In his new book David Aaronovitch debunks the world's greatest conspiracy theories. Here he deconstructs those that followed 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an...icle6187493.ece

"The internet has created shadow armies whose size and power are unknowable. Cyberspace communities of semi- anonymous and occasionally self-invented individuals have grown up, some of them permitting contact between people who in previous times might have thought each other's interests impossibly exotic or even mad. At the same time, the democratic quality of the net has permitted the release of a mass of undifferentiated information, some of it authoritative, some speculative, some absurd. But, increasingly, material originating on the net has turned up in popular culture - a millennial version of the word-of-mouth route to popularity. The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has, at the time of writing, become a first resource for many students, despite the amusing randomness of its reliability.

Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of English-language websites have sprung up specifically devoted to proselytising for the 9/11 Truth movement. In addition many “independent” or “alternative” media sites routinely replicate 9/11 conspiracy material uncritically, and many of these sites link to or cite each other. Sites endorsing 9/ll conspiracy theories, and those subscribing to them in passing, far outnumber sites devoted to debunking or refuting such theories.

The construction and circulation of audio and visual material devoted to 9/ll revisionism is easy on the internet. Cheap movies, often made using material not cleared for copyright, made and narrated by non-professional film-makers, have been posted on Google video, YouTube and other sites specialising in moving pictures. Invariably such items make the same claims to accuracy and balance as do mainstream TV programmes, but have been concocted with the smallest fraction of research and resource, though no little ingenuity.

A Scripps Howard poll of July 2006 (which measured belief in a Kennedy conspiracy at 40 per cent) had 36 per cent of respondents suspecting government participation of some kind in the attacks, with just over one in six believing that explosives had been used to bring down the twin towers. A summary of what a made-it-happen-on-purpose 9/ll Truth activist is likely to believe goes something like this. Certain forces in the Bush Administration wanted a pretext to use overwhelming military force in the Caspian area and the Middle East, either to procure oil supplies, to weaken opposition to Israel or both. Accordingly they or their agents organised a false-flag operation, which would accomplish what Pearl Harbour was supposed to have accomplished for the Rooseveltian war party in 1941, causing a large number of Americans to die on the territory of the United States itself with the blame wrongly being put on Islamist extremists. The plot they devised involved three airliners being flown into the World Trade Centre main towers and, possibly, a Washington target.

There were either no hijackers or the ones on board were patsies, and two of the planes were guided remotely into the World Trade Centre. What brought the towers down, however was a “controlled demolition” using explosives planted there at some earlier time. The same devices also brought down the structure called World Trade Centre 7, though no plane flew into that building. The Pentagon was not hit by an airliner but by a guided missile. The fourth airliner, United 93, possibly heading for the capital, was either shot down because the passengers threatened to land it successfully thus exposing the plot, or else it was never found. Various ruses, including faked mobile phone calls and fraudulent claims of such calls were used to disguise the true nature of the crime.

That was the basic theory, although different people in the Truth movement might agree or disagree with various parts of it. To accept it, you have to believe that elements of the US Government engaged in a conspiracy of exceptional complexity and enormous risk of failure. This group of conspirators would have had to suborn, dupe or train 19 hijackers, create elaborate background stories for them, send them to flying schools to be seen around Florida and other parts of the US, before disposing of them either in the crashes or, in the case of Flight 77, in a manner unknown.

The conspirators would have had to have sent experts in to rig the two main towers and WTC7 with sufficient explosives to be sure of bringing the first two buildings down some time after the planes had hit them, and WTC7 whenever it was felt expedient to do so. But the explosives had to be sufficiently inert not to be triggered either by the impacts of the planes or by the thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel, an especially tricky proposition since no precedent existed for the crashing of a large civil airliner into a 1,000ft skyscraper. The planes also had to be guided into the exact locations of the explosives. The towers had to come down because the destruction by terrorists of planes full of passengers and the unknowable number of casualities in the areas of the towers hit by the aircraft might not, in themselves, have been sufficiently provoking to cause the reaction needed by the plotters. On the other hand it was apparently thought OTT to rig the towers in such a way as to have them topple over and possibly destroy half of south Manhattan. A balance had to be struck.

For reasons unknown (a liking for variety, perhaps) the plotters decided not to repeat the trick in Washington. Believing that an attack that could kill up to 30,000 people in New York might not provide an adequate casus belli, the plotters trained a missile, or an explosives-laden small military plane, on the Pentagon, trusting that onlookers would accept that it must have been an airliner, either for the positive reason that Washingtonians are more suggestible than New Yorkers, or the negative one that it was too tall an order to get a big plane to strike the Pentagon in the right way.

There was, however, quite possibly a plane targeted on another Washington building (perhaps you don't want too much variety), Flight 93. This was the one that supposedly crashed into a Pennsylvanian field. Not so. It had to be shot down by the Government when the passengers unfortunately got wind of what was planned and stormed the cockpit - to find the autopilot, or the patsies, or whatever they found. Although another theory, favoured by the makers of [the internet documentary series] Loose Change, is that Flight 93 didn't crash and wasn't shot down, but, like Flight 77, was made to disappear. Of course, it was essential that no air defences were deployed properly against the two or three planes containing “hijackers”, because the premature destruction of these aircraft would have meant the towers would have had to be blown with no obvious culprit. So it was necessary effectively to stand down those defences, by scrambling fighters deliberately late and issuing them with intentionally vague orders.

Then there was post-production. One aspect of this was simple: the faking of videos of Osama bin Laden and others claiming responsibility for the attacks. Another was more complex: the passengers of Flight 77 and possibly Flight 93 were either murdered in a secret location and their bodies disposed of beyond any chance of discovery, or else they were relocated, lost for ever to their families and friends, somewhere they could never be found. This would have been slightly easier if, as the millionaire 9/ll Truth activist Jimmy Walter has claimed, they were all “working for the government”. Finally, investigators belonging to the disaster agency FEMA, to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to the fire, police and other emergency services, were paid off or intimidated to produce reports favourable to the official version.

Although the ingenious A.K. Dewdney, a professor of computer science at the University of Western Ontario, has calculated that this whole plot would only require 44 agents, it seems obvious that the intimidation alone would need as many if not more operatives than that. Hundreds, if not thousands, would have to have been directly involved in different aspects of the conspiracy. And all of them would have to have been either fanatically committed to the project or else almost unimaginably immoral. Think for a moment about the men who rigged the twin towers with explosives.

As if this plot wasn't sufficiently challenging, there were Truth activists who became persuaded of even more technologically complex possibilities. On the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the New Statesman carried an interview with David Shayler and his partner Annie Machon, the former employees of MI5. The interviewer describes Machon as looking uncomfortable when Shayler decides to reveal his true opinion. “‘Oh f*** it, I'm just going to say this', (Shayler) tells her. ‘Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/ll.' But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. ‘The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,' he says. ‘Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.' He must notice that my jaw has dropped. ‘I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe.'”

It seems likely that Shayler hadn't seen the pictures of wreckage from Flight 175 on top of WTC5. Even so, this “intelligence expert” believed that a cabal that couldn't plant weapons of mass destruction in the vastnesses of the Iraqi desert could fly hologram-shrouded missiles in plain daylight into one of the most public places in the world.

Inevitably, the London bombs that killed 56 people on July 7, 2005 gave rise to a whole raft of speculation about government involvement, and in 2006 two British versions of Loose Change appeared on the net. One was called Ludicrous Diversion, and the other Mind the Gap. David Shayler was the author of the second, arguing in it that the 7/7 bombings were probably a false-flag operation designed to instil a false fear of terrorism into the British people and permit the government to do whatever nefarious thing it had on its collective mind at the time. Mind the Gap came complete with supposed warnings to Israelis, disturbing questions about evidence and photographs, and CCTV shots allegedly so badly forged that they were evidence of elements in the new world order wanting to reveal themselves, saying, “Look we're sick of lying. We've had enough.” The aftermath of the bomb blasts didn't look like the product of peroxide bombs to Shayler, who as a deskbound operative for MI5 would, one must imagine, have seen very few peroxide bombs exploding. What was more, the so-called bombers were nice boys who liked cricket, and the train timetables for the jihadists to arrive in London were all wrong.

One piece of evidence, a potential magic bullet, was accepted by all the 7/7 conspiracies, and this was the impossible locations of the blasts. The official version was that the lethal explosives had been carried in backpacks by the bombers who set them off on three trains and a bus, killing themselves and the people around them. But if the bombs could be shown to have detonated somewhere else - underneath the trains, for example - then they couldn't have been associated with the so-called terrorists. This, claimed the theorists, was exactly what eyewitnesses had claimed to see happen when the bombs exploded.

Ultimately all such reports could be sourced to one place, a Guardian journalist called Mark Honigsbaum. In June 2006 Honigsbaum gave an account of how the idea of the blast from below had come into existence. On July 7 he had been sent by his newsdesk to Edgware Road, the site of one of the explosions, where among scenes of complete confusion he had managed to grab quick interviews with some of the survivors as they left a makeshift triage centre in a local store.

Two of them told Honigsbaum that when the bomb exploded, the covering on the floor of the carriage had “raised up”.

With no time to check what the passengers had said, Honigsbaum phoned in an audio report to The Guardian, which was used on its website. It was Honigsbaum who added the elaboration that it “was believed” that the explosion had happened underneath the train, and “some passengers described how the tiles, the covers on the floors of the train, flew up, raised up”. After filing Honigsbaum spoke at greater length to more survivors who had been much closer to the blast, and they told him that the explosion had happened inside the carriage. His earlier report, admitted Honigsbaum, had been “flawed”, but unfortunately “my comments, disseminated over the internet where they could be replayed ad nauseam, were already taking on a life of their own”. Ruefully, the reporter concluded that in the old days of telephones and books it would have taken some time for rumour to paint itself full of tongues, but today “such networks can be created instantaneously with a few clicks of a mouse”.

The 'official version' of the events of 9-11 is a conspiracy theory in which 19+1 Islamic terrorists hellbent on hurting the 'Great Satan' USA where it hurts conspired to do so. Further they were led by a man in a cave who was once in the employ of the CIA and neocons to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. By definition a conspiracy theory. [7/7 officially is another conspiracy theory] 911-Truth offers an alternative conspiracy theory in this case - and one IMO based on logic, the evidence, and the laws of physics. The OFFICIAL version = a conspiracy 'theory'. You use the word pejoratively when you feel it should be derided and hidden from view with smoke and mirrors [usually provided by the political and financial elites, intelligence agencies and operatives, and the MSM owned by the wealthy corporate elites - as well as those suffering from the 'Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome'].

Compare, for example the official version of the voyage of Columbus to America [in any standard 'history' book] with the REAL story of Columbus as he conspired and murdered by the tens of thousands, enslaved, plundered, tortured, etc. you can find in, for example' Zinn's A People's History Of The United States. Official Propagandistic 'History' v. True People's Reality and History. Compare the standard version of Guy Fawkes with the real conspiratorial false-flag truth of what happened with him; et al. Compare the standard story of the 'Westward Expansion - Manifest Destiny' in the USA and the 'savage' Indians that attacked the Cowboys and Army - with the truth of the Native American Holocaust [125 million!] in the conspiracy to deprive them of their land, lives, liberty, dignity! If Hitler had won the war what 'history' would we have of that conspiratorial Holocaust of 14 million? I dare say none! And so it goes.....

No different in many [not all] versions of 'history' as presented by the Imperiori to control, confuse and fleece the Plebs. "History is the lie commonly agreed upon [by the Elites]" - Voltaire.

While there are nutty people and sites on the internet, there are nutty people and books outside it. What worries the Elites is that the internet does an end-run around the Elite's control of information and 'history' - as they want it portrayed. It is subversive, in the best sense of the term; truly democratic - allowing the Demos to connect, seek the truth, learn of how they have been lied to often and controlled - and seek their freedom [in thought and action, life]. It has the Elites scared out of their minds and they have some bills in the US an UK to control it. Meanwhile they just spy on all we subversives who seek our freedom and to break the chains that imprison us. There is a movement all around the world to turn the top-down domination paradigm into a bottom-up cooperative [and environmentally sustainable, peaceful] one. A revolution, if you will.

Try educating yourself by reading Griffin's Debunking 911 Debunking; or Zarembka's Hidden History Of 911; or Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. Education is looking at all sides - not playing the role of the Chinese monkeys with the hands their over their eyes, ears and mouths.

Best one page summary of 9-11 Truth: http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index...;comment_id=158
---------------------------------------------------------
Another summary of the alternative conspiracy theory to the official conspiracy theory:
How Bush's 'Official Conspiracy Theory of 911' Covers Up the Crimes of Mass Murder and High Treason
Len Hart http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blo...08/08/19/p27921
To Bush the administration's chagrin and despite best efforts to cover up the crime of 911, various independent investigations continue to expose the lies and may one day uncover the full truth. A culprit, the fiendish cabal inside our own government, may yet be exposed to be mass murderers as well as war criminals, subversives and torturers. There are so many holes in Bush's 'official conspiracy theory' that it must logically be called what is a cover story!

If the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or at least deliberately allowed by the Bush- Cheney administration and the Pentagon, then the motivation to cover up this murderous and treasonous act would be unlimited. No expenditure of time and money would be considered too great."
--Professor David Ray Griffin [4] The True Story of 9/11: Part IV

Thus --Professor Griffin addresses the compelling motivation behind the Bush's administrations cover up, cover story, indeed, a scripted program of lies, felony obstruction of justice, and mass deception with regard to 911.

1. The 'official theory' that three airliners caused fires hot enough to bring down the Twin Towers of the WTC and damaged the Pentagon is a bald-faced lie.

It can be demonstrated right now that the Bush crime syndicate had the three ingredients that must be proven in an indictment accusing them of mass murder and high treason: method, motive and opportunity! The Bush gang had all three. Due to the heavily reinforced steel construction of the WTC --including Building 7 --it is clear: airplanes and fires did not cause the towers to crash! It is significant, I think, that 'officialdom' lied about the very presence of a core. The very first 'official conspiracy' was a documentary rolled out on PBS within weeks of the 911 attacks.

The 911 Commission claims that "the [WTC] core was hollow". Look at the construction photo to the right! Does that look hollow to you. Bluntly: the 911 Commission report is a bald-face lie. The core is fully visible as the construction photo above shows, as the video, likewise, proves conclusively!

The official conspiracy theories would have us believe that soft-bodied aluminum airliners penetrated 9 feet of concrete and 4 rows of 4-ft-square steel girders.

We are expected to believe as well that soft-bodied aluminum airliners penetrated the steel outside girders and the two rounds of 47.4 ft wide steel that made up the inside core!

This bears repeating: what the 911 Commission Report would have you believe just did not happen! The 911 Commission expects us to believe that the 'core' didn't even exist. The 911 Commission lied to you!

The problem with 'pancaking' --the first 'official theory' to bite the dust --was that it was based upon the lie that 'the core was hollow'. Watch the following video, paying attention to the dense steel construction. I dare say, a 757 might have bounced off or gotten chewed to bits, shredding on the way 'in'. In any case, the damage would have been slight! It would not have eventually brought about the collapse of any building in the WTC. The building would have survived relatively unscathed and, as we in fact have seen on countless videos, the fires --never hot enough to have melted steel --cooled considerably and withing seconds the fires were spent, black smoke bellowing from 'content'. Unlike a 'controlled demolition', the dinky, spent fires would never have brought the towers to the ground.

911Blogger.com Full documentary synopsis and transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/

It didn't happen! In some 10,000 pages in 43 volumes, the NIST completely missed the point! In some 10,000 pages in 43 volumes, the NIST called 'irrelevant' the existence of 'molten steel' at WTC. By so doing, the NIST is left with no credible explanation for the fall of the towers! And the NIST thinks you are stupid!!!

Fact is, until 911, no steel reinforced building had ever collapsed from fire. And never will! That kerosene fires have never and will never melt steel to collapse is an inconvenient fact that the Bush official conspiracy theorist would prefer you just forget about! Unless steel melted, the Twin Towers of the WTC remain standing. NIST doesn't even address the only cause that would have brought them down.

In fact, The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.

911reseach.wtc7.net , which has been investigating 9/11 for years exposed the fatal holes in the NIST 'fairy tale'.

The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.

--911reseach.wtc7.net

The NIST report defies the laws of physics and the 911 Commission report is disowned by its own co-chairs! The much maligned 911 truth movement has won this debate! Bush partisans have only name-calling, propaganda and bald-faced lies to support their case. In a word: nada.

2. The NIST didn't 'prove' anything. The report merely cited a 'computer model' but --significantly --refused to release the 'model' or verifiable data conforming to the 'real world', in other worlds, the world of verifiable science.

Counter-intuitively, the NIST cites "widely-dislodged fireproofing" as a primary cause for collapse! My challenge to NIST: please cite a single instance in which a steel framed building of any size collapsed due to 'fireproofing' failure.

In fact, some of the experts cited by the NIST refute the NIST's own conclusions:

Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure"

NIST, Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11.

Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California summed it up: 'The impact [of the plane] did nothing to this building.' [Original source:CNN News, Oct 5, 2001'].

Simply --if the steel columns did not melt, then there was no collapse. If there was no collapse as a result of fire or crash damage, then the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition, pure and simple. 'Fireproofing' is a red herring dependent upon the failure of the American school system to teach elementary science. It is on this point that we find evidence of deliberate omissions, if not outright lies, on the part of the NIST.

Mister Sunder might soon find himself in even greater trouble, to be precise, amidst a revision of NIST`s report explaining the collapse of the Twins. Reasons for reconsideration of this report were given by an anonymous person this year, sharing a part of the original WTC complex blueprints with the public. These blueprints reveal that NIST`s report has covered up, hidden and/or altered information linked with construction features of the collapsed buildings in order to make their theory even more probable.

"Popular Mechanics" stands apart from sources that are often quoted in favour of the "official conspiracy", which a part of the American public refers to, in spite of an obvious fact that this is a well field that shows not so probable working hypothesis as irrefutable and acknowledged scientific evidence/facts. Wikipedia does the exact same thing (to be precise, a tiny group of zealous Wiki authors), taking for granted the debris and fire hypothesis, regardless of the fact text authors argue about it, and they have been harshly arguing for years now.

Controlled implosion

In 2006, on Dutch TV, a show was screened in which an explosives expert Danny Jowenko confirms what everyone who saw the building number 7 implosion saw with their own eyes. Without knowing that it is a skyscraper that collapsed on September 11, Jowenko was asked to give his expert opinion. You can see his honest assessment here.

We have come to an irrefutable fact; WTC 7 was overthrown by a controlled implosion. The building disappeared in a free fall, in only 6.5 seconds. It is extremely easy to find details linked with this "most probable of hypotheses" online. The only problem is that an honest answer opens a whole lot of new, equally honest, very serious and extremely worrying questions that deserve a new and truly independent inquest of events that occurred on September 11, an inquest that will reveal the actual perpetrators of the greatest crime of modern history.

--Javno World, aWTC 7 Defying the Laws of PhysicsMueller had said, there is no evidence to connect the 'said' 19 'hijackers' with the events of 911. That's 'no' as in 'none', 'nada' and 'zip'! Those who assert must prove. Bush asserted a theory in which the 19 hijackers crashed US buildings an all died. Show me the bodies! Show me a valid and verifiable autopsy report.

Show me the evidence! FBI Director Robert Mueller had said that there was none no evidence connecting the 19 'said' hijackers with 911. He was right about that if he was wrong about almost everything else.

While there is no verifiable evidence to support the absurd Bush version of this capital crime of mass murder, there is, however, probable cause to indict George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice for the crimes of mass murder and treason. Let Cheney give his side of the story --under oath --to a federal grand jury!

4. Bush Lied to the American People about the motives of alleged 9/11 Terrorists' Bush has never told the truth about 911. It is to be expected that Bush/Cheney designs on middle east oil are opposed. It's their oil, their resources, their nation ---not ours! But when Bush expects you to believe bullshit like "...they jest hate ire freedoms!" he insults your intelligence. If, indeed, 'terrorists' hated us for our Democratic institutions, they have won! Thanks to Bush, free elections free of fraud, habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, due process of law guaranteed us in the Constitution are no longer operative, rescinded by Bush with fraud, decrees and/or unconstitutional signing statements. Bush has accomplished what no 'terrorist' could have ever done. He has destroyed 'our freedoms' which Bush says the terrorists 'hated'!

Bush's opposition to the creation of the 911 Commission, his orders to destroy evidence at the Pentagon and at 'ground zero', his interference with the 911 Commission, his ongoing cover up are not the actions of an innocent man. Had Bush wanted the truth out, he would have supported a complete, fair, and impartial investigation.

[See: Northrop-Grumman: RQ-4 Block 20 Global Hawk (Fired by our own government into the Pentagon?)]

There are no hijacker names on the pathologists report released in response to an FOIA request. There is, therefore, no evidence that Hanjour's remains were autopsied, no evidence that his remains were recovered or buried in Arlington National Cemetary. More to the point, there is absolutely no evidence that Hani Hanjour was at any time on any flight connected with 911.

The Washington Post even reported that Hanjour was not on Flight 77 because he did not have a ticket. It's hard to imagine skinny Hanjour forcing his way on board and having done so, taking over the controls with force and a boxcutter!

A 757 airliner is a civilian craft, not a nuclear powered craft. It does not carry a nuclear war head or hardened nose cone. Had a 757 crashed the Pentagon there would have been no need to order decontamination procedures. No such procedures were carried out in New York, but were carried out at the Pentagon. Clearly, 'officials' knew at the time that a civilian airliner had not crashed the Pentagon. The only scenario that fully explains the necessity of decontamination procedures is that of a military craft crashing into the Pentagon. It is my belief that that is what happened in fact. Don't try to tell me that such procedures are just routine. They were not routine in New York and were not carried out!

A set of related facts are explained by 'theories' which must, of necessity, explain every relevant fact. Theories inconsistent with proven facts must be discarded as false. Bush's theory explains nothing and is inconsistent with established science. By contrast, a technology called 'Global Hawk may very well explain the seemingly inexplicable events of 911 and, at the same time, point an accusing finger.

The Global Hawk is operated by remote control. The US, in fact, outfitted an aircraft with Global Hawk technology and flew it without a pilot from California to Australia by remote control. No Arab hijackers were required! The Global Hawk, moreover, would have had no problems with the maneuver credited to Hanjour but which experienced pilots say is impossible in a 757.

It's not enough that the Bush administration actively covered up evidence even as it sought to quash every attempt to investigate 911, Bush and Condoleeza Rice would lie about the event after the fact, specifically, both Bush and Condo stated that the crashing of airliners into buildings could not have been foreseen, were not foreseen. [Bush: No evidence that US could avoid 9/11] Bush lied! And so did Condo Rice:

Today's Sydney Morning Herald prints an extract from Shenon's book which provides further details about Rice's incompetence. "Emails from the National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats" before 9/11, Shenon writes.

In fact, just such a 'scenario' was the basis for security when Bush attended the G8 Summit in Italy, July 23, 2001 [See: "Italy: Bush Targeted at G8." New York Newsday 19 Sept 2001, unsigned; "Extremists 'Planned Genoa Attack on Bush'", BBC News, 27 Sept 2001]. Secondly, Dick Cheney supervised precisely that scenario on the very day that it happened in fact --a highly improbable coincidence' that would repeat later in Britain on 7/7. Cheney supervised what are called 'exercises' within a bunker --the Presidential Emergency Operations Center --located under the White House. There is damning testimony against Cheney from former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta who contradicts 9/11 Commission Report's Account of Dick Cheney's timetable.

The Probable Cause to Charge Dick Cheney With Mass Murder, Terrorism, and High Treason

That's not all. Cheney had already been put in charge of a 'domestic terrorism study group' [See: 911 Coincidences], a clever cover from which to commit high treason and mass murder.

Since those events, the Bush administration has worked overtly, assiduously to quash and interfere with every effort to investigate fully the events of 911.

# Scot J. Paltrow, "Government Accounts of 9/11 Reveal Gaps, Inconsistencies. Questions Arise About Who Put Nation on High Alert; A Threat to Air Force One? Panel Assembles Timeline," --Wall Street Journal, March 22, 2004.

Condoleezza Rice, "9/11: For The Record," Washington Times, March 22, 2004: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free US-held terrorists." Also see "Promoting Icon Condi" in the August 4, 2003, Daily Howler.

--National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - SourceWatch

Rice's statements were bald faced lies and only the guilty try to cover up their crimes.

If the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or at least deliberately allowed by the Bush- Cheney administration and the Pentagon, then the motivation to cover up this murderous and treasonous act would be unlimited. No expenditure of time and money would be considered too great."

--Professor David Ray Griffin [4], The True Story of 9/11: Part IV

Our 'government' thus declared war on the people of the United States and wages it! As Che would have put it: the peace is already considered to be broken. Thomas Jefferson would have already declared 'our' independence of a cabal that has, in effect, already destroyed the 'legitimate' government of the United States.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

--Article III, US Constitution

The word treason covers the more egregious acts of betrayal or disloyalty to a sovereign or nation. Under the US Constitution and, in Britain by common law, sovereignty resides with the people themselves. What had been called the "United States" no longer exists. It was, in fact, overthrown in Bush's coup d'etat, and since that time systematically subverted and dismantled by Bush and his gang of treasonous usurpers. Accomplices who must certainly stand trial with Bush and Cheney will include Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and various Pentagon brass.

911: An Inside Job

I was a little surprised to hear of results of a poll regarding beliefs. I expected that belief in conspiracy theories would predispose someone towards belief in the paranormal or supernatural. Turns out it isn't so - at least in Queensland, where the poll was taken.

I would be interested, though, in the correlation of belief in one conspiracy theory to the belief in another / other conspiracy beliefs. I'm unsure if a rigorous poll has been undertaken.

Evan, the real question here is "do I trust those in power NOT to conspire for their own ends" As history proves, anyone who can truthfully answer yes, is at best naive. Conspracies occur all the time, but usualy not of the tight knit nature found discussed on these threads. Bankers have conspired to willfully increase their own wealth beyond any measure that was supported by their economic activity, and with no thought to the ramifications for broader Society. That is not to say that a cabal of top Bankers got together and planned every move in this disasterous game, all that was needed was deregulation of the finacial sector, encouragement from Governments, and good old fasioned greed. The real conspracy here ids how power begats power, generation after generation, and the methods they use to ensure this happens.

Good point. We see evidence / examples / exposure of conspiracies most every day in the paper. How should one describe the... 'larger' conspiracy claims?

By larger I take it you mean 911, JFK etc. Lets take 911 as an example. Firstly what is claimed by conspiracy believers, well multiple things, That the Govenment and its agencies let it happen on purpose for Geo-political ends that are obvious, that the CIA was, and in all probability still is, running Bin Laden and his assorted loonies, That the planes were military rather than civil, that explosions brought down the twin towers, that several Hi-jackers are still alive, that no planes hit the towers, but rather a thing of smoke and mirrors, etc, etc. The problem here is that there is no one C/T, but rater several made up from all or some of the above. The problem with all this is proof (or lack of) And in the abscence of proof speculation abounds, it tends to go thusly, "are bush and his gang capable of murdering 3,000 civilians as a mask to attempt full Global reach, answer yes" Was 911 therefore convienient to achiveing this reach, answer yes add in the Bush families close ties to the Bin Ladens, the CIAs backing of the Afgan rebels war against the Soviet Union, and it can start to look like the fix is in.

David Aaronovitch does indeed know a great deal about political conspiracies. He of course played a leading role in convincing the British public that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. He has long been a spokesman for Israel's foreign policy. He is also a supporter of Rupert Murdoch's media interests. Since June 2005, he has written a regular column for The Times and regularly writes columns for the Jewish Chronicle.

Would that be the international jewish conspiracy then John?

No, but it might have something to do with an Israeli conspiracy. I hope you are not one of those people who believe any attack on the foreign policy of Israel is part of a anti-Jewish conspiracy.

or indeed a 'Eurocommunist' conspiracy. Anything is possible when you cherry pick your evidence.

I don't believe in a 9/11 conspiracy. However, I do believe that governments conspire in order to mislead the population. For example, the governments of Britain, the USA and Israel, in an effort to persuade us that Iraq had WMD and posed a threat to the lives of people living in the UK. David Aaronovitch was very much part of this conspiracy. So also was Rupert Murdoch. Every one of his 179 newspapers argued in favour of the invasion. Interestingly, in an interview he gave at the time, the main reason for this policy was a belief that it would result in a fall in the oil price and an increase in stock-market shares.

It is fair comment to say that Aaronovitch is/was New Labour and thereby supported the invasion of Iraq - it is a quantum and dangerous leap however from there to extrapolate membership an 'Israeli conspiracy'.
What are your views on his analysis of 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theory?

911 happened. It requires no special BELIEF to know that ALL SEVEN BUILDINGS of the World Trade Center
were demolished. No other buildings were demolished. Only 2 buildings were hit by "airplanes". It strains
credulity that these seven buildings, all owned by one man, were the only buildings destroyed. Three steel
framed buildings collapsed on one day without sufficient cause. Tell us, John, why these seven buildings
and no others were destroyed. Coincidence?

Jack