As Big as Terrorism 155


The BBC are breathlessly reporting this morning, as their lead news story, that antibiotics resistance is now so huge a threat, it is on a par with terrorism.

Let us consider that for one moment:

UK deaths last year from antibiotic resistance: 5,000
Uk deaths last year fron terrorisn: nil

Or:

UK deaths last decade from antibiotic resistance: 33,000
UK deaths last decade from all terrorism: 71

This insistence of the media in ramping the “terrorist threat”, even in completely unrelated stories, is farcical. Today they also have Abu Qatada to follow up as second news story and put terrifying images of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Abu Qatada – oh sorry, there aren’t any – err terrifying images of his obviously terrorist beard on our screens.

Sky News has been running the Qatada story for three days solid, every time introducing Qatada as “the man once called Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe”. Yet no serious claim has ever been made, anywhere, that Qatada ever met Osama Bun Laden. No evidence has ever been produced that he was in communication with him, and the intelligence services have nothing that indicates that either. I could call Teresa May a hysterical evil populist Muslim-hater, but my doing so would not make it true. However I look forward to hearing “Teresa May once called a …” next time she is mentioned on Sky.

Qatada has lived in this country now for nearly 20 years and there is no evidence he has ever committed any crime in all that time here, no evidence despite his being under intense surveillance. There is no credible, untainted evidence of his having done so in Jordan either. I am perfectly prepared to believe he is somebody who holds unpleasant views. He may well be very unpleasant. Terrorist mastermind he is not.

The actual terrorist threat is at such a low level – much less than so many of us lived through in the 70’s and 80’s – that it needs incarnation to work as a demon of the mind. If Abu Qatada does get deported, the media will have to find someone else with a scarey beard to terrify children into going to bed – sorry, us into giving up our liberties and cash to our “protectors”.

Muslims – more dangerous than E. coli. Give me a break.


155 thoughts on “As Big as Terrorism

1 3 4 5 6
  • Fred

    “..a comedy of errors ” Indeed; but not a conspiracy.

    We don’t really know either way.

    What I do know is that if I had been one of the hijackers I’d have been expecting to be intercepted and probably decided to hijack a plane from New York airport so I’d have time to get the job done before they could scramble any fighters.

    “I believe the Twin Towers contained something approaching half a million tons of material so I’d have thought the chances of something getting struck as it fell would be quite high. However we don’t have to specualte as we know that’s what happened and indeed there is photographic evidence. Anyway, glad to see that we have advanced from “a few small fires” to accepting that the building was heavily damaged.”

    I don’t recall saying anything about small fires. It was pretty certain something would be struck, unlikely it would be Building 7 but not the buildings either side if it.

  • Africom Pope

    “WTC 7 suffered more than a few “small fires”. One corner, always the weak point on any building, was seriously damaged by falling debris from one of the other towers and suffered a straightforward progressive collapse. So it fell downwards, what other direction is it going to fall?”

    How about towards the weakened corner? Why do the other three corners (and the rest of the building) all collapse at the same rate when they are not damaged, are you suggesting the whole building was held up by one corner? I don’t believe how stupid some of these arguments are. Understanding physics, cause and effect and conservation of energy does not make a person a conspiracy theorist. WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

  • Boomtownchav

    The standard reaction to a hijacking in the UK , before September 11th, was to divert the aircraft, unmolested, to Stanstead Airport in Essex. Regular exercises took place and an aerial intercept was never considered part of that procedure

    The fires in the WTC would have involved thousands of gallons of Avtar the effect of which on the steel core of the building is fairly unknown and I doubt if many structural engineers, if any, would have much data on a event of this magnitude

  • Boomtownchav

    @africom pope

    Flying an aircraft into a building at several hundred kph thousands of gallons of fuel burning and cascading through the super structure……I very much doubt if any corners were left undamaged. If there were undamaged corners and only small fires why did people jump to their deaths rather than use the stairs in the undamaged corners?

    The July 7th bombings were set up by the intelligence services? Then why murder a Brazilian electrician
    on his way to work at Stockwell tube station?

    I accept your passionate about this subject but don’t let your passion blinker you to other possibilities

  • Fred

    “Flying an aircraft into a building at several hundred kph thousands of gallons of fuel burning and cascading through the super structure……I very much doubt if any corners were left undamaged. If there were undamaged corners and only small fires why did people jump to their deaths rather than use the stairs in the undamaged corners? ”

    WTC7 wasn’t hit by a plane.

  • Kempe

    AP mentioned small fires. Photos of the damage and extensive smoke coming out of WTC 7 here.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

    I understand physics, I have a degree in the subject, also cause and effect and the conservation of energy. I see nothing in the progressive collapse of all three buildings that is a problem in any of the three.

  • A Node

    The fires in the WTC would have involved thousands of gallons of Avtar the effect of which on the steel core of the building is fairly unknown and I doubt if many structural engineers, if any, would have much data on a event of this magnitude

    If the effect of burning thousands of gallons of Avtaron on a steel framed building was fairly unknown before, there is no uncertainty now. The effect is to cause it to collapse neatly into its own footprint. It happened with both towers, and apparently to a third building without the need for any more aviation fuel. A demolition firm would have charged tens of millions to do that. Until 9/11, the only known way of demolishing buildings of this size was to attach hundreds of cutting charges to the load-bearing members and detonate them in a carefully calculated sequence timed to the millisecond. If the charges do not go off symmetrically, the building will collapse to the side.
    We can now be pretty confident that these demolition firms have been taking the piss all these years. All you have to do is punch a hole in the side of the building somewhere near the top, pour in a few thousand gallons of fuel, and ignite. Three times out of three, the buildings will fall straight downwards without sideways damage.

  • Fred

    “AP mentioned small fires.”

    Then take it up with AP instead of pretending I said it.

  • Fred

    “Three times out of three, the buildings will fall straight downwards without sideways damage.”

    Three times out of two in fact.

  • A Node

    Kempe

    “The people working at Bletchley Park knew they were working towards the greater good and they did start to break their vows of silence eventually. If 9/11 was the big conspiracy the troofers claim somebody would’ve had an attack of conscience by now.”

    The people at Bletchley Park only broke their vows of silence when they were allowed to, once there was no more value in secrecy.
    Before the end of the war, Bletchley managed to crack the Enigma machines (due as much to German human failings as to the brilliant mathematicians) but obviously this fact was kept top secret so the Germans would continue to rely on the code. In order to keep the Germans convinced that the code was unbroken, Britain would sometimes allow its ships to be sunk by u-boats even when they they had advance warning.
    In the immediate aftermath of the war, the British collected and confiscated thousands of the Enigma Machines. As far as the world knew, these encryption machines were still uncracked, still a method of communicating with of 100% security. So what did Britain do with this ‘guaranteed safe’ method of communication? It gave the machines to its allies and the remaining countries of its Empire, and for the next couple of decades were able to listen in on the ‘secret’ communications of it’s friends. But of course the illusion had to be maintained that they were still secure so the Bletchley people remained unsung heros.
    Only in the nineties when the last sucker state realised that they’d been had all these years did the need for secrecy end, and only then was the story told. So I’m afraid, Kempe, that the Bletchley Park saga is actually a good example of quite the opposite to what you claim. It proves that secrets can be kept as long as a state deems it necessary

  • glenn_uk

    “The July 7th bombings were set up by the intelligence services? Then why murder a Brazilian electrician on his way to work at Stockwell tube station?

    Did anyone suggest that ALL agencies, at every level had to be in on every supposed plot? JHC… why is it all/nothing with these True Believers? Again – argument from disbelief.

    Next, we’ll be hearing how it was perfectly expected that the Twin Towers should drop with near free-fall acceleration, as if the internal structure offers little more resistance than fresh air.

  • Kempe

    “Only in the nineties when the last sucker state realised that they’d been had all these years did the need for secrecy end, and only then was the story told. ”

    The first English language account,F W Winterbotham’s “The Ultra Secret”, was published in 1974. It led to many other people who had worked at Bletchley Park publishing memoirs from the 1970’s onward. Welchman’s seminal Hut Six Story followed in 1981. These people had been sworn to secrecy for life and most certainly did not have state permission to go public.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gordon_welchman.htm

  • Kempe

    “Three times out of three, the buildings will fall straight downwards without sideways damage ”

    Like I said before what other direction is a building going to fall but downwards?

    This is a compilation video of buildings being demolished using a French system called Verinage. Hydraulics are used to initiate a collapse half way up after which the weight of the upper floors crushes those beneath. No explosives or pre-weakening is used but you’ll note the speed of collapse and the amount of dust created. There is a clear parallel with the WTC except there the initial collapse was cause by impact and fire damage.

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

  • Boomtownchav

    @Glen_uk. JHC…..why is it all / nothing with these True Believers. It seems that both parties suffer from the same problem.

  • Fred

    “This is a compilation video of buildings being demolished using a French system called Verinage. Hydraulics are used to initiate a collapse half way up after which the weight of the upper floors crushes those beneath. No explosives or pre-weakening is used but you’ll note the speed of collapse and the amount of dust created. There is a clear parallel with the WTC except there the initial collapse was cause by impact and fire damage.”

    So you’re saying that if a team of demolition experts go in and weaken the supports of a building in just the right places the result looks a lot like the collapse of the WTC buildings?

    Now there is a coincidence.

    Does this technique work on steel framed buildings as well?

  • November

    Psychologists Explain 9/11 Denial

    The denial of the facts surrounding 9/11 “inside job” attacks are rooted in the fear of the insignificance of those holding onto the official version.

    The heat generated by the TNT explosions are in the order of 570 degrees Celsius, yet the heat generated from the incomplete combustion of avgas seem to be much higher!!!!

  • A Node

    Kempe, regarding Bletchley Park.
    I was referencing from memory “The Code Book” by Simon Singh. I’ve lent it to a friend so can’t check it now. I’m pretty sure of the substance of what I said but I’ll need to check the dates.
    I’ll get back to you on this one …..

  • A Node

    Kempe, regarding WTC.

    You’re kind of missing the point. I’m asking whether it’s plausible that a fire at the top of a tower can cause such a perfect collapse three times out of three. Your’re responding by saying that a team of skilled demolition experts can do it.

    Here’s some other points. I admit I’m making some judgements from the video which you could argue about :

    As near as I can tell, all the buildings in your video are much squatter than the twin towers. It looks like none of them have a height to width ratio greater than 2 to 1. As opposed to:
    1,368 ft high (north tower)
    1,362 ft high (south tower)
    208 ft by 208 ft at base
    i.e. a height to width ratio of over 6.5 to 1

    In the video demolition is initiated around the halfway mark in most cases. In the twin towers, the fire was near the top – 15% of the buildings brought down the other 85%.

    In videos of the twin tower collapses, flashes are seen which look like detonation “squibs” going off. Debunkers like yourself say that these are actually jets of compressed air from the collapse. Why do we not see any of these in any of the buildings in your verinage video?

    It is very difficult to find information about the verinage technique. Not even Wikipedia has an entry on it. However, from my extensive research over the last ten minutes, it seems that they weaken the central members to encourage an inward collapse, skilled demolition rather than an inherent weakness in the construction. Also it seems that verinage is not suitable for steel framed buildings. If you have information to the contrary, please post it.

  • Africom Pope

    “I very much doubt if any corners were left undamaged.”

    Why doubt when there is much photographic evidence showing that the building was MOSTLY undamaged? If you watch the free fall collapse of WTC7 (not ‘progressive’ as someone claimed – it is collapsing in one instant after all its support was removed) the biggest clue to controlled demolition is that the centre begins to collapse a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. That is known in the demolition industry as a ‘crease’ it is deliberately created so the building falls in on itself. It takes perfect timing in removing the supports, to within hundredths of a second, to create that effect. Shame that people are so bamboozled that they cannot trust what they see with their own eyes.

    I also see that some people are confusing WTC1 and WTC2 with WTC7. Why would people that aren’t even familiar with which building is being discussed feel qualified to even comment on, let alone attempt to debunk without any evidence at all, the know laws of physics?

  • Kempe

    The most important fact about verinage is that it shows that a building, any building, can be brought down by progressive collapse without every floor having to be rigged with explosives. This totally destroys the central core of the argument for controlled demolition. The claim that verinage is not suitable for steel framed buildings (which to date I’ve only seen on truther sites) is irrelvant, it only relates to how the collapse is initiated. Whilst the collapses are started about half way up in most of the videos these are all much smaller buildings so the falling mass is very much smaller too. According to the conspiracy version of physics the upper floors should fall upon the lower and then stop. It should be obvious now how ridiculous this idea is. Once hundreds or thousands of tons of building start moving downwards nothing is going to stop it until it hits the ground.

  • Fred

    “The most important fact about verinage is that it shows that a building, any building, can be brought down by progressive collapse without every floor having to be rigged with explosives.”

    So it wouldn’t have taken a team of men weeks to plant tons of explosives connected with miles of wire. A couple of men could do it in an afternoon.

  • glenn_uk

    Kemp says, “The most important fact about verinage is that it shows that a building, any building, can be brought down by progressive collapse without every floor having to be rigged with explosives. This totally destroys the central core of the argument for controlled demolition.

    Are you saying verinage is NOT controlled demolition? I’d like to see a single example of it being used on a steel-framed building with a central core. You won’t find one, though. Guaranteed. Because the technique could never work on one.

    Since you bring up physics, which happens to be something I know a little about, could you please explain how the collapsing structure of the building did not substantially arrest the downward progression, such that it collapsed at near free-fall speed. I’ll go into detail of this if you’re up for it, but it concerns the conservation of momentum – Newton’s laws of motion – principles that are pretty well established, actually.

    Could you also please explain how an entirely downward force (i.e. gravity, acting in each case exactly downwards) could allow for the lateral projection of items from parts of fingers, to multiple ton steel beams, for many hundreds of yards? Fingertips and so on were found on rooftops substantial distances away. Girders were likewise ejected.

    Of course collapsing buildings will fall downwards, but not symmetrically like WTC7 unless precisely controlled to do so, definitely not into their own footprint, and most particularly not when they have roughly the same relative dimensions as a pencil. Again, you argue from a position of ignorance – no offence.

    I don’t claim to be in possession of the truth, but while facts like these are waved away by True Believers, it’s pretty obvious the real story is a bit more interesting that the official one they’re happy to swallow like a Good German.

    *

    New evidence to cast doubt (apart from in the minds of True Believers) on the Official Report:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34304.htm

  • glenn_uk

    @Africom Pope: My apologies, I did conflate WTC1&2 with WTC7 in a couple of posts. Some people are interested in the impossibility of the official story when it comes to the immediate collapse of WTC7, and I can certainly understand that.

    The Official Story on the amazing demise of WTC1&2 takes some beating, though. It almost ranks aside religion in its ability to rely upon mass delusion.

  • glenn_uk

    Damn, missed this the first time around.

    Kemp says: “The most important fact about verinage is that it shows that a building, any building…”

    Oh come on. Where in the name of love is proof of your assertion – any building? A cheap block of flats the authorities wanted rid of, compared with the lovingly constructed WTCs – built to withstand planes accidentally flying into them, and hurricanes? Built out of entirely different materials, and on and on… ?

    How can you conflate all buildings as being exactly the same.

    It always baffles me with you people. Are you really this daft, or trying to deceive?

  • Boomtownchav

    @Africom Pope. WTC7 wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was connected to the twin towers by extensive under ground car parks the same ones that were targeted by a car bomb around 1983. (I actually have the floor plans which were part of the original sales pitch to Merrill Lynch) I’m no expert but I would suspect that millions of tons of steel and concrete smashing through these under ground chambers would have had a destabilising effect on WTC7. I’m sure that the official line that was spun out after the attacks does leave out major details as does your theory and mine, because we simply don’t know what happened. Your contempt for anyone who doesn’t go along with your version of events only undermines your version

    As I have said before the security services just are not that good. Prime example the story of Captain Robert Nairac MC.

  • Kempe

    “As I have said before the security services just are not that good. ”

    A very good point. The people who planned and executed 9/11, who, so it’s claimed, planted hundreds of tons of evidence under the noses of thousands of eye-witnesses, would’ve been the same ones who were unable to plant any convincing WMDs in Iraq.

    The website for AE911truth describes each building as collapsing downwards through the path of greatest resistance. It’s claimed this is impossible, it’s claimed the supports of every floor would have to be destroyed with explosives. The progressive collapse exploited by verinage proves these comments to be incorrect.

    Structural engineers will only make a building as strong as it needs to be, a typical factor of safety would 2 to 2.5 and that’s as true of the WTC as it is of crummy social housing in France. Once the top part of a building starts to fall it will hit the lower floors with a dynamic force many times greater than the design load causing an immediate and simultaneous failure of all the supporting members. As the building collapses some of this enegry will be directed sideways as columns buckle and floors collapsing one on the other will expell the air between them like two hands being clapped together. That’s why material was thrown sideways.

  • glenn_uk

    Kemp wrote, “…The progressive collapse exploited by verinage proves these comments to be incorrect.”

    Are you lazy? Wilfully ignorant, hope for the same in others? Are you here to repeatedly assert, or dare you not acknowledge the fact I’ve addressed this a couple of points above?

    If you rest your hat on this verinage form of demolition, and are uninterested in further discussion on the plausibility of that or anything else, fine. But then the verdict will be that that particular person believes in the completely impossible.

    I put several questions directly to you, just above. Are you interested in the truth, or satisfied with a plausible-sounding lie to idiots who haven’t actually got a clue?

  • Africom Pope

    Kempe – everything you have said is easily disproved – indeed most of it is just ridiculous nonsense not even worth responding to. Getting people spinning around and around in pointless arguments seems to be your only desire.

    Talking with pseudo authority means that those who are not aware of the full facts may assume that you know something about that which you are talking about, and may even accept that there is a point to your arguments, some may even be comforted by your dismissals. This is obviously all you are concerned about; not with those that *know* the official explanation is nonsense but with those that don’t and, presumably, that the way you want it to stay – a world of unenquiring minds being spoon-fed what little they know by faceless ‘officials’ and the MSM.

1 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.