Sid Walker

James it was the same Harry Knickerbocker. Your assumption is correct. But who gave the speech you have replayed in this video, Gil? And when and where in Dallas was it given?

What a tantalizing remark, Greg. I am truly all ears. Can you say more? Sid, I'm all too aware of how many times this case has been closed; how many times the Fat Lady has entered stage right, only to throw a pie at the audience, so whilst I may end up satisfied it's the FINAL final solution, what I really want to see is legal closure. That is the ultimate aim, but whether or not it is achieved, I'm sure those involved will present the work in due course. Obviously I can't go into specifics but (just to tantalise you even further), there will be some surprises. Ron - thanks for posting the comment that refers to Bruno's story of how the day was arranged. Was Connally relaying orders - or acting independently - when he battled Bruno over the itinerary? As you point out, the former is possible - neverhteless, the discrepancy between Bruno's first hand narrative and Mike Piper's account is interesting. Not wishing to speak for Ron, but if I can add my 2.8 cents worth... Connally was who I had in mind when I said previously you need to look at which politicians were involved along with the CC. I do believe it had the last say in the matter. If for instance, Connally had pushed for the Womens Centre, the CC would have over-ruled. As it was, the Trade Mart suited both Connally and the CC - and for ostensibly similar reasons; it ensured a lockout of the Great Unwashed aka Yarborough supporters, and it gave great publicity to the still newish Trade Mart complex. As far as the PR (Bloom) side of things went - they could care less about security. That isn't what PR people are paid for. It would be interesting to get a response from Piper on this. Agreed. Thanks Greg All very interesting. Without being unduly cynical, I don't expect the folk working on a Final Final Judgment (with closure) are short of funds if they really are onto something important that is as you report. Mike Piper has a lot of folk believing that's he has pinned the tail on the donkey (including me). There must be billions aplenty available to decisively prove him wrong.

What a tantalizing remark, Greg. I am truly all ears. Can you say more? Ron - thanks for posting the comment that refers to Bruno's story of how the day was arranged. Was Connally relaying orders - or acting independently - when he battled Bruno over the itinerary? As you point out, the former is possible - neverhteless, the discrepancy between Bruno's first hand narrative and Mike Piper's account is interesting. It would be interesting to get a response from Piper on this.

A superb article by philosopher Gilad Atzmon. I myself observed, without surprise but with a feeling of nausea, puerile TV debates over "who had won" the "diplomatic game" as soon as Iran released the British 'hostages' from their terrifying period of captivity. Atzmon sees through this mean-spirited and shameful behaviour and brings us back to reality...

I hadn't heard of this before Douglas. Thanks for posting it. It has the potential to be the most alarming topic ever raised in this forum, IMO. Let's hope it isn't. I'm flabbergasted that this is the first report I've seen on the topic. Is the mass media, in general, really so incompentent it can't appreciate the significance of this story? A Google News search on "bee population CCD" urned up a mere 20 references (compared with 769 for Kylie Minogue, or 15,431 for Saddam Hussein). When species suffer population crashes as swift as some of these reports suggest, it is very alarming indeed. While we can survive in a world without Passenger Pigeons (however impoversished by their loss), the end of bees would certainly put the mockers on this round of civilization - if not humanity itself, as Einstein so succinctly ponted out.

Ulrike How were the laws in question enacted? I understand they are a legacy of Germany's post-war occupation era (of course, some might say that never ended). In other words, these restrictions on free speech did not pass through the Bundestag like most 'normal' German laws in place today. Like the laws currently used by the Israeli Government to restrict the free speech and travel freedoms of Mordechai Vanunu (peace activist, international hero and winner of the Right Livlihood Award)... they are actually relics of a pre-democratic colonial/occupation era. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Regarding the possibility of changing the laws... I regret, Ulrike, that the debate would not be fair under present circumstances. Do you really believe it would be? Apart from anything else, only certain types of advocacy would be permissable under current laws. For instance, any suggestions that the Holocaust should be debated to help ascertain the truth would presumably be grounds for arrest under regulations currently in place (as The Truth is already known). If Germans really prefer not to have free speech, that's their choice, I guess. I don't believe, however, the option of having it has bver been put to them in the post 1945 period. A close parallel, IMO, is the US bases in Britain or Australia. These are also legacies of World War Two. In theory, we could vote in Governments that reject the bases and ask - if necessary instruct - the American Government to withdraw its troops. In reality, it is as unlikely as a moon with purple and orange stripes. Given the bias and power of the mass media and spookdom in Australia and Britain, no significant and 'electable' political party would dare put up such a platform. Any that did would cop the kind of hammering that Tony Benn attracted during his bid for the Labour Party Deputy Leadership in Britain - or that Gough Whitlam copped in the election following his sacking by the Governor General. I'm not, in saying this, claiming that getting US bases out of Britain or Australia is inherently impossible - or that the peculiar laws against free speech in Germany can never be repealed. I do, however, believe that claiming "it's a democracy - people get the government and laws they vote for" is an impoverished level of analysis. It contains a germ of truth - but without further qualification, it borders on the misleading.

I think another factor in this is the willingness of those on the right to support conspiracy theories in order to intergrate their own view of the world with an attack on the ruling elite. This is enough to frighten off the left from conspiracy theories. The left of course do believe in a conspiracy theory. However, this is primarily an economic theory about the way capitalism works. Unfortunately, the left tend to buy into the democracy/reformist model of society. This is why David Talbot's book due out in June is so important. Hopefully this book will have an impact on the "leftists" who fear embracing the ideas of conspiracy theorists. Would this be the same David Talbot of whom old buddy David Horowitz wrote approvingly, in November 2002... ??? !!!

As a loyal subject of the Queen, it sickens me to see the British people exposed as shysters, charlatans and bald-faced liars. The entire Iranian nation must be rolling in the isles when they switch on their TVs - and the joke is on Her Majesty's Government, armed forces... and ultimately Her entire nation. How much more can She take, I wonder, before abdicating in disgust and moving to somewhere civilized like Ireland or New Zealand? WakeUpFromYourSlumber.com has an amusing article: Iran releases rebuttal footage of sailors playing chess This is from the weekend Guardian: Rather busy down at the FO, eh? Phones running hot, what?

Great movie! Incidentally, it shows (I think) Walter Mathau playing Senator Long, saying "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Earl Warren said we're not going to know the truth for 75 years and it's better that we don't." Did Warren really say that? When? What's the source?

For those who still have an open mind about 9-11, the following article in The Canadian may be of interest. It is footnoted. However, I'd like to slip in a health warning about some of the references. Eric Hufschmid is a disinformationalist, IMO. Yet a lot of the early work he did on 9-11 contained valid insights. That's how he established a reputation in the "9-11 truth Movement" - and thereby became of value as an asset. He blew his cover, effectively, last year. However, a lot of people still innocently draw on his material, believing it to be reliable. Having said that, I think the following summary of the case against the (very sparse) official version of events re: WTC-7 is useful.

Hi Andy I am sorry that quoting from David Irving's site causes you such offence. Contrary to what you may think, I have no desire to cause you unnecessary distress or to forment a spiteful spat on the forum. I spent a little time trying to find another source for this story - in the pro civil liberties English media, for example. After all, if nearly 20,000 people were prosecuted within a single year in Scotland - or Australia - because of their opinions or things that they say, one might expect the mainstream English media to cover the story. If not the Guardian, at least the New Statesman... one might think! We do live in a democracy, don't we? Freedom of speech is one of the great trophies that western nations can now enjoy, thanks to the sacrifices made by our people in times past (such as every member of my own family that was of fighting age in 1940). Is that correct or not? Unfortunately, as far as I could find, no-one on the left seems to touch the story. Consequently, the prosecution of many thousands in an advanced European nation, for 'crimes' that would be constitutionally protected activities in the USA - goes unreported. Did anyone else know such large numbers were involved? I, for one, did not. How many are jailed? What are the consequences of conviction in terms of employment, travel etc? In the absence of apparent alternatives, I feel it's acceptable to cite a source that does exist in the English language media. If you can show me another one, I'm happy to use it instead. It's the issue that matters to me. I am not, incidentally, lionizing all these people who have been prosecuted. I don't know what they did to be prosecuted. That's the point. It seems to me this is a matter worthy of discussion. Modern civilized societies (normally) care about their citizens. It's true that for better of for worse, they find reasons to incarcerate some of them in correctional institutions or mete out some other form of punishment. But this itself is not (in every other case I can think of) to be suffered in silence. It's (usually) acceptable - and accepted - that there should be discussion about WHY people are prosecuted in large numbers - and WHETHER that's really a good thing. So here's a simple question Andy - do you believe that these mass prosecutions in Germany should not be discussed at all? And here's a challenge... if you agree with me that the matter should be open for discussion, please cite a mainstream English language source (leftish if possible, as like you, I typically prefer the Guardian to the Telegraph ) that covers this remarkable story in equivalent detail to David Irving's article. I'll be happy to cite that source in future (not the Irving article) when discussing the story. After all, Irving's very name seems to send some people into apoplexy. My interest is to discuss the underlying issues. The fewer distractions, the better, IMO. Hi Ulrike and a Happy Easter to you too. I don't quite understand your initial suggestion - excuse my poor comprehension. You say "I sometimes watch German TV and especially the newsreports and there were lengthy reports about all the trials mentioned in Irving's text." I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that the German mass media does frequently cover the story about the mass prosecution of Germans over illegal thoughts and statements? If so, is the case of the accused ever given an airing in the German media - or are they deemed to have "no case"? Another question… this time a hypothetical. Suppose a German teacher on this forum, working in Germany, were to encounter this discussion, then take my side in the debate. Would that person’s job be secure? Would they risk imprisonment? I'd like to get some sense of what these "crimes" really are that are responsible, apparently, for the proecution of a very large number of human beings in the heart of Europe in the 21st century. If they were all people, for example, who provocatively shriek Nazi slogans outside synagogues… well, the purist in me might prefer they have free speech, but the realist would accept they probably got what is coming to them. In any case, I would find their activity distasteful and that would diminish my sympathy for their plight. On the other hand, if their ranks include substantial numbers of people who simply debate the facts of history in public places, such as this web forum, then I have no sympathy at all for those who persecute and lock them up - and this repressive behaviour would be an outrage, IMO. Furthermore, I believe it would be the most profound betrayal for liberals and progressives in the west to wash their hands of the matter and pretend this gross injustice simply isn’t happening. Given moves that are in progress to make "hate crime" laws Europe-wide and even worldwide - the failure of liberal, progressive or radical historians to sound the alarm about this would suggest that they have not learnt from history at all. Silence in such circumstances, IMO, is a betrayal of key ideals on which modern western civilization was founded. One final point, to show that I don't just spend my time perusing Nazi propaganda, as Andy seems to believe. I can't allow a discussion of German-language TV to pass without mentioning my own favourite show: Inspector Rex. Do you watch it too? We get it on the Special Broadcasting Service here in Australia, with sub-titles. Rex is an excellent role model, although not as intelligent as my own dog. But I am biased.

Nonsense. Academic inquiry into the lack of resistance to the Hitler dictatorship is widespread within Germany and Europe. http://www.gdw-berlin.de/index-e.php http://www.ghwk.de/engl/kopfengl.htm Sid doesn't wish to discuss such matters he merely wishes to deny the holocaust Your hectoring response, Andy, illustrates my point perfectly. I rest my case. On this issue you have no "case" Neither do nearly 20,000 Germans each year, Andy, according to an astonishing diary entry by David Irving, drawing on this report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Indeed, "no case" sums up their situation with grim precision. Irving writes:

They've just been released. Looks like it's an American issue again. Not so fast, Mark! First the British tabloids will take a feeding frenzy. On Easter Sunday, the Observer announces: Anger as hostages sell stories to highest bidders. After a rather brief Lent, these hostages to fortune have indeed been resurrected in spectacular fashion! That's right, they are going to make a motza telling their stories! It makes a foray into Iranian waters a most attractive option for any boatload of British sailors who get bored and feel like a gamble. If they're lucky, they get to shake hands with a President, maybe have tea with the Queen as well and put aside a tidy nest-egg for the future, having ghost-writers from MI 6 telling their heart-rending tales of captivity. Unlucky? Well, they might just set off WW3...

My contribution, FWIW, is this.... I'd have as few rules as possible. Every restriction, IMO, is likely to cause 10x the trouble it prevents. There are some obvious things to ban, given prevalent cultural mores and the need to keep the forum accessible to all, including young folk. No crude swearing or smut. Repeated abusive behaviour should be controlled, if it occurs. But IMO, the most effective force operating in favour of good behaviour in a forum where people use real identities is peer pressure - and a desire to protect one's good name in the long-term. Potentially, anything posted here is online indefinitely. Who wants to be embarrassed by their grandkids using SuperGoogle in 2020? Rules that govern behaviour in the realm of political discourse are almost always counter-productive, IMO. Suppose one bans the ability to claim that someone else is operating out of bad motives and/or is telling blatant lies. Such a ban also helps protect those who actually do these naughty things. Is that really a good idea? These type of accusations, IMO, are inevitable given the suibject matter covered by this forum. If someone gets stuck into another person with nasty ad hominem attacks, the likelihood is that unless they support their claims with very solid facts, they'll lose credibility in the eyes of the peer group as a whole. A subtle put-down from someone one respects can carry a lot more weight than a rebuke from someone one does not hold in esteem. Different problems may arise when the identities of participants are not genuine or properly validated. However, I think we mainly need rules that cover the norm. On this forum, I take the norm to be participation of real people with real identities. My suggested general rule, in a nutshell, would be to have very few rules indeed.

There is a world of difference between Norman Baker on the one hand - and Cockburn and Chomsky on the other. The former is a victim of the "anti-conspiracy" propaganda which the latter (among many others) have actively and consciously purveyed. I also find the notion that Cockburn and Chomsky might like to go further on topics such as JFK and 9-11, but hang back to protect their credibility, quite unbelievable. The poverty of their arguments on these issues stands in stark contrast to their usual sharp analysis and erudition. IMO, they quite clearly dissemble on these two topics. It was the same story with I.F. Stone, as I pointed out on another thread. Stone - the man famous for the remark "all governments lie" made a special point of rubbishing Bertrand Russell's early and potentially influential critique of the Warren Commission, claiming to be shocked at the very idea the Warren Commission was corrupt. For instance, Stone wrote: This type of thing is not, IMO, explicable as an innocent mistake or a sign of concern to protect mainstream credibility. It is clearly an attempt to influence what constitutes mainstream credibility.

I understand where Peter is coming from; it might not be too dissimilar to my own. Some people ask me if I "...agree 100% with the official report...". No, I don't; I agree perhaps 99% with it. I believe that hijackers took over aircraft and flew three of them into buildings. I believe that the buildings collapsed because of damage sustained during those attacks. I do not believe there was any type of controlled demolition or planting of evidence. I do not believe that they were knowingly assisted by any government personnel. I do believe that there was a failure in the intelligence reporting and evaluation system, and key people are not being held responsible for those failures (note use of word failure, not a deliberate act of sabotage). I do believe that there were failures / incompetency / dereliction involved in systems and people at various government & military levels with regard to the response to the attacks, and that those people / systems have not been made accountable. Yes, Evan - you support the mainstream view that 9-11 was essentially as we have been told. The official account always allowed plenty of room for Bush-bashing and the usual bipartisan bickering (Dems v Reps), But Peter gave a different set of concerns... that actually put him much closer to my position - and, I imagine, to Jack's. He said: Unlike you, Evan, he has expressed concern about some major loose ends that have not been the subject of mainstream debate - indeed, these issues have kept alive in mainstream discourse only by "outsiders" who question 9-11 in a quite fundamental way. I think Jack has a point. From my persepctive, it does seem odd that Peter has bought a portion of the package - but appears quite comfortable with other oddities that seem glaring to me. On the other hand, people don't necessarily accept the "whole package" of disbelief in one go, and in any case it's not clear exactly what that is or should be. So I think Jack may have been a little too harsh here - although I strongly support his right to make the comment. As for saying claiming a statement is 'disinformation' - and thus implying the other person is purveying disinformation - should that really be an offence on the forum? I don't think so. Apart from anything else, purveying disinformation can be done quite innocently. I now believe I spread disinformation myself, from time to time during most of my adult life, without intending to do so. That's to say, I repeated stories I believed were true - yet I now believe I was wrong and furthermore that these erroneous stories were deliberately fabricated. An example is the attack on Pearl Harbor. I innocently repeated the official story, on various occasions, believing that it was a surprise attack that caught Roosevelt off-guard. I now know better. What's more, I'd have been grateful if it had been pointed out to me sooner.

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training? I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily. I never got much of an answer to these questions. They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence. There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory? I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter. They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make. Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account. From little things, big things grow Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation. I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in. “Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.” Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all. It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership. This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread: “In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977). -A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking. -Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. -An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. -Stereotyped views of enemy leaders. -Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. -Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. -An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. -Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.” And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”. Peter If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that. I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth. Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)? Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them? As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older. What's your point? I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech? That would be a whopper. Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start. But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”, What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information. Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon. The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion. As to your diatribe: “Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….” I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none. As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT. As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs). The symptoms which apply; “-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. -Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. -Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. -An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. -Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.” I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here. Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few. There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable. I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition? Peter I had taken you as someone who believed - and defended - the 9-11 official story without exceptyion. Perhaps I missed posts where you expressed doubts? If so, apologies. If not, forgive me for jumping to conclusions - but how interesting you've finally chosen to share those doubts with the rest of us. Anyhow, I'm glad to hear there are a few more loose ends about 9/11 that interest you. I find the subject of the interplay between individual belief and group dynamics quite fascinating. I'm quite willing to discuss it. However, I don't have much time for pop-psycology or pop-sociology. To date, most of the discussion in this forum on so-called 'Groupthink' has been fatuous, IMO. But if you find it a helpful analytical tool, well and good. Just as honest believers in the official account of 9-11 must find it irritating when someone else asserts they are spooks, so too honest disbelievers find it nauseating when others - with little demonstrated ability to conduct a sophisticated discussion in the social sciences - take it upon themselves to 'classify' their opponents or waffle on about their supposed pecularities. We're perhaps over-sensitive on this score, as sneering at 9-11 doubters has been de rigeur in the mainstream media ever since that unhappy day, when few found cause to celebrate (with notable exceptions). Actually I wasn’t very familiar with the concept of Group think before reading John Dolva’s post. But it seemed to strike a chord in my anti-authoritarian personality. When a group forms ranks and defends an ideology or theory I have some kind of tendency to take an opposite tack. This is probably due to an anti authoritarian defect in my personality, and not a penchant to apply some canned psychology in order to gain any advantage. Unfortunately, my points of view are specific to only some aspects of 9/11. I am not knowledgeable about all aspects of this event. I do feel that my beliefs are “personal” and I cannot subscribe to an overall, comprehensive, POV unless I can advocate it categorically and in its entirety. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable concerning all aspects of 9/11, and I do not accept the Conspiracy Theorists views with blind faith. I believe there are many people who feel this way. . I agree with you that open discourse between individual POV and Group POV to be the more rewarding. Of course I tend to defend my point of view where it is contrary to the collective’s POV. Sometimes I will argue out of vanity and believing I can “win” an argument. I do like to argue. Mostly, however, I will believe debating will help arrive at the truth. You are correct when you say that people take offense at being categorized or stereotyped as a tactic of argument, and rightfully so (in most cases, anyway). My apologies if you feel that I did this to you, but you seem more accessible to open discourse than most, so you may be more vulnerable to stereotyping. When I have asked questions about certain aspects of 9/11 of Conspiracy sites, I have been snubbed when I would not endorse other points of view, with out reservation, that I did not automatically agree with. Anyway, it’s good to maintain open discourse. As G.W. Hegel maintained, the truth is far more likely to be determined through the dialectic (open polemic). Well said.

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training? I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily. I never got much of an answer to these questions. They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence. There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory? I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter. They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make. Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account. From little things, big things grow Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation. I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in. “Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.” Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all. It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership. This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread: “In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977). -A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking. -Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. -An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. -Stereotyped views of enemy leaders. -Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. -Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. -An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. -Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.” And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”. Peter If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that. I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth. Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)? Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them? As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older. What's your point? I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech? That would be a whopper. Well Sid, I don’t even know where to start. But lets start with the sentence, “It’s good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account”, What am I “trusting”? Where do I find a complete and coherent “Official Account”? I have read and seen (on TV and video) various debunking articles, official reports on various aspects of 9/11, The NIST report, various other engineering reports on the WTC building collapse, and the 9/11 Commission report itself, to name a few. I don’t remember reading one complete and comprehensive report which includes all of this information. Much of the available information published by the so called “official” side (which includes privatized points of view as well) of these events have made very good points. I do have doubts about quite a bit of the information, especially the lack of investigation into just how much fore-knowledge had been provided to official agencies and why it wasn’t acted upon. The collapse of WTC 7 also appears suspicious to me, but there is an information vacuum concerning this specific event, so it is difficult to come to an intelligent conclusion. As to your diatribe: “Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated ….” I have made NO STATEMENTS about the hijacker’s aeronautical abilities, or the hijackers themselves, nor about their turning out to be alive (or their questionable appearance on the passenger manifests), insider trading, flying passports (whatever that means), nor anthrax murders. So it would be hard to comments on my statements in these regards, as I have made none. As to the premature announcement of the WTC 7 collapse, it has been pointed out that the BBC had been told, repeatedly, that the collapse of WTC 7 was imminent, and as the wont of news reporters is to be the first news agency to announce any given news, it seems credible to me that they may have jumped the gun for this reason. It seems more credible than a worldwide conspiracy, which includes the reporters, camera crews, local news crews, the news desk and news anchor, the television station and its crews, etc., etc. to record the story because of inside knowledge of this conspiracy to demolish the building surreptitiously. But that is just my opinion, FWIW. There are several other facets of the so called Conspiracy Theory which may have quite viable alternate explanations. I do have suspicions, but I will not subscribe to the all or nothing position of the “Truthers” CT. As to the groupthink comment, some of these symptoms seem to apply to those who seem to advocate all of the facets of current conspiracy (do you believe that all the facets of the 9/11 conspiracy theory put forth by sites such as 9/11truth.com [to name one, and one of the tamer sites BTW] to be true?). It is called a theory, but is actually an aggregate of many, theories. They are theories, BTW, and are untested theories (for the most part), so it would be remarkable if they were all completely true (this does not reflect my beliefs). The symptoms which apply; “-Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. -Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. -Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. -An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. -Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.” I would not apply all of these to you, Sid, as you appear to be more open to discourse than many of the “Truthers”, so if you feel I have applied a stereotype to you, my apologies. However, many “truthers” do not entertain any dissenting opinions. However, Sid, I feel that you may tend to advocate the “Truther” consensus, in spite of reasonable theories to the contrary. Let me know if I am wrong here. Some of the facets of 9/11 which merit a great deal of suspicion (in my opinion) are the insurance windfalls of the WTC building tenants, the collapse of WTC 7, foreknowledge of the attacks, and failure of the intelligence community to act on this intelligence, ties between the flight schools (where the hijackers allegedly learned to fly jets) and the CIA, why Zaccharius Mossoui’s arrest didn’t set off warning bells about this specific attack scenario, to name a few. There are many events/parts of the events which have had reasonable explanations provided such that I feel that while the “conspiracy theory” may be possible, it is not probable. I think many feel as I do, that the 9/11 CT advocates take an ‘all or nothing’ stance with respect to their theories. This puts a lot of people off. For example the twin towers. Why is it so important that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in a controlled demolition? Peter I had taken you as someone who believed - and defended - the 9-11 official story without exceptyion. Perhaps I missed posts where you expressed doubts? If so, apologies. If not, forgive me for jumping to conclusions - but how interesting you've finally chosen to share those doubts with the rest of us. Anyhow, I'm glad to hear there are a few more loose ends about 9/11 that interest you. I find the subject of the interplay between individual belief and group dynamics quite fascinating. I'm quite willing to discuss it. However, I don't have much time for pop-psycology or pop-sociology. To date, most of the discussion in this forum on so-called 'Groupthink' has been fatuous, IMO. But if you find it a helpful analytical tool, well and good. Just as honest believers in the official account of 9-11 must find it irritating when someone else asserts they are spooks, so too honest disbelievers find it nauseating when others - with little demonstrated ability to conduct a sophisticated discussion in the social sciences - take it upon themselves to 'classify' their opponents or waffle on about their supposed pecularities. We're perhaps over-sensitive on this score, as sneering at 9-11 doubters has been de rigeur in the mainstream media ever since that unhappy day, when few found cause to celebrate (with notable exceptions).

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training? I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily. I never got much of an answer to these questions. They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence. There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory? I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter. They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make. Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account. From little things, big things grow Thanks, Sid, for explaining the “drunken partying” allegation. I assume that by referring to “the one so trusting”, you are referring to me, although I don’t know who I am supposedly placing this “trust” in. “Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account.” Other than the WTC collapse I have made no assertions concerning any of the issues you cite. You must have telepathic abilities and know my thoughts and beliefs in spite of my never having weighed in on these subjects. Typically, if someone challenges some aspect of the 9/11 CT, that person must be diametrically positioned against all aspects and facets of these theories. That is just logical, after all. It also seems that any objective review of assertions made by the core of 9/11 “truthers”, as to the events of 9/11, will be met with derision and insults. One must either subscribe to the conspiracy theory (e.g. the WTC collapse) and the science and engineering invented to support it, or there is something wrong with the person challenging it. Obviously, the theories cannot be challenged on their own merit. This is the same mentality that causes people to be banned from conspiracy sites (“for the good of the movement”) when they disagree with any of the theories put forth by that site’s leadership. This is a good example of “Groupthink”. From John Dolva’s post “Groupthink” on the JFK assassination thread: “In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977). -A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking. -Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. -An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. -Stereotyped views of enemy leaders. -Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. -Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. -An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. -Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.” And then, of course, comes the classic charge and cry, of “Disinformation”. Peter If indeed I have mistaken your purpose or suggested you hold beliefs you do not in fact believe, I apologize for that. I'm curious to know where I might have been putting words in your mouth. Have you looked into that list of issues (the one that Kevin West has 'rebutted' with such zest)? Do you question the Government official story in relation to any of them? As for the 'Groupthink' bizzo, I'm sure this type of phenomenon applies in many situations (I could counter with a few analogies myself - but what a waste of time!). Even though the term was apparently coined in the 1970s', the group loyalty traits to which it refers are as old as political activity itself, perhaps older. What's your point? I trust you not suggesting that I attempt to deny your free speech? That would be a whopper.

There's a classic discussion about this - and many other topics related to the JFK assassination - in this record of correspondence between Vincent Salandria, Michael Morrissey amd others in the 1990s. In 1993, Morrissey believed that Chomsky was innocently mistaken about the assassination. He was more scathing about Ccckburn: I don't usually go for tittle-tattle, but in this case I'll make an exception. Did Cockburn catch Washington Post Disease from his former girlfriend?? WPD, a rare but dangerous STD, is believed to have been lethal on at least one occasion.

It is a little hard to imagine recurrent Alex Cockburn's left gatekeeping is due to information scarcity in the Cockburn household. However, if anyone has an unwanted tome about the JFK assassination, I understand a short sharp whack over the head can occasionally achieve miracles. This works even with the most unlikely doorstoppers. Why risk damaging a useful book on what may prove to be a steel-framed cranium, when a hardback copy of Posner's Case Closed does the trick? A friend of a friend is an aspiring author. She was plagued with writer's block - until she suffered an accidental head injury. Apparently it worked a treat and she has since sustained a prolific output.

On the recent thread about Jack Valenti, Mark Wilson made the following remark: Here is the extract from Final Judgment to which Mark referred:

In the April 6, 2007 edition of The New Republic, an article entitled “Rabble Rousers”, about Russian Oligarchs living in London, Boris Berezovsky is interviewed. Berezovsky is convinced that the Kremlin is behind the poisoning deaths of the Russian expatriates. The article goes on to say that “Berezovsky isn’t the only one who subscribes to that theory;” “Putin has created a state so intolerant of opposition that it is possible to imagine that a dissident was murdered by his government in the heart of London with a radioactive isotope. He has presided over the greatest rollback of human rights since the communist era. His government has sanctioned the arrest, torture, and murder of countless Chechens, while leveling their Capitol virtually to the ground; it has rolled over the press and failed to convict anyone of the murder of at least 13 journalists since Putin came to power in 2000. He has installed KGB veterans at nearly every significant level of government and allowed the security service to become a massive corporate empire.” Hi again Peter, You apparently find both New Republic and Boris Berezovsky credible sources of information. I'll leave the New Republic to stew in its reactionary juice for a moment. My interest here is Mr Berezovsky. Just what is it about Boris Berezovsky's evolving tales that Peter McKenna finds believeable? Here is one of Berezovsky's earlier claims: Berezovsky Claims Chechen Rebels Have A-bomb, Do you believe that, Peter? How about Berezovsky's claim that Putin was behind the Moscow appartment bombings in 1999? On that topic, Pravda, made the following observation: Now Berezovsky - and possibly Peter McKenna - may argue these articles are yet more proof of their allegation that Putin's Russia has become an autocratic State with a totally controlled meda regurgitating pro-Putin spin 24x7. Nevertheless, the question remains. Was Boris Berezovsky correct about that too? Was Putin's hand really behind the Moscow appartment bombings? I'd like to hear your take on this, Peter. You clearly have a first class, analytical and independent mind when it comes to terrorism and tower-blocks - and the wisdom to distinguish between honest men and charlatans in the murky world of post-Soviet Russian politics.

I had questions about the behavior of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Moussoui was picked up due in large part to a flight instructor complaining to the FBI about the possibility of terrorists using a jumbo jet as a weapon. Why wouldn't this lead The FBI to question other foreign nationals in flight training? I also had read somewhere that intelligence reports on the hikackers had some of them "Partying" in Florida, including Mohammad Atta, including drinking heavily. I never got much of an answer to these questions. They were drowned out by the issues of the WTC building collapse, the Shanksville crash site, and the Pentagon, all arguments over physical evidence. There is heated debate over the mode of the WTC bldg. collapse, esp. the twin towers. Why are these issues pivotal to any conspiracy theory? I think you just got confused by a few early reports in the mass media, Peter. They were soon fixed up, as the following article explains: September 7, 2001: Story of Hijackers Drinking Alcohol Changes Over Time Apparently, the vodka that Attta allegedly drank was really cranberry juice It's a mistake any bar-tender could make. Still, it's good to see that even a believer in auto-imploding sky-scrapers (two downed by aeroplanes, a third collapsing in sympathy), media reports of a towerblock collapse 20 minutes early (by accident!), amateur aeronautical aces, suicide hijacks by people who turn out to be alive, insider trading scams that apparently can never be cleared up, flying passports that survive a raging inferno and manage to incriminate a 'hijacker', insoluble anthrax murders in which the most obvious suspect is never investigated etc etc etc... it's good that even one so trusting can find a mysterious loose end in the official account. From little things, big things grow

Nonsense. Academic inquiry into the lack of resistance to the Hitler dictatorship is widespread within Germany and Europe. http://www.gdw-berlin.de/index-e.php http://www.ghwk.de/engl/kopfengl.htm Sid doesn't wish to discuss such matters he merely wishes to deny the holocaust Your hectoring response, Andy, illustrates my point perfectly. I rest my case.