onto something special, and we were greatly encouraged as an increasing number of telephone calls and letters of support arrived.

      The fledgling team worked hard to produce a monthly newsheet, boosted articles to cover a hefty four A4 pages, and increased distribution to 1500 copies per month. All work was voluntary and funded by local donations.

      Deeply researching links between Common Purpose, the inner reaches of government, public sector fraud and corruption and the EU, our volunteers were also motivated to form “The New Battle of Britain Group”, a campaign group to raise money and help others become more effective in spreading the truth about EU driven criminal activity in UK, and fighting it. This initiative was later to help create and fund the British Constitution Group, which has now achieved so much in its own right.

      As our readership grew, the Devonport Column was renamed, first to the Plymouth & Devonport Column, and then the UK Column.

      From that tiny spark of free speech, demand for the paper rapidly increased, and with the help of a few very generous start-up donations we were able to expand to 20,000 copies per month, rising to 75,000 in December 2007. To date the UK Column team has printed well over 1 million copies and has worked very hard over the last 9 years to greatly expand efforts on many different fronts.

      Alongside the hard copy papers, our website, ebooks, research groups and forums, we have also given hundreds of public talks across UK and overseas and produced thousands of hours of internet video presentations, documentaries and live weekday news programmes.

      The UK Column remains the work of a small core group of volunteers, and we are only able to do what we do due to the generosity of those who donate and subscribe. If you like what we do we very much hope that you will also give what you can to help support us.”

    • George

      Well the one thing we can be sure about regarding 9/11 is that there must have been some kind of conspiracy behind it.

  • Macky

    The closing doors on the Internet;

    “But what was seen cannot be unseen. The Russia nonsense they’re laboring to keep everyone focused on is riddled with more and more gaping plot holes, and the illusion is getting harder and harder to maintain. Keep shining bright lights on those plot holes, please, and speak your truth more boldly than ever. They’re trying to shut down all the exit doors before we can escape from oligarchic tyranny, and we are running out of time.”

  • Node

    Pavlovian reaction to 911 Truth? You don’t have to look too far to see where the conditioning comes from.

    First sentence of Wikipedia article 9/11 Truth movement
    “Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who dispute the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks of 2001.”

    First sentence of Wikipedia article Conspiracy theory
    “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy ….”

    Definition of unwarranted
    “unjustified, unjustifiable, indefensible, inexcusable, unforgivable, unpardonable, uncalled for, gratuitous, unnecessary, undue, unreasonable, unjust, groundless, inappropriate, unsuitable, unseemly, unbecoming, improper, ill-advised, excessive, immoderate, disproportionate, inordinate”

    Incidentally, I notice that Google no longer links to an established online dictionary when you search for the meaning of a word. Google now provides its own unattributed definition. Google’s sphere of influence now includes language itself.

    • glenn_nl

      I’d actually agree with you there, Node. A conspiracy theory is perfectly justified in many instances, and people have rightly been held to account for formulating, undertaking, or generally being part of a conspiracy to commit a criminal act (which 9/11 certainly was, for instance, whoever was responsible).

      You are also right to be deeply suspicious of google, who want to provide you with all your various understandings, as it sees fit. Furthermore, it not only wants to provide you with every answer, but to put the question into your mouth before giving it.

      • Clark

        I would agree too, except that the vast majority of the theories advanced by the lying “Truthers” are indeed unwarranted.

        “If they can get you asking the wrong questions…”

  • SA

    The 911 post goes on and on and unlikely to reach any conclusion.
    Let us step back for a moment and see how the world has changed because of 911. How and why and the actual mechanics of 911 does not really matter anymore.
    I am not a truthet, nor am I a ‘believer’ in the sense that I believe the official narrative. I know that there has been a conspiracy by someone and that that conspiracy has been used to foster other conspiracies.
    Although I do not fully agree with Clark, I admire what he has written. The point is not 911 as a conspiracy it is the much more mundane fact that it is so much simpler and therefore more frightening. That is also why people like Chomsky, whom I admire a lot, don’t waste time on this. The mundane truth is that it is a mindset that has become established amongst the neo -pundits and the groupthink Ernestine everything in the MSM and this makes it even more frightening. So whilst we are debating 911 we have since had many happenings and debating the nuts and bolts of 911 has become a major distraction for people who should be paying more attention to false flag sarin attacks, White Helmets and also to the serious happenings in Saudi Arabia. This despot who is now let loose is more dangerous than OBL Saddam or any of the paper tiger dictators because he is so much more powerful as an economic destabiliser. Some feel this as a full circle vindication of their beliefs of what has been happening since 911 but others may remain stuck behind absent fuselages outside the Pentagon.
    Thanks due to Clark.

    • Macky

      @SA, not sure that I follow whatever exactly you are trying to say, but I have to disagree in that, everything that has happened after 911, happened because of 911, and things are still happening because of 911, that’s why 911 needs to be dealt with; because 911 didn’t end on 911, it’s still happening with this horrendous continuing self-perpetuating consequential aftermath; all the things that you state that we should be concentrated on are connected & dependent on 911; I strongly disagree that 911 is a distraction to what is occurring now, on the contrary, as I tried to explain here;

      I also strongly disagree with you about Clark contribution to this thread, but I don’t want to write a book-size post ! 😀

      • SA

        I have never said that what happened since 911 did not happen because of 911. Forgive me if I gave that impression. Of course it was a pivotal event and of course all of what happened since then was a consequence of 911.
        In 2003 the peace movement and anti war feelings in many countries were high and millions marched in many parts of the world to try and prevent the war against Iraq. No such phenomena happened since with Libya or Syria. Maybe this is because some people instead of marching are busy with trying to prove that 911 was a conspiracy. What I am saying is that of course 911 was a conspiracy and the reason why it succeeded is that the conspirators, whoever they are, are deeply involved in the system which controls the world, not through direct coercion but through a more sinister way which causes a manufactured consent through groupthink. I am really not talking lizards here in case someone thinks I am. Even the official narrative confirms a conspiracy which is hidden in being so obvious. The official story is that 19 conspirators armed with wire cutters and controlled by someone in a cave in Afghanistan were responsible for the atrocity. But then we find out that they are let to do so by a series of errors that amounts to such gross security lapses that normally would have led to many heads rolling in high places. None of this has happened, but instead the co-conspirators got thier ‘second Pearl harbour ‘ and the diverted culprit. No external other conspiracy needs to be looked at. By trying to prove that buildings that collapsed did so because of being of controlled demolition and so on, the conspirators got their purpose, the major distraction of diverting attention from what exactly they told us happened and the narrative was so emotionally loaded that anyone questioning the narrative was labelled as anti patriotic.
        I am sorry about this long winded waffle but what I am trying to say is that the official narrative already implicates 15 Saudis and gross security negligence but these have been neglected and lost in the argument about nanothermite.
        I am sure we will never come to the bottom of the actual nuts and bolts of 911 in our lifetime, but meanwhile the Saudis have control over the two parties in US and in the establishment in U.K. they , together with another country which we have been carefully trained not to criticise, are also fast becoming a taboo subject. In the western alliance in the ME we now have three nutters in control and slaughters in Syria and Yemen, not to mention several other forgotten killing fields.
        The centralised power system in the ‘free world’ is an oligarchy of the rich. The fight is here and now and exposure of what is happening now is our first priority.

        • Macky

          @SA, It’s late & I’m about to call it a night, but quickly;

          1. You’re being inconsistent as it’s Clark that bogs everybody down in the nuts & bolts arguments, as many people, including myself, have tried to argue that the mechanics of how is a much lesser priority of who & why, but he kicks up a storm and insist that his theory of how the Towers fell is the MOST important aspect of 911,that needs to be addressed before anything else.

          2. If as it is suspected that this was indeed an inside job, and it is proved, then the US war machine would stop overnight, as Americans would take to the streets in their millions demanding the heads of those responsible.

          3. If as suspected, that Israel and/or Saudi Arabia were actively involved, their war-mongering would also cease overnight too, as outraged American Public Opinion would ensure they would be stopped from receiving funds & weapons, be isolated, etc.

          4. The fight against current war-mongering is not being distracted by activists pre-occupied by 911; rather the people who are motivated by the injustice of 911 are mostly the same people who are moved to campaign about current injustices, but their efforts are undermined by those who ridicule their concern over 911.

          Probably more, but another time.

          • SA

            It is all there anyway and no angry Americans are
            Marching up and down the streets. The facts are out there in fact in the case of the ‘New American century’ , ‘The New pearl harbour’ and the Yinon plan have all been researched and published well in advance. Wesley Clarke said it in 2007. Nothing has happened. Even when things are not hidden they do not seem to provoke much reaction. That is what I mean, the narrative controlling the groupthink is so strong that even if there was black and white evidence, nothing will change. A new exposure of 911 will either be ignored or buried in the inside pages of the MSM papers.
            My point in all this is that in this fight the main focus is the system and how to change it. Distractions abound. This is not to say that what exactly happened in 911 does not matter, just that without changing other important things such as methods of control over the press and the way we are ‘democratically ‘ governed, lies will prosper and even when we know the truth, as in Blair and bush’s culpability in the slaughter of the Iraq war, no resultant action occurs.

          • Clark

            “t is all there anyway and no angry Americans are Marching up and down the streets”

            Hear, hear!

            “and even when we know the truth, as in Blair and bush’s culpability in the slaughter of the Iraq war, no resultant action occurs”

            Hear, hear, hear!

            “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t need to worry about answers”

            Thomas Pynchon, engineer and novelist. Time to address the political structure rather than the collapse of an evacuated building.

          • Macky

            SA; “It is all there anyway and no angry Americans are Marching up and down the streets.”

            No it’s not ! That’s exactly why the MSM is able to make people automatically mock & ridicule those that question the 911 Official Narrative. This is also exactly why no serious politician or commentator can openly cast doubt on the Official Narrative of 911 in the MSM, because it’s out of the Overton Window, of ideas or opinions that are allowed to discussed publically; those that have tried, become immediately marginalised & penalized with loss of career, etc.

            Imagined if the evidence was found, or it was proved beyond any doubt that 911 was an inside job, then the Overton Window would be smashed, and everybody could talk about it freely, without fear & without being dismissed as a Conspiracy Nut/Truther. This would really get the message out, and would then force the MSM to report it, and that’s when the angry Americans will take to the streets.

            This is how the system will change; expecting the Elites control on the MSM & Government to change by other means is rather a forlorn hope, as History keeps proving to us, because control is never willingly given away, it’s only given-up when those in control realise that they are powerless to stop losing it.

          • Clark

            SA: – “It is all there anyway”

            Macky: – “No it’s not !”

            So what specifically do you think is missing, that would get “angry Americans Marching up and down the streets”?

            “…no serious politician or commentator can openly cast doubt on the Official Narrative of 911 in the MSM”

            Michael Meacher, Robin Cook, Senator Bob Graham, John Pilger… Just off the top of my head…

            “Imagined if the evidence was found…”

            But that is dependent upon there being evidence, isn’t it? Maybe work with what we’ve got? Like the torture programme for false confessions to implicate Iraq, for instance.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ SA November 25, 2017 at 00:07
          Two quick points: ‘…the official narrative already implicates 15 Saudis and gross security negligence…’
          Yes, the ‘official narrative’ does, and the PTB have not altered that narrative, even though 8 or 9 of the ‘alleged’ hijackers have been found to be alive and well and had absolutely no link with the 9/11 attack.
          So they used other people’s identities? Fine, but then how can anyone know their real identities, or if they were Saudi?
          Except, of course, the CIA and other ‘Intelligence’ and ‘Security’ agencies, who set the plot up.
          Secondly, please watch ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9/11’ (Full Documentary):

          It documents the ridiculous attention-getting antics of the ‘alleged hijackers’, in order to make sure there was a very clear ‘Red Herring’ false trail. Their antics would almost certainly have led to their arrests (like openly snorting cocaine, and threatening a woman who refused one of their applications for a loan.
          Could anyone have been so stupid (and clearly these ‘alleged hijackers’ are allegedly smart enough to hit three out of four of their targets, having somehow bamboozled their way onto four aircraft, and to manage to take all four aircraft over without the pilots or copilots even managing to press the ‘squawk’ button) as to risk a well-planned terrorist attack by such provocative behaviour?
          The documentary is quite long, an hour and foorty five minutes, but I believe it will raise serious questions in the whole ‘hijack’ narrative.
          Dario Fo wrote the play ‘Accidental Death of an Anarchist’, about a railway worker and anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli, who fell – or was thrown – to his death from the fourth floor window of a Milan police station in 1969. Pinelli was accused of bombing a bank (the Piazza Fontana bombing) but was cleared of the charge –
          The bombing was in fact later shown to be the work of the CIA set up ‘Gladio’ ‘Secret Army’.

          • Clark

            Well phrased Paul. You’re raising your game, which is what I was hoping for.

            I’m not sure you should be ditching the hijackers. From your own point of view, the alleged hijackers were assisted by Israeli secret operatives, weren’t they? “How could they not have known”. The matter of apparently wrong names needs looking into. But the likelihood of Saudis seems high, because Saudis were “hands off” for the authorities, cf: Springmann.

            As for their “antics”, and what gets thought of as “suspiciously convenient evidence” like stuff left in cars; jihadis try to make their identities clear, even leaving videos etc., so that may not be a useful argument.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ SA November 24, 2017 at 20:14
      Most 9/11 Truthers are also very interested in what is happening now; it is not an ‘either/or’, 9/11 is fundamental to what has happened since. As the PNAC document stated: ‘.. “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor….”.
      And as many of us will be aware, Pearl Harbour was an ‘engineered’ attack, deliberately brought about by increasingly severe provocations against Japan, and also failing to warn Pearl Harbour, so they would be taken by surprise, and have a far greater death toll.
      Just as people who tried to exit WTC 2 were told to return to their offices as there was no danger to WTC 2. Many who did return to their offices died as a result of the false information.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Unknown Snipers and Western backed “Regime Change”:

    ‘Unknown snipers played a pivotal role throughout the so-called « Arab Spring Revolutions » yet, in spite of reports of their presence in the mainstream media, surprisingly little attention has been paid to to their purpose and role.

    The Russian investigative journalist Nikolay Starikov has written a book which discusses the role of unknown snipers in the destabilization of countries targeted for regime change by the United States and its allies. The following article attempts to elucidate some historical examples of this technique with a view to providing a background within which to understand the current covert war on the people of Syria by death squads in the service of Western intelligence………..’

    Just further evidence the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ was a Western plot.

    • SA

      The whole of the Arab spring may not have been a western snipers plot, and it is probably this generalisation that causes distraction. To us who follow the Middle East closely, the Arab spring was more complicated.
      In the cases of Tunisia and Egypt there is no doubt in my mind that these were spontaneous events. What happened next was that the west became worried about too much real democracy going to happen in the Arab world with serious consequences to our ‘rich and powerful ‘friends’. So thereafter it was controlled. The case of Egypt was particularly problematic because unfortunately the only cohesive powerful opposition that was organised were the Muslim Brothers (MB).
      Having got into power in Egypt, the MB started to introduce changes that would effectively have institutionalise their rule and eventually ban all other parties under Islamic rule. I am no supporter of Al Sisi, who incidentally not many people in the West criticise and who is of rather limited intelligence and imagination , but now Egypt is back to square one. Beyond Tunisia and Egypt and possibly Bahrain , there was then a desperate intervention spearheaded by Qatar and probably the Saudis with massive support from the west, to control this process so that it doesn’t spread to those most oppressive traditional kingdoms and sheikhdoms. True democracy in the ME unfortunately is not likely to happen in the ME, or anywhere where the population is not sufficiently aware and free. Even in the west, witness our democracies ruled by oligarchs.

      • SA

        And I hasten to add that religion, all three monotheistic ones, have a lot to answer for in the Middle East , the cradle of all three of them. Maybe I should rephrase that to say all three religions have unfortunately been used for political and control purposes.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Dave November 25, 2017 at 07:55
          As a non-denominational Christian (and ex-Catholic) I believe the Vatican is a party to the NWO, anti-religious plans.
          In short, they have long since taken the ‘Left Hand Path’. Pope John Paul I was going to clean out the Vatican ‘Augean Stables’ – in the early hours of D-Day (when he planned to announce a massive reassignment of duties in the Vatican and broader church, banishing Masonic Cardinals, Bishops and priests to duties and areas where they could do little harm, sacking Marcinkus as head of the Vatican Bank, and much more) he was poisoned, after just 33 days as Pope. He was replaced by Pope John Paul II, a key CIA ally who kept all the Masons, including Marcinkus, in their positions, and went on to money launder huge drug and gun running profits, and to fund Solidarity and Gladio, including the Latin American Death Squads (to counter the ‘Communist’ Liberation Theology).
          I happen to believe AGW is real, but I am not knowledgeable enough to argue the point, so I won’t discuss that issue.
          The Vatican has always been known to have a top quality Intelligence Service, so they obviously know about all the False Flags that are perpetrated, but stay shtumn (and as I related above, actively participate in Gladio, both in Italy and around the globe), so are as guilty as the Banksters and others who plan these wars and massive loss of life and destruction of whole countries.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ SA November 25, 2017 at 00:32
        Here is a good article showing just how ‘spontaneous’ the Egyptian ‘Arab Spring’ was (and I have read of a Tunisian student who committed suicide after realising they had been duped):
        ‘Ukraine Protests Carefully Orchestrated: The Role of CANVAS, US-Financed “Color Revolution Training Group”:
        Also highly relevant: ‘CIA Backed Color Revolutions’:
        and ‘George Soros’s False Flag Factories’:

        • SA

          I am well aware of the false flag snipers in Ukraine and also probably in the early part of the Syrian ‘uprising’. I am not aware of major role for snipers elsehere. I am also aware of Soros as a major instigator or shall we say contributor to colour revolutions, mainly in east Europe. I am less sure of his involvement in the Arab world. In any case the whole ‘conspiracy’ contains many components and there is always a lot of civic movement background work that then leads to some spark such as street demonstration because of rise in cost of living or something and at this stage I think major states take over supplying the training and weapons to the peaceful moderate rebels.
          In Egypt I still strongly believe that the movement was a true multifaceted ‘grass root’ movement but that the MB were the best organised and managed to win the elections. That part of the Egyptian revolt was promising, but Morsi was slowly changing Egypt into an Islamic State and beginning to show signs of suppressing democracy and was then overthrown by Sisi.
          Libya was quiet clear. The funding and arming of the rebels was mainly from Qatar with the support of SA and gulf states and of course NATO ‘humanitarian’ air cover. Syria was clearly an attempt to do what was done to Iraq but of course Russia did not allow that to happen hence the proxy war.
          I think it is not just Soros he is the soft power part of it.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ SA November 25, 2017 at 16:48
            Perhaps you weren’t aware of the role of snipers in other countries, but after reading those three articles you should be aware. In Venezuela, exactly the same tactic was used. In Libya, the American Ambassador who later got his ‘comeuppance’ was heavily involved in promoting the import of foreign ‘Jihadis’, and in pushing for the armed insurrection.
            Certainly it is not JUST Soros, but his bloodstained fingerprints are all over it, among others.
            What country has emerged better as a result of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’? Cui bono?
            Of course there is always genuine desire for change from the ordinary oppressed people, but without the injected funding and assistance of an outside force, the people remain, understandably, cowed.

          • SA

            Re Arab Spring. No I agree that no country came off better in the Arab spring, except perhaps, Tunisia. But the reasons for failure are different.
            There is however a strong polarisation in the Arab countries between political Islam which in most cases would only tolerate the rule of Sharia law, and others who constitute nationalists and secularists and intelligentsia. The former group tends to be more organised and coherent but inherently anti democratic. Unless there is a structural change, true democracy will be difficult to achieve and the choice remains between a secular or an Islamic dictatorships.

          • Clark

            SA, I can sympathise with distrust of democracy. Consider Libya. Blair re-established cooperation by persuading Gaddafi to terminate Libya’s Weapons of Mass Destruction programme. But the UK government changed under democracy. The new UK government championed the destruction of Libya, now without a deterrent, and Gaddafi was brutally murdered. What an example democracy set in that case!

          • SA

            I am not sure I follow what you say. Libya never became a democracy after the fall of Gaddafi. It is a failed state.
            What I am trying to say is that on the Arab world democracy will be difficult to achieve because Islamists are not susceptible to accept democracy. As far as I know the only semblance of democracy was when Hamas won the elections in Gaza and this was then opposed by everyone in the west and of course by Israel leading to the blockade of Gaza. I don’t know how radical Islamist hamas would have turned to be if it was allowed to govern, I would have thought that they might have respected especially Christian minority rights but this is speculative.

            My point really is that democracy needs a slow nurturing culture and this prerequisite is not easy to see currently in the ME and external pressure will only make the situation worse. Also the problem of the dominance of Saudi Arabia is clearly not helping.

          • Clark

            SA, what I mean is that British democracy changed the British government, replacing Blair who had made promises to Gaddafi. The new British government betrayed the former British government’s promise. It sends the message that democracies can’t be trusted.

      • SA

        Yes the millions marching about Iraq was very impressive but didn’t stop the invasion. The following invasions were cautious, Libya by obtaining a fig leaf UN resolution where China and Russia abstained and in Syria where proxies were used because of Russian objections. Now I tried to raise a petition called ‘Hands off Syria ‘ on 38 Degrees’s around the time of the vote and got a handful of people to sign. I tried to contact the anti war movement but saw very little sign of interest. There were no major demonstrations. In fact you could argue that the most important reason why Syria failed for the west is Russia not people’s action. And as to Yemen there is little public objections to our selling arms to the Saudis .
        It really does seem to me that twitter and blogs have taken away from street protests. We can all write blogs from the comfort of our homes but is there still the appetite for mass demonstrations?

  • Clark

    Is there actually any evidence in that book, or just scarily big pictures of Larry Silverstein like the Nazis used to employ, and baseless accusations that 9/11 was all his personal insurance scam?

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Whenever I watch RT I feel like an adult at a child’s birthday party who has just walked into the kitchen to talk with the adults. So I must say the recent announcement by Google chief Eric Schmidt that Google will ‘engineer’ Russian propaganda out of the feed, (adding, ‘It’s basically Sputnik and RT.’) very disturbing.

    I know the word Orwellian has been done to death but it still seems to describe fairly accurately what is going on. The only difference being in 1984 the censorship was arranged by the state not a corporation. But not even George Orwell could have foreseen Google.

    When they moved against Las Vegas material deemed offensive, I said the parameters of acceptability would soon be widened, and lo! they now include George Galloway.

    After the adhom fest of yesterday how about a civilised debate on an issue that should be important to everyone here no matter where they stand on 9/11?

    Anyone got any decent thoughts about what realistically one can do about this? It can’t be acceptable for Google to control the news and then decide that even George Galloway should be censored. This whole blog is based on a history of challenging official state narratives.


    • Maxter

      I remember converting to RT from all other channels back in 2011. It was a breath of fresh air, compared to all the other controlled narratives out there. There was a fair bit of flack headed in my direction especially from work colleagues, die hard BBC fans.
      Unfortunately too many ordinary people don’t realise that most of the mainstream news is just a distraction to keep people entertained or wrongly informed, there also a lot of rubber neck type reports to satiate the mental desires of the small minded. Its just there to keep people from understanding brutal reality and just how screwed their getting from the system that reports otherwise in my opinion.

      As to what can be done about censorship of dissenting voices and proper “no stone unturned” investigative reporting. ?????

    • Clark

      “Anyone got any decent thoughts about what realistically one can do about this?”

      Er, try a selection of search engines?

      Genuine question; why is everyone assuming that we’re all dependant on Google? It’s as if everyone has abdicated responsibility.

      The Internet is difficult to censor; it was designed to be by ARPA, and they did a pretty good job. The obvious point of vulnerability to centralisation is the DNS system, but even that can be worked around if people get organised. But I bet you’re not even running a GNU/Linux system yet.

      Organise, organise, organise.

      • Clark

        I bet you don’t even know what the GPL is, who wrote it or why doing so was such an act of genius.

        We already have the necessary tools, but hardly anyone is bothering to learn how to use them.

    • Clark

      And don’t go trusting RT. I know another superpower’s propaganda is refreshing amid so much from the “Western” corporates, but it’s still propaganda.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ KingofWelshNoir November 25, 2017 at 08:25
      Not really an idea, but there are alternatives to Google and You Tube; I’m sure (or should I say I hope!) more clued-up people will come up with sites. Here’s more of the problem we’re up against: ‘The Demonetization of YouTube is Fast Underway; Dissidents Will Be Silenced’:
      Here’s some alternatives to YouTube: ‘Top 10 Best Alternatives To YouTube’:
      But, ultimately, THEY will win (in this world – I wouldn’t like to be in their shoes on Judgement Day!).

      • KingofWelshNoir

        I know, I couldn’t believe the carnage this morning when I logged on. I had spent ages working on my post about belief systems as acts of faith that are impervious to evidence. But this morning it was gone, like last autumn’s snow. The tragedy is, I thought we were close yesterday, only days away from solving 9/11 🙂

  • Dave

    In a way man-made AGW is back to basics for the Pope, because its an act of faith that asserts the centrality of man in the scheme of things. A vanity that led the early church to believe the Sun revolved around Earth due to mankind being God’s special creation.

    But its a globalist scam, promoted as a global scare as a pretext for global governance, no different really to the war on terror as a pretext for global imperialism.

      • Clark

        Actually, most members of the UN do not ignore greenhouse gas reduction. There are more lesser-developed countries than highly industrialised ones. The UN votes for action on climate change, but the richer nations fudge their response to it, or even pull out of the agreement as the US just did.

        The UN certainly suffers from undue influence, particularly from the US. But it has also achieved amazing things such as the eradication of smallpox and the overall success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

        Climate change denial, the anti-vaccination theories, and the global government theory are all popularised by the US alt-Right, which is funded by US corporatism. One of their major targets is the UN, because it restricts them thereby reducing their profits.

  • Clark

    [Mod: All commenters are reminded that ad hominem, bickering, and postings that do not address the arguments of others in a courteous manner will be removed. This is going to be done irrespective of any other content of the posting, and irrespective of any replies to the posting. It may not be done immediately, but it will be done. This has been stressed before. It may be least risky, to reply to a posting you wish to address by beginning a new post and calling attention to the post you wish to address at the head of your new posting. If your post otherwise conforms to posting requirements, it is then much less likely to be caught up in a general removal. Thank you.]

    KingofWelshNoir, why were you going on about “belief systems as acts of faith that are impervious to evidence” yet again? I’m the only dissenter here generally. But I am most certainly open to evidence.

    The most obvious candidates for being “belief systems as acts of faith that are impervious to evidence” are Twin Tower demolition theory and no planes at the WTC theory.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      Clark, I wrote about it as a reply to another post. It disappeared in a whole string of posts that were deleted. It’s a shame because it was a thoughtful post, it attacked no one. Indeed, I pointed out that when people are presented with evidence that contradicts what they believe, they usually do not reconsider what they believe but just look for other evidence that supports it. I freely included myself in this failing, so I was not pointing the finger at one side and claiming one side was pure and the other impure. We all do it.

      • Clark

        KoWN, that is a shame, and thanks for pitching it in a general, neutral fashion. Yes, beliefs become entrenched. I get annoyed when it is assumed that this applies exclusively to the followers of the mainstream media.

        I have some practical suggestions about news, search engines and verifiability.

        I think we need to learn to live with the term “conspiracy theory”, or maybe come up with a new term and try to popularise it. Maybe we need some additional terms; we need “popular consensus”, “unwarranted theory”, and “alternative analyses” – but the “alternative analyses” must be genuinely analysed, not the sort of rumour amplification that seems to happen all too easily.

        We need to take responsibility and get organised.

        We need to clean up our own acts.

        We need more people to learn to edit Wikipedia.

        And we need to develop and deploy peer-networked Web infrastructure. We need distributed, peer-hosted DNS and search engines. And we need to get the encryption off our wireless routers so we can all share each others’ connections to defeat prioritisation of corporate traffic. These could all be done by working with local Linux user groups.

      • Clark

        So, suggestion – instead of two terms, lets have four. At present there’s just “conspiracy theory” and “official narrative”.

        I hate “official narrative” because it’s just useless. What do you do with a fact such as Osama bin Laden never being charged with 9/11? That is the official position, but it isn’t part of the mainstream propaganda image. So that’s one new term, “mainstream propaganda”

        Let’s accept “conspiracy theory” as it is, meaning “unwarranted theory” and “amplified rumour”, but add another new term “alternative analysis”. We could lay these out diagrammatically as below, with “tighter” on the left and “looser” on the right,

        Official Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mainstream Narratives
        Alternative Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . Conspiracy Theories

        Somehow, we need to work another spectrum into this:

        Journalistic Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fake News

        How about a toblerone or triangular bar, laid down flat? On the left, the “truthy” end, the two base points are official statements and journalistic reports, their apex or syntheses being good alternative analyses. On the right, or “invented” end, the two base points are mainstream narratives and fake news, their apex or syntheses being conspiracy theories.

        OK, my four terms have become six; three pairs. But could this be developed into a workable model? What’s missing?

  • Node

    The tragedy is, I thought we were close yesterday, only days away from solving 9/11 ?

    I doubt it. The last I saw was some idiot blethering away about getting it off his chest and setting the record straight, Dick someone or other. Anyway I got distracted by a Youtube video of cute kittens and when I got back all those posts had been deleted. I don’t suppose we’ll ever get to the bottom of it. Oh, yeah, Cheney, that was his name.

    • Phil the ex-frog

      “The tragedy is, I thought we were close yesterday, only days away from solving 9/11”

      You came too close. Please delete my number from your phones. Good luck.

      • Dave

        It has been solved a thousand times, but until you move from the what, to the who and why, and create a counter claim the public can support, the perpetrators remain in power. At the end of the day unless truth can translate into political office, it remains the elephant in the room.

          • Clark

            I think that interplay of aspects of human nature as channelled through the US voting system is what got Trump elected. I think the US Democrat equivalent of the Blairites did the most damage – human nature; wanting to win more than wanting what’s best.

            We saw a little of some other factors on this thread. Twin Tower demolition theorists had a hope that Trump would confirm their theories; they even thought he might get assassinated.

            Trump’s campaign extensively exploited fake news and unwarranted theories. I think that’s a very strong indicator that we should clean up our act.

          • Clark

            Probably they’ll justify it by claiming to be denying that territory to ISIS / Daesh.

            Great, isn’t it? The “Western”/NATO alliance back these groups, fund them, arm them, train them, supply logistics and intelligence, and then later claim to be keeping them out. It’s much like a protection racket.

    • SA

      I was there and there was a most amazing solidarity and sense of purpose. But notice the complete abscensce ifs response to Libya and Syria even though these were even lesss justified aggressions. The reason is the chameleon like nature of the way of aggression, in Libya using the in cover of humanitarian bombing, and in Syria, the invention of various shades of rebels from moderate to extreme and the extreme involvement directly or by proxy, of regionals powers. Sorry Clark got to go now but may come back later.

      • Clark

        It was an incredible atmosphere.

        But in Parliament Square, where the rally was to turn north, there was a hesitation, a feeling that we were about to walk away from the Houses of Parliament, and that we shouldn’t. I think I knew then that the governments were going to go ahead with the atrocity, unless the people stopped them by physical force.

  • Macky

    Not sure if this case has ever been brought up here, but hat-tip to Trowbridge, who over at Sqounk’s, bought it to my attention; the strange & still unsolved murder of Suzanne Jovin, college student back in 1998; at first thoughts, ok her thesis was about Osama Ben Laden, but so what; then when it’s stated that her senior thesis advisor, had worked for the Pentagon & State Department, with over security clearance over top secret, and then you read about the extremely suspicious blotched murder investigation, then you start to wonder.

    This seems like a good summary of the case;

1 126 127 128 129 130 134

Comments are closed.